Message boards :
Politics :
To Work or Not?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
One thing I noticed was American Samoa has *different* minimum-wages for *different* industries. Maybe the rest of the USA might need to consider this. Or not. As this mirrors a suggestion I was going to make, please elaborate on the potential pros and cons you see in this. |
James Sotherden Send message Joined: 16 May 99 Posts: 10436 Credit: 110,373,059 RAC: 54 |
One thing I noticed was American Samoa has *different* minimum-wages for *different* industries. Maybe the rest of the USA might need to consider this. Or not. My intial thought is it will create a caste system. But then maybe we allready have one. [/quote] Old James |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Мишель... Because conditions in the market place are very different. http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21569567-european-jobs-are-not-coming-back-because-few-them-went-first-place-staying-put http://www.antislavery.org/includes/documents/cm_docs/2009/t/trafficking_for_fl_in_europe_4_country_report.pdf http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/jun/05/european-governments-oblivious-forced-labour-conditions https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/30/germ-a30.html The first major difference is the structure of corporations. In the EU many are still owned (controlled) by a family. As such they have no obligation to comply with a fiduciary duty to the shareholder and to maximize profits at all costs. (They would only have to keep the family happy) US companies are essentially all public [investment banker owners] and thus must fully comply with the fiduciary duty to the shareholder. Also the way the court systems of the US and the EU interpret that duty is different, the US courts taking a very absolute view, the EU courts giving considerable flexibility. There is a reason that gigantic multinationals flock to the USA and US Stock markets. (OBW this ruthlessness is rewarded to CEO's who must always be cutthroat bastards who can't care, by law, at least at work.) The second difference seems to be that there is a supply of cheap labor available at home, hence less need to look offshore with labor arbitrage. (There is another thread here in politics about immigrants) The USA expends considerable amount of effort in reducing slave labor, and has significant punishments for those that engage in it and when caught actually imposes them. Farming, janitorial and sewing seem to be the industries where it has not yet been mostly stamped out. Some of this has to do with the US being income tax based and employers having to report wages rather than VAT based taxation schemes. The seasonal nature of farming allows cheating as by the time the tax report is due, the worker is at some other farm. (To explain, the employer can pull out a paper the worker filled out when hired and claim ignorance as the employee isn't there anymore, then pay a $50 "typo" fine promising to "fix" it if the worker comes back next season.) In janitorial the worker is frequently alone working at night where there is no check on them nor do they have others to compare notes with (in many cases this results in trafficking as well). The sewing industry, at least in Los Angeles, seems to mostly be doing very shady things anyway, such as removing made in foreign country tags and putting in made in USA tags or perhaps doing just minimal assembly to call it a US product. As such they are essentially supporting criminal smuggling and thus totally outside of regulation and may even be fronts for laundering money. But, because of the nature of the USA you don't find (many) workers at MickeyDees who are illegal or on assembly lines of manufacturers. Too much government oversight, nearly every food joint has an e-verify sign, and trade unionism to have that happen. As such it would be very hard for a company to get illegally cheap labor in the USA, so they must look offshore. Furthermore, even without an increase of the minimum wage, hell even without an increase of any kind of wage for anyone but the top incomes over the past 30 years, industry has moved from the United States to cheaper places. Its clear that this happens regardless of the wages. No one doubts this, however you are making the point even more forcefully that as wages rise it will happen more frequently and at a faster rate. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
The problem in this nation, indeed the world, is not that wages are too low. Not high taxation, insufficient taxation for the spending thus mandating inflation. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
