Then and Now... Are we better off today?

 ---MY VOTE!! ?? READY =??????????????????? Sarah Palin=pres!1 & Sheriff JOE (arizona) =vice -pres!!   wouldn't take a year to get all the idiots out of Washington!!  

Palin has been so thoroughly skewered in the media that she is no longer a viable candidate for anything. What it turns out she is effective for is fund raising. 

And again, as long as political correctness rules the land, anyone that speaks their mind without a lawyer filter stands no chance.

The Last time I commented on anything on politics a Mod shut the thread down, not mine that did it. I feel bad for the kids and grand kids.

Yeah, I don't want to get into specific politicians either, far too polarizing.

The best hope this country has is that the people are finally realizing that the two major parties have whittled their platforms down to a few polarizing bullet points, none of which have anything to do with the problems this country is facing.

I hope that people use this awakening to educate themselves on what is happening, how long it has been happening, and that it is truly a bipartisan effort that got us here.

probably got the estimate adjusted for inflation since the legislation passed but I also think if everyone got paid at least that kind of wage we could probably all afford $18 dollar hamburgers. wasn't she an economics professor at Harvard?

Yes, and the theory you are talking about is known as 'a rising tide raises all ships'.

The problems with it (and this has been proven several times in history) is that it focuses on the dollar amount paid, not the percentage of income earned. If that hamburger costs you 75% of an hours wage, it costs you the same in real spending power regardless of whether you make $1.00/hr or $100.00/hr.

Where the common man get shafted, is that you are taxed on your earnings, not your spending power. So even if the rising cost of goods cancels out your raise, the rise in taxes decreases your spending power.

vanner68 wrote:Yes, and the theory you are talking about is known as 'a rising tide raises all ships'.

The problems with it (and this has been proven several times in history) is that it focuses on the dollar amount paid, not the percentage of income earned. If that hamburger costs you 75% of an hours wage, it costs you the same in real spending power regardless of whether you make $1.00/hr or $100.00/hr.

Where the common man get shafted, is that you are taxed on your earnings, not your spending power. So even if the rising cost of goods cancels out your raise, the rise in taxes decreases your spending power.

Well said  

"A rising tide raises all ships" is the euphemism usually used to describe "trickle down" economics or us poor people getting pi$$ed on by those "oh so generous" wealthy above us. Yes this theory has been discredited time and again but always seems to crop up under a new name. Quantitative easing anyone? If we had a highly graduated progressive tax structure such as we had in the 50's where those who benefit the most contribute the most the % dynamic you describe would not nearly be so potent. How many billions does one person need? Enough to set up a parasitic political dynasty over 4 generations? Essentially what we are experiencing is classic divide and conquer tactics by the rich vs. the poor. While we jealously eye and argue over the crumbs our "beneficent" leaders throw us, that tiny fraction of the budget that is social spending, our leaders and their plutocratic donors rob the treasury and fleece our public assets to a degree that dwarfs anything we're talking about. For time immemorial throughout human history the wealthy have subjugated the poor without exception...

And you have proven my point.

Artificially creating wealth by raising an arbitrary 'minimum' only creates an inflationary spiral. Higher pay equals higher production costs (since the only factor an employer has direct control over is wages) which in turn equals higher prices which puts you back at point A. Since our tax structure for individuals is income based, this causes more taxes to be taken from the worker reducing his net wealth.

'Tax the rich' works only to the point where it becomes economically attractive to relocate to a country where the tax structure is not as harsh. Look at England in the 80's, the wealthy fled high taxes and took jobs out of the country, increasing unemployment and welfare costs. In the US, jobs went to Mexico and China not only because wages were lower, but also because those countries offered a very low tax rate to companies willing to relocate.

The economy is a complex, interconnected system that cannot be fixed with a single, simple solution. The wealthy are wealthy because they understand this, and are able to use it to their advantage. Is it a fair system? No. But life isn't fair in general. As flawed as a capitalist society is, it still beats the alternative- which has been proven to fail over and over.

