This is topic If there are more jobs, but those jobs suck, will those people thank Bush? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
If this is true, will be interesting to see how it plays out in votes.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Question:
How can a president run the economy? Can the head of the executive branch really be held responsible for the billions of decisions made by individuals?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, but he can certainly make some sort of attempt to do something besides dole out tax cuts to the wealthy. Trickle down does not work! Of course it's probably weatherman syndrome. I have no way of knowing clearly
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't have any way of knowing the answer, but I have no faith that the actions of a president during a 4-year term will have a significant impact on the economy by the end of that period. It seems to me that the economy is just too big and sluggish to respond that fast, if the president can affect it at all, which I'm not sure about.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Amka, don't look at me, but people vote on the economy.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And, let's face it, part of the problem is that Bush actually has laid claim to the economy. When he pushed through tax cuts, he edit: had said that it would grow the economy.
[ March 12, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Syneth: We are not wealthy, and we got a tax cut. A hefty enough one that we were induced to spend. And spending, we put that money right back in the economy. Much of it went to companies that employ people who typically make less than we do. I am pretty sure that we were average in our decision to buy something, so those companies, in order to meet demand, needed to hire more workers. Is this an example of trickle down not working?
Indeed, I think the production of more jobs that are lower paying is pretty good proof that trickle down does work.
All that said, I also tend to think that for the most part, the economy is too slow and sluggish to see much effect during a president's term.
Bush has claimed the economy because every president before him has. It is now part of the campaign.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm not claiming it's not SOP, Amka.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I agree that the acts of a President do not have direct influence on the number and types of jobs available.
However, President Bush disagrees.
Many of his adds present a rosey picture of our wonderful recovery and the thousands of jobs returning to the country each month.
If he claims responsibility for the return of jobs to the economy, he must except responsibility that the majority of those jobs are worse than those that were available in previous years.
The promised job training programs need to be something more than free cue-cards that say, "Do you want fries with that?"
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Trickle down *does* work, if we're going to rely solely on anecdotal evidence.
I work for a company that is owned by a group of venture capitalists. Undoubtedly, those men and women make a lot more money than I do, and so have higher taxes. Were it not for their continued investment in our company, some of which must have come from the taxes they got to keep due to the tax cuts, I would not be employed today. I can say this securely...our company was within inches of going under last summer, and only a large investment of cash was able to allow us to keep operating long enough to possibly make a profit this year -- for the first time in over a decade. We're a big risk, yet they choose to continue investing.
And really, though I'm travelling too much lately, I don't think my job sucks.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But low income jobs increasing isn't nessasaryly a good thing. Rent on average is about 500 dollars or more. This means that lwo income people will barely be able teo make ends meet, let alone buy enough to stimulate the economy. They ought to increase minimum wage and decrease taxes for people who have a low income to begin with... But I am biased being that my paychecks are microscopic.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Amka, my entire years worth of tax cut money went into one months higher medical costs, including more expensive drugs, co-pays, and higher insurance rates.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Ouch, Dan, on more than one level. I hope things go better in your family.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The "tax cut" we got -- I regard it as a loan on our children's future -- helped soften the blow a bit when I wound up laid off.
But, yeah, trickle-down is all about the creation of lower-paying jobs. *waves finger in the air* Hooray for trickle-down!
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Syn, a significant portion of low income earners pay no taxes *at all*.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:How can a president run the economy? Can the head of the executive branch really be held responsible for the billions of decisions made by individuals?
The answer is a resounding yes. This is a representative democracy, and the economic plan decisions made by the elected representative of the nation's people reflects directly back on the decisions made by the representative. The blame could be assigned back to the people if you wanted to go all the way back to the voting process, but that still reflects back on the representative that was chosen for their leader.