Мишель... Yes, and they have been for decades. Look, the drive to move business to cheaper countries has been around for quite a long time in the US. Logically, that drive should have happened in Europe around the exact same time. And it actually did. A lot of manufacturing jobs have disappeared to cheaper countries. But still we have a higher minimum wage than in the US and our economies are not close to collapsing. In fact, most of them are growing. Maybe not as fast, but growth is growth. Also, it should be recognized that a higher minimum wage in the end is good for the economy. Again, people with money can spend that money and that is good for business. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
The first major difference is the structure of corporations. In the EU many are still owned (controlled) by a family. As such they have no obligation to comply with a fiduciary duty to the shareholder and to maximize profits at all costs. (They would only have to keep the family happy) US companies are essentially all public [investment banker owners] and thus must fully comply with the fiduciary duty to the shareholder. Also the way the court systems of the US and the EU interpret that duty is different, the US courts taking a very absolute view, the EU courts giving considerable flexibility. There is a reason that gigantic multinationals flock to the USA and US Stock markets. (OBW this ruthlessness is rewarded to CEO's who must always be cutthroat bastards who can't care, by law, at least at work.) We got the cutthroat CEO's here as well. All they do is sell off company assets, pretend they make a big profit but in reality just dismantle businesses. This is especially the case with the larger European multinationals (just think of Phillips. Once they were one of the largest consumer electronic companies, they made light bulbs, medical equipment, etc. Now, all they got left is the medical division, the rest has been sold off). In any case, its not the point. The argument of anti paying your workers a decent wage is that if workers are paid a decent wage, the economy is somehow going to collapse. In Europe, for whatever reasons you can think, companies pay their workers decent wages. And our economy hasn't collapsed. It can handle the higher wages. The second difference seems to be that there is a supply of cheap labor available at home, hence less need to look offshore with labor arbitrage. (There is another thread here in politics about immigrants) Really? You think slave labor is the foundation of European economic prosperity? Did you read your own links? They found what? 800.000 forced laborers in Western Europe? Less than 1 million? On a population of what, more than 200 million people? Thats not a large supply of cheap labor, thats not even a supply of cheap labor. Even if its more than 800.000 people that are being mistreated like that, the supply of cheap labor it provides simply is not big enough to make a lot of economic difference. Also, its very much illegal in Europe to essentially make use of slave labor. The problem is finding forced labor because its relatively easy to hide. And the US has the same problem. You think all those Mexican workers that are getting paid even less than the minimum wage are treated according to labor laws? Alright, maybe they aren't locked up in a shed after work, but they are being exploited non the less. No one doubts this, however you are making the point even more forcefully that as wages rise it will happen more frequently and at a faster rate. Hardly. The type of people that most benefit from an increased minimum wage, such as fast food workers have jobs that can't be outsourced to another country. You can't move your McDonalds kitchen to India and have them make burgers for customers in the US. Only manufacturing and data entry jobs can do that, but those jobs are about to disappear anyways. Automation will turn all those jobs obsolete within the next few decades anyways, no matter what you pay your workers. Finally, if the lower end of your workforce does not get more money, I fully agree with Nick Hanauer that within a reasonable time period, the pitchforks will come out. I don't think that's the preferable alternative. But, if the top doesn't give in, if the narrative about the economy doesn't change from 'people live to serve the economy' to 'the economy serves people to live' then I fear those pitchforks will be inevitable. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24877 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Finally, if the lower end of your workforce does not get more money, I fully agree with Nick Hanauer that within a reasonable time period, the pitchforks will come out. I don't think that's the preferable alternative. But, if the top doesn't give in, if the narrative about the economy doesn't change from 'people live to serve the economy' to 'the economy serves people to live' then I fear those pitchforks will be inevitable. ROFLMFAO! Oh my, how times have changed. I mention the "dreaded" word that all of Europe does not want to hear & get hit on hard by many... ...Tell me Michel, what is the difference of me using that "dreaded" word & what you posted above? Me: WAR. You: Pitchforks. Both words imply just one outcome... CONFLICT |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