As far as how much does a person need?

Well, all a person 'needs' is food, water, clothing and shelter. If someone has those four things, they should be happy since that's all they need. Internet is not a need, it's a want. An early van is not a need, it's a want. A 10,000 square foot home is a want, and so on. Those that want billions of dollars went through the process of education to either gain those billions, or in that case of inheritance, maintain those billions. I have seen the children of millionaires squander their inherited fortune in a few years because they did not understand how the entire system works and chased all their wants until the money was gone.

The company I work for does millions of dollars in sales annually. They employ about 30 people. The owner just bought (leased) a new Porsche Cayman S. A large amount of grumbling ensued on the shop floor- something I personally found hilarious. The loudest complainer was talking to me about how unfair it was, so I told him that he, too, could buy a new Porsche. All he had to do was start a company, build sales, employ people, put in 120 hour weeks for little or no pay while building the company, put any personal cash you may acquire back into the company if hard times hit, and in 15 to 20 years he too can reward himself with a Porsche. His response? "F- that!"

And so- he will never have a Porsche. When the economy took a dump, the company I work for almost closed it's doors. For two years, no one in upper management drew a paycheck (It's a family run company). The floor was down to a half dozen employees, and we barely made it through. I took on the service manager position because it basically guaranteed employment as long as the company was in business,plus, since it involved traveling worldwide to take care of customers, it allowed me to see firsthand other employment opportunities should the need arise. Those that did nothing but complain about 'unfairness' did not last.

There is only one person who can control your life, and it is not some nameless bureaucrat or billionaire. I have in my life earned a six figure salary, and I have also lived on a mid four figure salary and ate out of dumpsters. Eating out of dumpsters and living in a van in Walmart's parking lot sucks. I don't intend to do that again, so I continuously update my skills to ensure that it does not happen.

Very well said Vanner68!

As my Gramps always said, "Boy, you get out what you put in."

The "rich vs poor" argument has been around since humans started a monetary system. The problem is most who complain about the "rich" never put a lot in, or try hard to better themselves.

I grew up white trailer trash poor, a welfare kid. My parents were alcoholics and drug abusers [a whole other story]. There were a lot of days that I only got one meal. And some days I wouldn't have eaten if it weren't for the kindness of a neighbor. I used to hate the "rich". I joined the military to get the out of that environment. I am a Gulf War Vet who served for twelve years.

I'll never forget the time I went back home on leave. I had a one year old F150 pickup that I bought new. When I visited home, with the same people who I grew up with, I was called "Big Daddy War Bucks", "Rich Boy" and "Fat Cat" simply because I was driving a new truck and had some spending money. These were the same people who I used to play with, worked on their cars with them, helped dig out during the winters. All because I made choices to better myself. A huge slap in my face. They all had the same opportunities I did but they chose to stay where they are, hooked on government assistance and are content to live that way and complain about the "rich".

No matter what we as a society do there will always be class warfare. It is a tool of the politicians [I hate both parties] to incite the poor. And while capitalism isn't the best for all, it is the best for those who are willing to better themselves.