Another statistic that this paper did not emphasize is the unemployment numbers. The higher number of those unemployed during the recession and the now higher (than 18 months ago) number of individuals who are "self-employed" is highly misleading and missing a large, important bit of information: many of those who are now not on unemployment or are "self-employed" are not in that position because the economy has improved, but because their unemployment eligibility has run out and they must be counted as either "employed" or "self-employed" when the statistical data is taken, not because they are actually employed or self-employed gainfully. More people are now actually forced to do either lower paying jobs or to work on a temporary or "as needed" (sometimes contractual) basis instead of having regular employment, which leads inexorably to less financial stability and less economic solidity. Also unfortunate is that this lowers their chances for an accurate tax return, since not all temp or contractual agreements (employments) withold all the proper taxes for non-regular employees. This means that more people wind up owing money come tax time than receiving a payout. I haven't done the math (since I'm no accountant and don't do regular polls on tax information), but I wonder what the mean would be of monies owed the government compared to the tax breaks of the last two years. I have a sneaking suspicion that the payouts would be higher than the breaks.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
As John said, of course a president's planning decisions have plenty to do with the economy. You guys think Clinton's modern outlook had nothing to do with the tech-sector boom of the '90s?
Bush is an industrialist, and he runs the economy from that perspective. Production industry is not the place to turn in the 21st Century if you want to foster decent jobs.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be natural that a recovering economy would have an increase in lower paying jobs?
Artificially inflated economy by way of .com boom. It was artificially inflated by wealthy people dumping too much money into technologies they barely understood, and that money being spent rashly by technology people who didn't really understand how to create a stable company.
This economy, naturally, implodes on itself.
Only those who are actually well equipped to work in information technology keep jobs in that field. Others are laid off.
These unemployed go looking around for jobs. But there are no jobs right now, because too many have become unemployed at the same time.
Question: which is better? Being unemployed or having a low paying job?
Insert 'trickle down economy' tactics.
Lower wage jobs increased.
Spending by consumers increased.
Competent workers who restarted out at lower wages start to gain promotions and raises, or educate themselves better and gain a better job. Slowly, higher wage jobs increase.
The last step is the slowest, but an increase in lower wage jobs is a sign that the economy is recoverying, I believe. Trickle down tax cuts simply increased the creation of lower wage jobs (and by extension, a few higher paying jobs too.)
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Destineer, billions of the tech money of the 90's went toward prepping for Y2K (edited to add that Clinton didn't have anything to do with the dating problems in the tech industry). I also would not call the tech bubble of the late 90's particularly good for anyone. For a brief period, maybe, but even at the time, I thought it was insane how speculative and risky that market became...and how incredibly high the salaries were in that industry. Dot-com instant millionaires. It couldn't possibly last. And it didn't.
Personally, I'd rather opt for slow growth than meteoric rises with commensurate meteoric drops.
[ March 12, 2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I really don't think it does much good. Low wage jobs are often extremely poor. Some of them have bad working conditions, a few of them are bad for families. They have a fast turn out so people usually don't keep them for long. Many of them do not pay a living wage so a person has to have at least 2 of them to survive. If they have children this is a very bad thing. The jobs lack benefits and things such as days off if you need to take care of children can only be gotten if it's the kind of job that has unions or after a period of time. It doesn't really stregthen the economy, it's an illusion. If they really wanted to help instead of corporate welfare they'd pay out a living wage, create jobs with benefits, give more tax cuts and help to small businesses that have trouble creating things like benefits. Parents would have peace of mind knowing that if their son or daughter gets sick they can take off without worrying about losing their jobs. People would get 10 dollars an hour instead of just 7, having more money to spend on what they want to spend it on. It's not easy to get resources to get a better job, especially if you live in an area with no or expensive public transportation and you can't even get to these places. Or if you have no phone because it got disconnected and you owe too much money to repay it. Common sense should tell them, pay the workers more and they'll do their job better. Like how fair is it to pay child care workers so little that they quit their jobs, a kid gets attached to a worker and suddenly has to get used to some other person. It's illogical. These politicians want to make themselves look good but they really, really don't care about the common worker one bit.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Can the head of the executive branch really be held responsible for the billions of decisions made by individuals? --------------------------------------------------
The answer is a resounding yes. This is a representative democracy, and the economic plan decisions made by the elected representative of the nation's people reflects directly back on the decisions made by the representative.
John is right here, the blame is on our system of state oppression. If a president were not able to ram through interventionist policies like tariffs and subsidies, taxes and the like, he would not be a player in our economy. However, he can and is. State intervention in the form of central banking(read as inflation) is the sole cause of the boom bust cycle. Such booms and busts are not a natural feature of a free economy using a commodity money, such as gold.