those pitchforks will be inevitable. Yes. It's time to bring in the hay with pitchforks. Very hard work. I have done it. Did I get paid? No, I was only 10 years old. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Point 1: Ok... No, the economy won't *collapse* if higher wages are mandated to be paid. Of course not. BUT... Where exactly does the money come from that will pay these newly increased wages? Where does ALL the money of a business (except, of course, what is invested in it) come from? The customer! As I have shown in my previous example, it is not like the additional labor cost can be covered out of the franchise owner's income. Furthermore, if you add the franchise fee to the owner's income, it might *just* cover the increased wage, but then the business would not exist due to lack of profit. So then, the extra wages must come from... you guessed it... Charging more for the goods/services that the business sells... In other words, the customer. The worker, newly making $15/hr, will not see the benefit of doubling their income. The inevitable price increases will eat up much of it. Then, there is the 500kg gorilla sitting in the corner... Taxes. The newly 'richer' employee is going to owe more in taxes than they currently pay. Sometimes, they will be bumped up into a higher tax bracket. Beginning to get the picture? Here is another item to consider. People like James. He currently makes $17.50/hr (according to him). What happens when the minimum is raised to $15.00/hr? Currently, the Federal Minimum Wage for *most* of the USA (places such as American Samoa excepted) is $7.25/hr. James is making... umm.. 17.50/7.25 = 2.4... 2.4 times the Federal Minimum for his skilled labor. In fairness, he would then be making (15.00*2.4 = 36)... $36/hr. See what this is going to do? Prices are going to go up even *MORE*, and he will owe a LOT more in taxes. Why should James be screwed by the higher prices and tax bill? Why should everyone be screwed like this by the higher prices and tax bills? Get the picture now? It won't really touch the people at the top, yet. What it WILL do is hurt the people in the middle and the people at the bottom. You know... The poor, the working class, and the middle class. This isn't exactly rocket science. Mandating a raise in wages like this (increasing the minimum wage) will not work. Rather than helping the people it is intended to help, it hurts almost everyone, and hurts those it is intended to help, the very people least able to cope, disproportionately more. Point 2 The Mexican 'illegals' being exploited? Maybe. BUT they surely cooperate in their exploitation, willingly. It is not like they are kidnapped/captured down in Mexico and shipped into the US for the purpose of working at sub-legal wages. They *willingly* risk death and sneak into the USA illegally for the purpose of working, even though they KNOW they will be paid sub-legal wages (in many/most cases). A strong case can be made that they exploit themselves. Sorry, I don't buy it. Even the sub-legal wages they earn while here are SO MUCH HIGHER than they could earn back home, they still, year after year, take a gamble and risk it. They are not slaves, as you say they are not locked up in a shed at night. They can leave the USA whenever they wish. They are true entrepreneurs. They see a market need for a good (a supply of cheap labor), and fill it. Capitalists is more like it, not slaves. That said, do I think that the Mexicans (and others) that wish to come to the USA be allowed to do so? Of course I do! I have frequently said, both here and elsewhere, that I support a liberalization of immigration law. The immigration quotas from 'Latin America' NEED to be increased to match the demand. Also I am in favor of a guest worker program. Let a suitable number of those that want to come here to work for a while, then return home. I am not against Mexicans (and others) coming to the USA. I AM against them doing so illegally. It is OUR laws that need to change... Not them seeking more money and a better standard of living by coming to the USA, either permanently as immigrants, or temporarily as guest workers. Point 3: Yes, I have seen that video/read the transcript. Interesting analysis, and I agree with much of it (as far as that goes). However, Nick Hanauer leaves out a few important things. First, he leaves out the effect of the wage increase on prices (point 3a), and second he assumes that the 'pitchforks' are avoidable (point 3b). They are not. And third, he leaves out direct mention of the benefit to society that the accumulation of wealth by Capitalists produces, totally restricting their role in the economy to that of consumers (point 3c). First, point 3b... Remember, more than one group can utilize 'pitchforks'. First, as Mr. Hanauer mentioned, the poor & working class can get all mob-ish as they did during (an example mentioned here) the French Revolution. Yes, this is a very real danger. Second, he alludes to another group getting mob-ish. The rich, those at the very top (0.01%ers) can get out-of-hand and