well, talk about artificially creating wealth and quantitative easing is an object lesson! $85 billion a month to bailout banks for 5 years?!? with no significant job creation, GDP growth, or improvement in the economy? furthermore, a smoke and mirrors loan modification program that modified only a paltry few of the loans that were feloniously and fraudulently processed? and not one banker in jail. remember, some inflation is important or wages won't rise, pensions won't grow, people on fixed incomes fall further behind, accounts simply won't accrue interest. what we have instead is high finance once again wildly inflating an asset bubble; stocks, bonds,and real estate; using the bailouts not to hire or lend but to buy back stock, hoard cash or invest in foreign countries artificially also inflating the world economy and further endangering ours. cutting education, social security, aid to states are all conscious and deliberate policy decisions made by our political elites and their wealthy sponsors that actually point of fact do have direct and devastating effects on all of us. the Dodd-Frank bill is a wiffle-ball and the fundamentals that caused the crash are still there, bankers are trying to dilute them even further as we speak. we can expect a crash even worse, and probably not too long from now. this nation is still, if not the biggest economy, the second biggest and the largest economic infrastructure in the world and it is a privelige to live, work and do business here. if the wealthy want to live in some low tax dump like Singapore, I say let the door hit 'em in the a$$ on the way out! they shouldn't be allowed to take their ill-gotten offshore accounts with them nor should they or their companies be allowed to do business here. i'm sure we all agree the US can be self-sufficient. and when I say wealthy, I'm not talkin' about a small business with a few dozen employees. i'm talkin' about 1% that owe no allegiance to any country, much less their own US. when tallied up, for the several trillion we've given the banks, the estimate is everyone in this country could have had a $30,000 a year job and some equivalent in cash! what would you folks do with it? put it right back in the economy, unlike the parasitic, nihilistic, ingrate banks. for once i'd like to see a bottom up approach rather than top down! we have neither democracy or capitalism. our economic system as presently arranged is defined as Fascism. we have less social and economic mobility than the former monarchies. I think all of us who have commented here have asserted that we all keep working harder and keep falling further behind. actually this is born up by the facts. worker
productivity keeps increasing but wages have been stagnant (when adjusted to inflation) since 1968! raise our minimum wage!

until we get term limits, a parttime congress and a balance budget for the federal government like most states have the money spenders will never change. sad thing - for this to happen the money spenders who have made a career in cesspool DC will never vote for any of this. regular gas here in georgia is now $3.65 a gallon.

I have an idea.


Let's tie minimum wage to the inflation index.

Also, make it tax exempt. Even if a person has multiple minimum wage jobs, since most are part time anyway.

Make it so if you get a raise, you are only taxed on the hourly straight time amount above the minimum wage.

Minimum wage jobs were intended to get job experience, the employer is taking all the risk associated with an inexperienced worker.

Now- to make it fair- put a time limit on it. At age 22, you are no longer eligible for the minimum wage tax exempt status. Assuming entering the workforce at age 18, the worker has 6 years to learn a marketable skill, or in the case of someone working while in college, get a degree that will lead to a marketable skill. Sorry, an English Lit degree only pays off if you become an English Lit professor, and there is no demand for more of those than we already have.

At age 22, you will then be paid according to the standard pay negotiation that all employees go through- except that there may not be a minimum any more. If the extent of your job skills after 6 years in the work force amounts to "Welcome to Walmart" then you are worth $3/hr, tops.



Not acceptable?

Really prefer that all that 'excessive executive compensation be spread out among the workers?

OK, here's how we can make that work.

Everyone over 18 gets the aforementioned $30,000.

In order to qualify, you must pass a hair sample drug screening. Hey- the people working to earn the money have to pass a drug test to get a job, it's only fair.

The $30,000 must be spent on food, clothing, and shelter. These are the basic human needs. Accountability will be required. If you come in under the $30,000 for the year, the extra will be redistributed. Hey- you didn't use it, so you didn't need it.

After all, we are requesting that the wealthy who provided their services for compensation only live on what they need, and redistribute the rest- it's only fair.

not bad ideas. however, seems like these multitudinous requirements of the least capable in our society is a kind of blame the victim game. did we drug test the bankers before they got their bailouts? seems like a moralizing value judgement to me. again any money we middle- lower classes spend would go right back into the economy, further invigorating it, as opposed to TARP. $30,000/yr could help start businesses that would in turn create jobs and also require further goods and services. GE paid $0 taxes last year. $5.4 BILLION net. why shoud we end a tax credit for our most unfortunate slugs? (like me) the CEO of GE is Jeffrey Immelt, Obamas' job czar! he's personally offshored billions of dollars and thousands of jobs! and this is a democratic administration! supposedly friendly to our workers and unions. a highly graduated, progressive tax rate is not just there for the revenue, it's also there to prevent these crazy distortions of our democracy. a tax cheat jobs offshorer should not be our "jobs czar". a 4 generation war profiteering dynasty should not hold the presidency. the bankers who advocated for deregulation that crashed the economy should not be in charge of the fed. or the treasury, or be Obamas' economic advisors. these kind of people, who are subverting our democracy, the elites and their patrons, should have the $hit taxed out of them! again, not solely for the revenue, but to also help prevent this governmental capture by the corporate and wealthy interests

The way the world seems to be going…Your better off if you completely off the grid, living underground in a spy proof bunker with gobs of supplies and weapons far far away from the city with an infinite supply of fresh water.  