In an true free market economy, Amka would be correct about the president's lack of responsibility, however, this is not what we have. When one man can wipe out economic freedoms with the motion of a pen, that man has too much responsibility.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I really don't think it does much good. Low wage jobs are often extremely poor. Some of them have bad working conditions, a few of them are bad for families.
Why do you want to judge what jobs are good or bad for individuals? Do you think the government is a good judge of what is "good" and what is "bad"?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Bush is an industrialist, and he runs the economy from that perspective. Production industry is not the place to turn in the 21st Century if you want to foster decent jobs.
If this were really the case, shouldn't the manufacturing sector be booming?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As John said, of course a president's planning decisions have plenty to do with the economy. You guys think Clinton's modern outlook had nothing to do with the tech-sector boom of the '90s?
Who then gets the blame for the tech-busts, also of the `90s?
I guess it's Bush, right?
Personally, I think that our economic shape right now has less to do with the President (or any branch of the government at all, for that matter) than it does with strictly economic issues. I apply that same reasoning to Clinton, as well.
For instance, many complain of the loss of manufacturing jobs. Ohio is a much-mentioned state, with at least a quarter of a million such jobs lost. But is that really the President's fault, or the government's? I don't think so. I don't think it's anyone's 'fault', anymore than I think all the people who made buggy-wheels and buggy-whips lost their jobs because of the government.
The situation today is similar, though not as obvious. *shrug* That's my take, anyway.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's not a matter of good and bad. Like it or not a company does have the responsibility to make sure that their workers are safe at least. For example... Workers who work in chicken factories... It's not the dawn of the industrial revolution anymore.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, but he can certainly make some sort of attempt to do something besides dole out tax cuts to the wealthy.
Incidentally, this kind of statement is pretty irritating. Bush didn't ram through 'tax cuts to the wealthy'-though class-warfare types love to say so, he rammed through tax cuts to pretty much everyone. Is there a person on this board who can say their taxes haven't been cut because of Bush's efforts?
Now I'm not saying this means the tax cuts were a good idea. I'm not saying that no part of them is worthy of criticism. But when there's so much ammunition, don't throw rocks, use bullets.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Like it or not a company does have the responsibility to make sure that their workers are safe at least.
In our welfare-state economy, you are correct, the government forces companies to make certain concessions to labor in the name of the greater good. However, such actions rely on the belief that the government can know what is "good" for people. Do you believe that it can make better decisions that you can, regarding what is best for you?
quote: For example... Workers who work in chicken factories...
Unless those workers are slaves, they are there because they WANT to be there. They have the option of not working in chicken factories.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Like it or not a company does have the responsibility to make sure that their workers are safe at least.
You'll have to define safety, and when you do I expect I'll disagree. Safe how? If by safety you mean offers good, affordable health care for the employee, offers good severance benefits should the unexpected happen, doesn't screw with stocks for exclusively executive gain, and doesn't scrimp on things like workplace safety and such, then I agree.
If by safety you mean the company has a responsibility to make sure its employees are working and paid for their entire lives, to preserve the status quo, no matter what, then I couldn't disagree more. Employers aren't omnipotent, and they're businesses, first and foremost. Employees are individuals, first and foremost. Instead of looking to their employer to provide for and protect them indefinitely, they should do their best to find a company that does that, and make themselves as inexpendable as possible.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the specific topic, but I want to make a couple of comments:
quote: They ought to increase minimum wage and decrease taxes for people who have a low income to begin with...
Speaking of things that don't work. Increasing minimum wage will only cause inflation.
quote: These unemployed go looking around for jobs. But there are no jobs right now, because too many have become unemployed at the same time.
Question: which is better? Being unemployed or having a low paying job?
I'd like to see one of these people that got laid of even TAKE a low paying job. Why else does the government want to let "immigrants" work in America? Because Americans aren't willing to DO the lower paying work.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Why not raise the minimum wage to $20/hour and make EVERYONE rich?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: You guys think Clinton's modern outlook had nothing to do with the tech-sector boom of the '90s?
Well of course, his Veep invented the internet. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: You guys think Clinton's modern outlook had nothing to do with the tech-sector boom of the '90s?
Seriously, what was his modern outlook, and how did it cause the irrational exuberance of the late 90's?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom are you currently unemployed? I didn't realize...