take over totally, starting REAL Repression and Oppression on the rest of us (the 99.99%ers). They will hire a bunch as private police and private armies... Pay them WELL, ensuring their loyality... (Kinda like they are doing now... makes ya think, doesn't it?) What was the term he used?? Ahh yes, a 'Neo-Feudalist' police state. And lastly, let us not forget the third group. The middle class. The poor blokes that are actually STUCK with paying for the excesses of the other two groups. How much more will THEY tolerate before they become (as a line from a movie once said) "Mad as Hell" and won't take it any more? So, any one of these three groups (the 0%-50% group, the 50%-99.99% group, or the top 0.01% group) can get all... nuts... and start killing people and breaking things. Mr. Hanauer treats the situtation as avoidable. I do not believe that it is, and history backs me up. A group of people found a civilization. It, if it is lucky, grows and prospers for a time. Then, it goes into decline, and eventually ends. It has been this way down through history. There is nothing special about today's civilization to make it any different. To believe otherwise is to have your head in a rather dark place where the sun does not shine. The way things look now, we are headed towards the second way (the top 1%ers) taking over... unless, of course, one of the other two groups has enough and beats them to it... But, in no case, is it avoidable. Next, point 3a... Plutocrats (aka the top 0.01%ers) exist on both sides of the 'aisle'. The left as well as the right. Yes, the left has its 0.01%ers too... Soros, anyone? Mr. Hanauer is using his position to advance the leftist agenda. Nothing more. Of COURSE he leaves out the important fact of 'who has to pay for it'. Point 3c... This is perhaps the most glaring omission from Mr. Hanauer's speech. He seems to restrict the role of the capitalist (especially the top 0.01%ers) to that of merely being a consumer. He made a joke about how, he makes 1000x more than the average joe, but only bought 2 pairs of pants, not 2000 pairs of pants the last time he went shopping for pants. Yes, OF COURSE, this is true. The wealth accumulated by the 0.01%ers is NOT used exclusively for consumption. Now then, the super-rich DO consume a lot more then most of us. Things like private jets, huge boats, >$1,000,000.00 cars, huge houses, expensive food, expensive clothes, etc. Things the rest of us only dream of. But this is not their main contribution to the economy. There is a phrase that is much bandied about. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. My wife has an interesting version. The rich get richer and the poor get jobs. 'Trickle-down' is much derided. The people that do so do not understand what it really means. What is the true economic benefit of the capitalist, especially the super-rich 0.01%er? It is not in their consumption, but in their investment. Investors put their available money at risk, funding business start-ups and expansions, in return for a share of the profits from it, if successful. The super-rich do not swim around in a huge money-bin. That exists largely only in a certain Disney cartoon (Scrooge McDuck). They, and a great many others, invest their money, putting it at risk, funding business start-ups and expansions to produce supply to fill demand, creating JOBS. Man, why can't you see this? Businesspeople are NOT stupid. They KNOW that they need customers with enough disposable income to purchase their goods and services. The problem is that a businessperson can NOT pay people more than what they earn for the business and still expect to remain in business for very long. The solution to the problem (and yes, almost everyone agrees that there is a problem) is not for the Government to mandate a higher wage for employees (well beyond what they are worth). The solution to the problem is for the people to upgrade their job skills so that they will be ABLE to get higher paying jobs. The last 50 years have shown us that the policies of the Great Society have NOT helped what they were enacted for. They DO NOT work, even making the problems they were supposed to solve WORSE. It is leftist, neoliberal dogma that any problem can be solved if the Government only throws enough money at it. When is everyone going to wake up and realize that it is NOT working, and we need to quit throwing good money after bad, and TRY SOMETHING ELSE? The productive middle class in this nation are growing increasingly tired of paying their hard-earned money to the Taxman for things that do NOT work. Beware THEIR 'pitchforks'... They can always quit trying to excel, stop working their high-pressure, high-skilled job that likely kills them off early, and go on Govt. Benefits themselves. Soon, there might not be enough money to pay the bureaucrats that administer the Programs, much less pay any benefits. "To work or not?" NOT. These pitchfork tines have sharp enough points for you? The leftist neolibs better quit farking things up before even MORE of the middle class gives up in disgust. You are ALREADY seeing the beginnings of it. Labor-force participation figures anyone? Heh heh heh. If you can't see this, try taking off your leftist, neoliberal blinders. Your dogma is showing. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24877 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