Yes. I blame the victim, especially when the victim does nothing to improve their situation.

How do I arrive at this conclusion?

Personal experience.

At 18, I worked at a TV shop, I made enough money to buy a brand new car, party on the weekends, and travel wherever I wished. This was 1979 to 1983. By 1984, the TV repair business was dropping like a rock, I made $5800 in 1984, down from $20,000 I had made in 1981. I was given an opportunity to buy out a TV shop, so I spent my savings buying the shop, hired a couple of techs, because I felt that the owner got all the money and threw scraps to his employees.  Boy, was I wrong. After 6 months of drawing zero salary, and investing the rest of what I had in keeping the doors open (including giving up my apartment and sleeping in the shop) and selling nearly everything I could, I closed the doors. That's when I  discovered that most new businesses do not pay their owners for a few years!
So, I ended up living in my van and re-trained myself to do industrial maintenance- I took a job at a stamping plant repairing equipment. I was hired simply because I had electrical skills. My hourly pay was less than half of what I made as a TV technician.

As I worked, my boss would ask me if I knew how to do a certain job. If I didn't, I would tell him "No, I don't- but I'm willing to try if I don't get in trouble for screwing it up." After 8 years working at that plant, I was almost back to what I was earning in TV. Then, an opportunity came up at a competitor that was a 50% increase in pay, I gave my boss the chance to match it, he couldn't- so off I went.

The next few years were spent moving from plant to plant, acquiring skills, and then I went off in a related, but different direction. I went to work for a heading company (boltmaker), at almost double the pay, but the machinery was too different from what I was used to, and I did not learn fast enough to keep up- so, I was fired.

The next day, I started at a robotics company building control panels. My work quality was high enough that after a month I was made leader on the project- a $40 million axle welder for Ford. I brought the project in under budget and a month ahead of time- then got laid off because there wasn't anything left for me to do.

Went back to TV repair for a year, worked a 50/50 deal on the service calls and because I could fix them fast I was pulling in $2000 to $3000 per week- cash. But, I had no health insurance, and woth a wife and 3 kids this was not ideal. Plus, the job was in the worst parts of Detroit, and getting shot at and stabbed was losing it's lustre.

So- back to stamping. 12 years, by this time there was not a single component in a stamping plant I could not repair or fabricate a new part to replace. Here I worked with people that had the worst entitlement mentality I had ever seen. Press operators that had been working there for 20 years and had actually turned down chances to advance in the company, but still complained about how 'underpaid' they were, and how the guy that just hired in should not be getting the same pay because they were there longer. The job literally consisted of pushing 2 buttons, and emptying a parts hopper 3 times an hour. They did nothing to better themselves.

Along about 2007 the owners were starting to ease into retirement. Up until this point, it had been an excellent place to work, as far as stamping goes. The daughters started taking over the business. They had never stepped foot inside the doors before then. The first thing they did was force out the existing management (there were 5 plants in the company) and bringing in their MBA pals from college. The plant manager ended up driving a hilo on the night shift- he wasn't about to quit, he would force them to fire him.

I could see the writing on the wall.

I started telling everyone to start updating their resumes', that the doors would be closing soon. The unmotivated simply said "they can't close the shop, we need our jobs!"