AJ
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:
quote:As John said, of course a president's planning decisions have plenty to do with the economy. You guys think Clinton's modern outlook had nothing to do with the tech-sector boom of the '90s?
Who then gets the blame for the tech-busts, also of the `90s?
I guess it's Bush, right?
Personally, I think that our economic shape right now has less to do with the President (or any branch of the government at all, for that matter) than it does with strictly economic issues. I apply that same reasoning to Clinton, as well.
You're both right and wrong. The truth is, the president had a lot to do with the economies of both examples, but Clinton is not responsible for the specific tech boom. He's responsible for ancouraging a situation where the tech boom—and its resultant fizzles—were able to take place. However, the surplus and increased budgets for the nation's total economy were directly influenced by Clinton. Saying he created the tech boom is disingenuous, at best.
The same applies for Bush's current situation: he's been spending in a deficit, without a clear picture (just a vague "trickle down" picture) of how this is going to work out in the end. In addition, his other policies have made industries more apprehensive in investing capital for new endeavors, choosing instead to solidify, or merge, their current resources. This has resulted in downsizing due to less administrative overhead (actually a good thing), but only the overhead in the lowest levels of the many sectors (meaning the higher-paid guys stay in place, and the managers get severance for leaving). Unexpectedly, I would guess, is the surge of actual workforce downsizing due to these moves, where companies who are trimming the fat are also doing it on the lowest rungs of the ladder as well as the (lower) administrative levels. I don't think Bush expected that to happen, but it happened nonetheless. In the "trickle down" plan, the lowered overhead for the administrative level would have created a better fiscal investment opportunity for the (investments in the) workforce, which has yet to happen. Yeah, it's nice to hear people give anecdotes and give the usual "coming soon!" pep talks, but outsourcing to other countries and offshore moves by the Big Boys is still taking place. This is yet another unanticipated result that I don't think Bush (or his administration) expected to happen.
After all, these companies don't exist to push the "rah-rah" of nationalism or wave the American flag in every office. They exist for the bottom line. And Bush's tax plans, his constant spending in deficit, and the subsequent lowering of the value of the American dollar have had a severe impact on how industries approach making new investments inside of this nation's borders. Is it totally all Bush's fault? Of course not. Can Bush (and/or his administration) be held accountable for promoting the current economic situation? Heck yeah.
Will it eventually work out for the best? It hasn't yet, but no final decision can be made until 10 or 20 years down the line. The best course of action isn't to try to assume success or failure as an end, but to address the real problems of the now. And as of now, there are a lot of problems that are being glossed over with misleading numbers and claims by both major parties. Also, the very fact that Bush is in office while we are experiencing these issues are enough to demand that something with immediate positive results be done, which has yet to happen (lots of promises, not a lot of results). Both Bush's and Clinton's excuses of blaming the previous administrations—both did it—are just excuses with no proactive results. It's not an acceptable excuse to blame the guy before you: Bush Sr. was doing a reasonable job of trying to get the economy in order without falling back on blaming the previous administration (nevermind that he should have never claimed "no new taxes" and the political mess behind the Gulf War).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nope. Thankfully. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: The best course of action isn't to try to assume success or failure as an end, but to address the real problems of the now.
Address the real problems right now without assessing if those solutions will succeed or fail?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:he rammed through tax cuts to pretty much everyone
While technically its true, my couple of hundred dollars really went far, it can not be denied that the bigger portion of those tax cuts went to the wealthier folks.
Things like cutting the tax on Dividends and Inheritance doesn't do much good for people in my neighborhood.
My problem with Trickle Down--Give money to the rich. They can spend it on investing in other American companies, or if the market in the US is bad, they can take their money and invest it over seas, they can buy American stuff, or they can travel to Asia and load up on expensive imported items.
Why doesn't Trickle Up work. Give the poor extra money and they will spend it, buying goods and services. Sure, many of those goods will be cheap imports, but that still increases sales in the American companies that bring them to their stores. This increases the business of the stores, their suppliers, and the manufacturers who make the items, and eventually will trickle up to the wealthy owners.
I believe there would be a greater growth in US economy if money is given to those on the bottom as opposed to those on the top.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: My problem with Trickle Down--Give money to the rich.