You left one off your list MK - Over-regulation. That's just as stifling, but hey we need more bureaucrats right? |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Major a couple of points. you ask Where exactly does the money come from that will pay these newly increased wages? The supply of money could very well come from increased velocity,I remember from a Money and Banking class the amt of money in circulation = mv. Also remember the multiplier effect. The low end earners have a much higher propensity to spend than the more affluent. Each dollar in their hands will result in at least $2.50 in activity. I short I posit as do most with any training in economics past the sophomore level increased economic activity will create the money which will create increased demand for James labor. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24877 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Not always Betreger. We see that here. There have been many occasions where the low paid got an increase but ended up worse off - they would have been better off without the increase, so where is the really good solution to economic issues? |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
If you are referencing The West: I'm not saying it will help, I'm saying that if the 1% keeps hoarding all the wealth for themselves without sharing it with the rest, the rest will hang the 1% from the highest trees and take all that wealth for themselves. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
ROFLMFAO! No conflict is ever truly alike. Its reasons, dynamics, participants, scale, methods etc, they all differ from conflict to conflict. I don't object to your idea that there will be conflict, I object to your idea of the type of conflict. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24877 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
ROFLMFAO! I can't recall where I stated what type the conflict will take. I know I did state that civil unrest can occur & more probably would get seriously out of hand. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Not always Betreger. We see that here. There have been many occasions where the low paid got an increase but ended up worse off - they would have been better off without the increase, so where is the really good solution to economic issues? Sirus if the social welfare programs were progressive and were reduced by a fraction of the increase that would not be the case. About the multiplier effect we have a wonderful case study going on in Greece. As the EU is restricting their money supply the economy is tanking faster than the money supply is shrinking. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
Ok... No, the economy won't *collapse* if higher wages are mandated to be paid. Of course not. History proves you wrong over and over again. If your argument were to be correct, then someone with a lower income 200 years ago would still earn basically the same money today, because according to you, wage increase and price inflation cancel each other out exactly. You just need to look outside your window to see how wrong that is. Purchasing power of the average American/European has increased dramatically over the past few hundred years. Well, except then for the past 30 years. Since Reagan and Thatcher took over wages have barely kept up with the inflation rate, or less. But before that, wages went up faster than inflation did. You are right, prices will go up a little. But not nearly at the same rate as what the wage is going up with. Then, there is the 500kg gorilla sitting in the corner... Taxes. Well half of the time minimum wage employees don't pay taxes because frankly they don't earn enough money to qualify. Beginning to get the picture? Well that should just tell you how messed up the situation in America has become. It means a system has been created where the poor are literally worse off if they earn more money, meaning it becomes in their best interest to work at low wages, while the rich can keep giving themselves nice pay raises. Very insidious indeed. It makes poverty unsolvable, and pitchforks all the more likely. But, doesn't the US have some kind of progressive tax system? Isn't there like a minimum amount of income that is tax free? And isn't tax raised over the amount that falls within the scale, rather than over the total income? Point 2 Oh my god. Are you for real? Like really? Exploitation is just fine and dandy as long as the Mexicans 'chose' to do it? So according to you Mexicans are basically all masochists? They love to suffer and be degraded? The point of exploitation is that even though you seemingly have a choice, you don't really have a