No one, NO ONE, owes anyone a job. A company exists for one reason, to make a profit for the owners. The employees are there to allow the company to reach that goal. Once a company becomes unprofitable and it makes more sense to close- poof, it's gone. Ask someone who worked for Oldsmobile or Pontiac, Plymouth or Mercury. Those were companies within a alarger corporation, in order to keep the corporation healthy the underperforming units had to go.

I left that plant 2 months before it closed. The parent company still exists, but no longer has any stamping operations.

Where I work now, we build press feed equipment.



My job is to service this equipment, and to oversee installations as well as train the customer how to operate and maintain this equipment. If I had to, I could also build the entire line shown by myself. I taught myself the basics of CAD so that I can make updates to prints on the spot, without having to pass it off to our engineers. I am currently teaching myself to program PLC, since my skills are a bit out of date in that area. I am learning Spanish, since we sell a lot of equipment in Mexico. I travel all over the country, into Canada and Mexico, and occasionally even Europe.

I have achieved everything in my life on my own merits- even when I could qualify for government assistance, I refused to fall into that dependence trap.

What I make now, would have seemed like hitting the lottery to me back in my sleeping in the TV shop days. It pays the bills- barely.

However- punishing the people that create the wealth is not the way to fix the problem. Neither is replacing every incumbent in the government. Nixon opened trade with China, and cut the Doallr from the gold standard- making the defacto world currency fiat in the process. The genie has been let out of the bottle and will not go back in. In order to go back to the days of isolationist policies and the gold standard, we would have to give up essentially everything because like it or not- this is a global economy.

We can argue back and forth forever about corrupt bankers and politicians, but in reality there is little to nothing that can be done, people at that level have the drive to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals, and if it means stretching law to it's breaking point- that's what they pay their lawyers for.

Redistribution of wealth is one of the basic concepts of Marxism.... there was a very large and dominant Marxist regime in recent history that failed for the exact same reasons that banking and democratic societies are currently failing- people who have the drive to take advantage of a system for their own benefit. These people do not 'hate the poor', they simply do not acknowledge theeir existence because they are insignificant in their world. There are no round table discussions by the Illuminati and Bilderberg group, with the Freemasons and Skull and Bones society sitting in advisement. No, it's about profit, that is all.

I guess that where we differ is how we believe wealth is created and where wealth comes from. I believe it is the workers, the citizens, the society that creates the wealth. the wealthy don't just $hit a golden egg or something. usually they've amassed it over a period of generations employing robber baron tactics and then use their wealth to manipulate the system to their advantage. this is why the Marxists employed wealth redistribution because the popular will had been subverted for so long the Russians were virtual plantation slaves for centuries. something we might be looking forward to if we don't do something. yes, they don't hate the poor, yes they simply don't care, but one doesn't need to delve into conspiracy theories. the fed, the treasury, congress, chamber of commerce, etc. do discuss economic policies that they foist on us, not to mention these unconstitutional trade deals. they do discuss how to steal pensions, social security, etc.etc. maybe not in those terms, usually euphemisms about "reform" or "privatization" but it is essentially the same thing. it does seem hopeless and that there's little one can do, but if we lower and middle classes are quarreling with each other rather than recognize those truly responsible for this mess, we've played right into their divide and conquer tactics. even though it seems futile, for my own self respect as a citizen, i believe there are at least 3 things i personally can do: vote, buy American and don't patronize large or evil corporations, and scream bloody murder from the soapbox. (freedom of speech) everybody try to do something before it's too late!

How exactly do 'the workers, the citizens' create the wealth?

If that were true, the workers would be the wealthy ones.