How do you figure? How do the rich get rich? Is it because the government has chosen to make them rich? Who is giving the rich money?
quote: Why doesn't Trickle Up work. Give the poor extra money and they will spend it, buying goods and services.
Firstly, its immoral. In order to "give" money to the poor, the government must first take that money from someone who is the rightful owner of said money.
Secondly, government redirected funds are by definition less efficently spent than if those funds were left in the economy to begin with.
quote: I believe there would be a greater growth in US economy if money is given to those on the bottom as opposed to those on the top.
You have a very odd understanding of economics. Do you think that all distribution of wealth is the concern of the state?
Would it make sense to put an illiterate in charge of editing a newspaper? I say no. Why then would you put someone who is an economic failure(poor) in charge of the nation's wealth? Why not let the markets decide who is best suited to have money?
Our market driven economy is not a zero-sum game. When one group gains wealth, say the rich, it does NOT imply that an equal amount of wealth was taken from some other group.
[ March 12, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm amazed at the lack of understanding about Trickle Down. The reason that most extremely wealthy people are extremely wealthy starts at owning a business. Giving them more of their own money back allows them to invest more in their own business and others, hire more employees, and make more big-ticket purchases.
Can you think of some examples of jobs that would be created if rich people spent more money? Undeniably, jobs that would pay higher than minimum wage in many cases.
Now giving money to the POOR might create a few more low income jobs at places such as Wal-Mart and McDonald's. But I thought that's what we were trying to avoid.
Not to mention that Trickle Down makes sure that people get back money comparable to what they paid in. Why in the world do you think that you deserve to be given money that wasn't yours in the first place? That money is given to the rich because of the ENORMOUS percentage of their yearly income that they lose to taxes, money that belonged to them. Do you really think that poor people are getting jipped? Many of them don't even pay a cent in income taxes. (I am one of these, and we're not even minimum wage, nor are we on welfare.) The tax brackets are remarkably unfair to rich people.
edited: Because I don't think anyone here wants to give more money to the POOP.
[ March 12, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Can we at least agree that "cutting taxes" is not the same as "giving money" to anyone? They're taking less, not giving more.
Dagonee
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:
quote:The best course of action isn't to try to assume success or failure as an end, but to address the real problems of the now.
Address the real problems right now without assessing if those solutions will succeed or fail?
Considering I didn't say that, no. However, trying to implement "solutions" which give no realistic immediate returns—because a couple hundred dollars per middle-class family is not a substantial or realistic return—is not a good idea of offering a "solution" based on success or failure. It's tossing bread to people with a promise of future meat and potatoes.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: However, trying to implement "solutions" which give no realistic immediate returns—because a couple hundred dollars per middle-class family is not a substantial or realistic return—is not a good idea of offering a "solution" based on success or failure. It's tossing bread to people with a promise of future meat and potatoes.
So we should be looking at the long term, and taking those actions which will improve people's lives the most over time then?
[edit] I know my beliefs on what should be done are already known, but what course of action do you propose, John L?
[ March 12, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
What are you missing? I'm saying that using either long-term-only or short-term-only plans are not going to work. Why do you keep asking me absolutes on one way or the other?
[edit] What course of action? I don't think there is one course of action that would be most suited for the economy. And without taking time to adequately assess available resources and look at all the options—which I have no intention of doing, because it requires work I have no interests in (professional or personal)—I can't say with authority. However, promoting a penalty to offshore and "outsourcing" companies, while trimming some of the fat within actual government administrative levels, is a decent start. Also, this overwhelming urge to cut taxes while increasing spending needs to stop: either freeze budgets and cut taxes or freeze taxes and keep spending, the "having cake and eating it too" approach is just leaving a deficit that won't become a problem for 10-20 years (perfect for claiming political victory, crappy for actually solving economic problems).
[ March 12, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
John L, I guess I am trying to figure out what you do think will work. You seem to think that there are actions that can be taken which will improve our economic situation. What are those actions?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like it or not a company does have the responsibility to make sure that their workers are safe at least. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll have to define safety, and when you do I expect I'll disagree. Safe how? If by safety you mean offers good, affordable health care for the employee, offers good severance benefits should the unexpected happen, doesn't screw with stocks for exclusively executive gain, and doesn't scrimp on things like workplace safety and such, then I agree.