choice. Its like putting a gun to your head and telling you that if you pick A I'll let you go, but if you pick B I'll pull the trigger. Technically you have a choice, but you have to be the most cynical person on the planet to call that a choice. Sure, Mexicans have a choice. A choice between being poor and broke at home, or earning a minimal income for back breaking labor under hostile conditions in the US. Yeah, then the US is the 'better' option but that doesn't make this much of a choice and it doesn't excuse America for exploiting the fact they hold so much economic power over Mexicans for their own profits. Second, he alludes to another group getting mob-ish. The rich, those at the very top (0.01%ers) can get out-of-hand and take over totally, starting REAL Repression and Oppression on the rest of us (the 99.99%ers). They will hire a bunch as private police and private armies... Pay them WELL, ensuring their loyality... (Kinda like they are doing now... makes ya think, doesn't it?) What was the term he used?? Ahh yes, a 'Neo-Feudalist' police state. That has never really worked out well for the 0.01%. They maintain their power for a while using brutal repression, but sooner or later people get tired of it, there will be a revolution and then the next thing we see are the bloated corpses of the 0.01% being paraded around the town square. That or they flee to some other nation that loves harboring murderous dictators and their families as long as they make a few generous donations to the state coffers. Either way, at some point, they sod off. Still, its best to avoid it. Which is exactly why the growing wealth gap is a problem and why its vital that it gets closed as soon as possible. And lastly, let us not forget the third group. The middle class. The poor blokes that are actually STUCK with paying for the excesses of the other two groups. How much more will THEY tolerate before they become (as a line from a movie once said) "Mad as Hell" and won't take it any more? Meh, they are the least likely to revolt. They lack the masses or the capital to set up a revolution by themselves, their position in the middle is generally to comfortable to give up and they can rather easily adapt to the circumstances which is easier and less dangerous than a revolution. And if they do get mad, well then they organize a revolution from behind the curtains, but they let others do the dirty work. Its why you always find the middle class figures as the 'leaders' of a revolution. Mr. Hanauer treats the situtation as avoidable. I do not believe that it is, and history backs me up. A group of people found a civilization. It, if it is lucky, grows and prospers for a time. Then, it goes into decline, and eventually ends. It has been this way down through history. There is nothing special about today's civilization to make it any different. To believe otherwise is to have your head in a rather dark place where the sun does not shine. Of course revolutions are avoidable. As long as the upper class isn't rich enough to afford private armies, and the lower and middle class isn't to poor to live decently, there is no reason to revolt. Yes, civilizations decline, but they decline because they start serving the needs of one group over the the other. But if we keep ensuring that everyones needs are met, a revolution will just not happen. Of course, there are more problems, things like climate change, economic paradigm shifts, war with an outside aggressor can still cause instability and push a civilization over the edge. But revolution is not inevitable. History actually shows us as much, as not every civilization has succumbed to one. Better yet, there are quite a few examples of where a revolution actually improved the situation and saved a country from worse. In Portugal it was a coup that ended the Fascist regime. In France, the revolution shaped what France is today. Russia went from an agrarian backwater to an industrial super power thanks to the revolution. Even the United States would not be here if it wasn't for their revolution. Now obviously, its best to avoid having revolutions if you can, because they still cost a lot in terms of human life, but to say they all spell only doom...yeah no. The way things look now, we are headed towards the second way (the top 1%ers) taking over... unless, of course, one of the other two groups has enough and beats them to it... But, in no case, is it avoidable. Sure it is avoidable. Point 3c... This is perhaps the most glaring omission from Mr. Hanauer's speech. I know, and again you are wrong. What do rich people invest in? Banks? Big multinationals? Right, they invest in stuff you find on the stock market. Which is only a fraction of all the business in the US and they also only employ a fraction of the people. Giving those guys more money does not create more jobs. The IMF says so as well. The idea that rich people somehow spend all their money in such a way that it really benefits everyone below them, well that is at best a very naive idea of what rich