Someone has to provide the environment for the workers to create wealth, it does not occur in a vacuum.

well.... someone had to mine minerals, someone had to log timber, workers had to build whatever facilities, raw materials have to be procured, designs have to he made, logistics, obviously the list goes on and on, a value added process. furthermore, society through our taxes provides the infrastructure by which business and industry produce. roads, electricity grids, telecommunications, water, all public goods that enable the production of wealth. just because someone is circumstantially in charge of capital, (as i've said before usually through circumspect ways) doesn't mean they created the wealth. seems to me it's through labor that wealth is created and not some fatcat with some paperwork a judge and some cops. workers would be wealthier except they have been suppressed, literally violently and often. i'm sure you've heard of the Pinkertons and the mining strikes in the early 20th century and those examples are just some of many. it's difficult for workers to successfully agitate for better when they're hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck. can't outlast Rockefeller and his thugs. so i would conclude that it is society and our (hopefully,naively) representative government that has provided the environment for WORKERS to create wealth. railroads were built with public funds and labor (unfortunately private profit) likewise our telephone infrastructure to name a few. a modern corollary would be public r&d for pharmaceuticals or public funds for sports stadiums. again, for private profit. this is a description of a welfare state, one setup for rich people's welfare. the academic definition of this is FASCISM. our society created this wealth and these circumstances and our political elites and their wealthy patrons fleece us and skim the cream. we should resurrect Robespierre and march these venal freak super-rich to the guillotines or since we're all so civilized now we could do like the Vietnamese and simply thoroughly divest them and send them to a re-education collective farm where they can actually learn how to do real work for once in their life and maybe study some non-sanitized history. maybe they can actually acquire a real marketable skill, you know, get a new career in this "global" economy?

So then, left to their oen, people would spontaneously create products with no management or investment.


SMH.

of course. i do. i think most everybody does if they have the liberty. all the folks on this site do. whether or not this productivity is profitable or mass marketable is another question.

There's a line at work, that goes-

"if you have a room full of unsupervised engineers, all you will end up with is an empty donut box"

Every successful company has many layers of management, the bigger the company. the more layers.

It's how those layers interact that determines the overall success.

And at the top is the level that takes the most risk. True there are exceptions, but overall CEO's have to increase the bottom line to keep their jobs.

The marxist model works only on a very small scale. As the levels increase, the greater opportunity for corruption arises. Same can be said of a capitalist model, but just take a look which model is succeeding. What will be interesting to watch is how well China blends capitalistic  behavior with communist structure.

i think the whole point of this thread, and everyone without exception has agreed, is that we are all worse off than 40 so years ago. if this is an example of an economic success, we're not aiming very high or thinking creatively. our economy is a bankrupt shell whose carcass is standing on one last leg: the fact that the dollar is the de-facto world reserve currency used for trade in oil. US hubris and military aggression have alarmed various foreign power centers to such a degree, Russia and China are hastening to set up an alternate currency for international oil trade. i believe Putin visits China within a month. already countries are selling their dollar reserves, and the only reason things aren't any worse yet is 'cause the fed is artificially holding gold down. they can't do that forever, and in addition to our 17 trillion national debt, when oil begins to be traded in something other than $, this is when the accounts come due. at that point we'll all be wishing we were a Marxist state, with capital controls and all. ours is not an economic model to be adulated

I have worked with people who lived in a particularly famous Marxist state who will vehemently argue with you on that point.

Because we are a global economy, with no single government, there is not going to be an easy solution to the current problems.

In other words- it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

the exact point of my last post. however, it doesn't have to be, and globalization is not necessarily a fait accompli, and also doesn't have be wholly unjust as it's currently structured. i don't know how much abuse Americans can take, (seems like a lot, never thought i'd see a stolen electon in my lifetime), and also seems like a lot of Americans have an uncanny ability to bury their heads in the sand, but at some point if things continue to spiral downward, reforms and change will come. it just sucks that in the meantime millions will suffer, domestically and worldwide. probably the incompetence of our political class trying to double down on our imperialist policies, economic and military, will cause them to overextend and precipitate a crisis which neither the US polity or the world at large will tolerate. otherwise, our masses of disenchanted will be motivated to crime, terrorism, and at worst an autrocratic national security state with low grade insurgencies or flat out civil war. violence is ugly, but when people are desperate, starving, and have no more options, that is their final resort. as i said, the US doesn't have all the answers and just because it might(?) be the least worst system doesn't mean we can't imagine or demand better. arrogance, or in other words, pride cometh before the fall.