Working conditions in most meat factories are abyssmal. People are maimed and die, and the companies get away with it, because so many of the workers are illegals who don't speak English "Fast Food Nation" is a great read on this topic.
As tyo the OP, of course Bush will take the credit if the unemployment #'s go down. Never mind a living wage. In Seattle, person making the minimun wage, $7.16/ hour ,would have to work 80 hours/week to pay the established fair rent, $788/month. Gee, you didn't want to buy food, pay for medical care and heat the apartment with that paycheck, did you?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: In Seattle, person making the minimun wage, $7.16/ hour ,would have to work 80 hours/week to pay the established fair rent, $788/month. Gee, you didn't want to buy food, pay for medical care and heat the apartment with that paycheck, did you?
Gee, you don't want any freedom to enter into contracts or not, do you?
What the heck is "fair rent" and who decides what that is? We should allow the free market to decide what working conditions are acceptible and which are not. If workers choose not to work somewhere, whether they are citizens or not, is their own business. By forcing government edicts of safety on businesses, you shut out those who you seem to want to help.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Working conditions in most meat factories are abyssmal. People are maimed and die, and the companies get away with it, because so many of the workers are illegals who don't speak English "Fast Food Nation" is a great read on this topic.
Then why not illuminate to us some of the information that is in this "great read" you're referring to? I'd like an example, to see if it's worth picking up, but I'd also like you to put it into the context of the conversation at hand, not just plunking any old quote from the text and claiming it as absolute.
And rent prices are unfair in many places, but that's hardly a reflection on the safety of working conditions. Raising wages may make the housing a little more affordable, but a better solution is to make more housing more accessible, giving the landlords reason to make more money by beating competitors' attempts at monopolies. I've seen it happen between some apartment complexes in this area: one becomes more favored by location, so the other one creates a competitive market by undercutting and working to increase the property value of the surrounding area. It's all about property value, not working conditions, and there are a whole lot more things to complain about when it comes to dealing with property values.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
The Fair Rent is decided by the city government.
People do NOT always have the choice to take, or not take a job. If they have been jobless for months, the savings have run out, unemployment has run out, they are not eligible for welfare, and they face being homeless- or maybe they already are, 22% of people in homeless shelters are employed- and they FINALLy get a job, they are not going to wonder, "Is the machinery I use on this job well-maintained? Will I be forced to work so long, and become so exhausted, and make potentially fatal mistakes?" No, because they need food on the table NOW. I have never heard anyone who has been truly poor, say that the poor have those kinds of choices.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
John L, I would love to, but I have lent my copy out to my neighbor. When I get it back, I will make the time to set down some examples.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote:And rent prices are unfair in many places...
How can a market driven price be unfair? How do you define fairness?
quote: The Fair Rent is decided by the city government.
Enlighten me then, because I have no idea what it is or where you cited it from.
quote: People do NOT always have the choice to take, or not take a job.
False. Unless someone is a slave, or is being coerced with the use of force, there is ALWAYS a choice. Perhaps those making the choice do not like the alternative, but there exists a choice.
quote: If they have been jobless for months, the savings have run out, unemployment has run out, they are not eligible for welfare, and they face being homeless-
Who is responsible for this?
quote: I have never heard anyone who has been truly poor, say that the poor have those kinds of choices.
The poor don't say a lot of things, that doesn't mean they aren't true.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Robes, we have a problem.
All the land is owned.
It is finite.
All the land closest to area's of employment, medical care, etc are well developed.
Even if the government got out of the land business, every bit of it would be bought by people who have capital, because it is a finite resource that will only go up in value.
So landlords, free to charge whatever they wish, have proven that either they will charge prices that low income workers cannot afford, or will not maintain those inexpensive places safely.
The result is that people will have no where left to live.
And they cannot just, move away. There is nowhere left for them to move too.