people do with their money. And how can you not see this? We have been using trickle down economics since Reagan and Thatcher got into office and that corresponds very precisely with the time the wages of everyone but the top 1% slowed with rising or even stopped rising and the wealth inequality increased dramatically. If trickle down economics works as advertised, the US wouldn't have been in the situation where 50 million citizens rely on government support and where people need to work multiple jobs to earn a basic living. And meanwhile in Europe, which did far less of the trickle down economics nonsense, we see smaller wealth gaps and our poor are much better off than American poor. Except of course the UK, which followed Reagan with Thatcher, as the UK is a mini version of the US essentially when it comes to poverty, wealth inequality and all the problems that stem from that. In other words, rather convincing proof that it does not work as advertised. The solution to the problem (and yes, almost everyone agrees that there is a problem) is not for the Government to mandate a higher wage for employees (well beyond what they are worth). The solution to the problem is for the people to upgrade their job skills so that they will be ABLE to get higher paying jobs. That assumes there are any of those higher paying jobs in the first place. Furthermore, have you ever been to a society where everyone was a professor? Or a doctor? Or a rocket scientist? Right, those places don't exist because they wouldn't work out. But hey, better education, I'm not against that. So, who is going to make Harvard cut their tuition fees to completely free. Because thats what it takes for someone to work their way through college without ridiculous loans and a scholarship. The last 50 years have shown us that the policies of the Great Society have NOT helped what they were enacted for. They DO NOT work, even making the problems they were supposed to solve WORSE. Of the last 50 years, 30 years were policies aimed at economic liberalization and trickle down economics. What you are saying is that the last 50 years have proven that those policies make things worse. It is leftist, neoliberal dogma that any problem can be solved if the Government only throws enough money at it. When is everyone going to wake up and realize that it is NOT working, and we need to quit throwing good money after bad, and TRY SOMETHING ELSE? Neoliberal and leftist are as compatible as communist and fascist. The productive middle class in this nation are growing increasingly tired of paying their hard-earned money to the Taxman for things that do NOT work. Beware THEIR 'pitchforks'... They can always quit trying to excel, stop working their high-pressure, high-skilled job that likely kills them off early, and go on Govt. Benefits themselves. Soon, there might not be enough money to pay the bureaucrats that administer the Programs, much less pay any benefits. Yeah they can go work their low skilled high pressure job (the pressure comes from being able to get fired at any moment at the managers discretion) where they get to experience the joys of fearing whether they have enough money by week 3 of a month to pay food for their children, and where they can die at the old age of 55, killed by the complications of type 2 diabetes or because they couldn't afford to see a doctor for that persistent cough. Damn those poors, not having to pay taxes and getting food stamps, they really live the life of luxury! The leftist neolibs better quit farking things up before even MORE of the middle class gives up in disgust. You are ALREADY seeing the beginnings of it. What middle class. America doesn't have a middle class anymore. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Damn, a concise post and quite astute. |
James Sotherden Send message Joined: 16 May 99 Posts: 10436 Credit: 110,373,059 RAC: 54 |
Back when I was in the USAF 72-80. every time we got a pttiance of a pay raise. The Rent went up if you lived in civilian housing and or the prices went up at the BX. It seemed they knew when we got a raise. So much for trying to get a head. It seems that here in the US The CEO and stockholders dont care if we can buy their product. It about how much money they can make by offshoring jobs. You can bet your keyster that when the pitch forks fly in the US that the CEO's of said blood sucking companys will face retribution the likes of the Salem witch trials. [/quote] Old James |
MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes Send message Joined: 16 Jun 02 Posts: 6895 Credit: 6,588,977 RAC: 0 |
You can bet your keyster that when the pitch forks fly in the US... Yep. Ones NOT WORKING will Kill, with Their Pitch Forks, Ones WORKING. Effectively, Killing Their Free Ride on The NOT WORKING Highway. What Will NOT WORKING Do Now? Start Working? Or Emigrate to Europe? Tell 'em to Say Hi to Netherlands Person for Me. Yep. May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!! |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.