Homelessness is another term for trespassing, squatting and stealing of others land, because everybody needs a place to live--a place to exist at.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, there really is no choice. If you have 2 rapidly growing kids who need clothes, if you lost your job that was paying well you'd pretty much take anything and I do mean anything. Because you would not have a choice if you've filled out dozens of applications and couldn't get the same job in your field. Instead you'd have to take a job in a factory with terrible conditions that won't even let you take a break to go to the bathroom if you need to. Like it or not, pure laissez faire capitalism is not a good thing. It is common sense to not so much as pamper workers but to provide them with safe conditions, enough pay to do more than just exist on and benefits. If you have a bunch of machines you have to make sure they are well oiled and have working parts, right? Workers manufactor for their companies and sometimes spend money on the product. It's common sense to make sure they have good conditions not nessarily out of charity or out of morality but because it's logical.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Trickle Down II
There was some complaint about my quick trickle down post, so let me clarify.
If we clarify that the part of Trickle Down that stands for "Giving Money to the Rich" is just a bad way of saying "Returning tax money to those who have given it" then allow me to clarify that "Giving money to the poor" should be translated to a clear, "Creating works programs to rebuild infrastrure while creating jobs."
I was not questioning the moral ethicacy of Trickle Down v.s. Trickle Up. Those who favor the "trickle down" theory sell it to the rest of us as a beneficial economic theory.
They even point out that the jobs and increased productivity will allow for increased tax revenues as it eventually makes its way down to the re-employed workers.
I am argueing that Trickle Up would also give us increased productivity and increased tax revenues as it eventually makes its way up to the business owners.
My big argument coincides with the comment that most of the people who are wealthy are business owners and investors. They would invest any excess capitol, which would increase US Employment.
However, a % of the wealthy are not investors. Another % would invest in profitable enterprises outside of the US.
Money put in at the lower end of the economic ladder would almost completely be used in the US (except money paid to foreign workers, a % of which is sent back to their country of origin. Since most of these are illegals, and I am not suggesting illegals be allowed into Governmental works programs, that should not matter). Admiteddly a large % of that money would be spent on inexpensive foreign imported items. Still that money would have to go through the hands of American merchants and service providers.
The % that stays in this country to work its way back into the tax revenue base, or into individual pockets of US Citizens would be greater.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Even if the government got out of the land business, every bit of it would be bought by people who have capital, because it is a finite resource that will only go up in value.
This is not necessarily true. The reason real-estate is climbing recently is because of massive inflationary policies by the fed. It is possible for land to lose value.
But this is beside the point.
quote: So landlords, free to charge whatever they wish
This is so false, I don't even know where to begin. Why are not rents in the millions of dollars then?
quote: have proven that either they will charge prices that low income workers cannot afford, or will not maintain those inexpensive places safely.
Is it not their right to price their OWN property as they see fit? If I want to sell my house, do you want to set the price so that low income people can buy it, or should I be allowed to charge what I want for it?
quote: The result is that people will have no where left to live.
So, you're telling me that even though there would be great demand for housing, there would be no one stepping in to make money and sell those people housing?
quote: No, there really is no choice.
Yes, really, there is.
quote: Like it or not, pure laissez faire capitalism is not a good thing.
I couldn't disagree with you more. It is in fact, the ONLY system which works. Our current system is clearly broken.
quote: If you have a bunch of machines you have to make sure they are well oiled and have working parts, right?
Yes, but only if you OWN those machines. The government does not OWN me.
quote: It's common sense to make sure they have good conditions not nessarily out of charity or out of morality but because it's logical.
Common sense indeed. Those companies which don't treat their workers properly will quickly find that they have a bunch of worthless workers and cannot be productive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It is in fact, the ONLY system which works."
This, of course, depends on how you define "works."
It does what it claims to do, and by that definition it's the best out there -- but what it claims to do is not, in my opinion, the best thing for society.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: "Giving money to the poor" should be translated to a clear, "Creating works programs to rebuild infrastrure while creating jobs."
Dan, those two are the same. From Where does the money to create these works projects come from?
quote: I am argueing that Trickle Up would also give us increased productivity and increased tax revenues as it eventually makes its way up to the business owners.
What you call trickle up, is in fact some odd form of wealth redistribution which does not take into account how our economy works. By what right could the government STEAL money from those who earn it, but may not even be rich, and give that money to the non-productive?
quote: Money put in at the lower end of the economic ladder would almost completely be used in the US
Why not cut the private citizen out of the loop entirely and just have the gov send ALL the money and property where it deems it to be most needed?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
IMO, Trickle up would just be another socialist venture. The poor don't have as much money as the rich, so let's give them a lot to make up for it. That's really what it boils down to. Regardless of which builds more jobs, you still have to explain to me why the poor deserve to get the money that the rich worked for.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: It does what it claims to do, and by that definition it's the best out there -- but what it claims to do is not, in my opinion, the best thing for society.
Who are you to decide what is best for society? Why not allow each individual to decide for his or her self?
I would argue that the concept of "greater good" is one that is always unjust. What's good for "society" can never be determined by any logical means, so why not let individuals decide what is best for themselves?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Your right Rosp.
People will always sell property to the poor. I mean they are a market with no money.
That is why so many of todays poor already live ten or twelve to an apartment.
We have plenty of working poor already who have no housing. What few government shelters exist are full. How will removing rent limits and poor housing subsidies going to increase the number of investors and real estate owners who want to rent thier land to the working poor who can't afford $500 a month rent?
In your world, what is a person to do if they have no place to live--if their house is reposed, or a wife leaves an abusive husband with only the clothes on her back and a suitcase (coworkers story, but not only one) until they can get enough money to pay the rent?
I know. Without the burden of taxes, why millions will be donated to church groups to open up homeless shelters.
You keep saying that you don't think the government, who you have some say in by your vote, is not the person you want making safety and health decisions for you.
You prefer to leave it to the marketplace.
You ignore our fears that, if left to the notoriously short sighted owners and investors, those decisions will still be out of your hands, and in the hands of nameless, faceless corporations who are only interested in your money.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Regardless of which builds more jobs, you still have to explain to me why the poor deserve to get the money that the rich worked for.
This is a good point, even if socialism did work, how can it be morally justified?
quote: In your world, what is a person to do if they have no place to live--if their house is reposed, or a wife leaves an abusive husband with only the clothes on her back and a suitcase (coworkers story, but not only one) until they can get enough money to pay the rent?
The same thing that person should do in this world.
quote: if left to the notoriously short sighted owners and investors, those decisions will still be out of your hands
It is no one's responsibility but your own to make plans for your future. If you want someone to plan all your actions, warm up your breakfast, tuck you in at night, and give you an allowance, you are free to let someone do that. Please stay out of my wallet while you are doing it though!
quote: nameless, faceless corporations who are only interested in your money.
Can you name for me one thing that they should be interested in that isn't money or a way to make money? You are so quick to label corporations as evil, yet without their work, you would have nothing. Do you think that all corporations should me reworked into state-owned non-profit organizations? Perhaps they would be more caring then?
[edited to lower the volume]
[ March 12, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
PSI & Robes--the Trickle thing.
I repeat, I am not trying to argue the Morality of which theory is better.
People who talk of Trickle Down do not tell the middle class, "This is a fairer system". They defend it on purely economic grounds, saying that it would be best for everyone to get an economy in recession moving.
They claim that a tax cut for them is good for everyone.
All I am claiming is that economically, if what we are after is improving the economy, then Trickle Up is better than Trickle down.
If you can't come up with a purely economic reason then I will assume that most of the cries about how great Trickle Down is, is in reality, a cover for a more libertarian economic system.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Here's the thing, I'm not talking about snatching money out of the hands of the rich to give to the poor or some sort of Robin Hood vigilantism. I'm talking about paying the poor enough money to be self sufficent. So that less poor people have to go on welfare or foodstamps in order to cover expenses because their checks are so small. I'm not saying, let's snatch away their mansions and put 12 poor families into them. I'm talking about a middle ground between pure capitalism, which in the past did a great deal of damage to society and in third world countries is doing more and socialism which is an imperfect system. I'm talking about keeping jobs in America instead of shipping them overseas and thinking about long term profit instead of just short term gain. I want to narrow the gap between rich and poor, not widen it because widening it really hurts society. I'm talking about the importance of making housing affordable so that people will complain less about people being on the streets. Middle ground. That's what I'd like to achieve.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: All I am claiming is that economically, if what we are after is improving the economy, then Trickle Up is better than Trickle down.
First of all, I refuse to keep using the meaningless term "trickle down." I am not even 100% sure of what it means. Let us speak of Laissez Faire capitalism and Welfare-statism.
Under welfare-statism, all those who produce wealth, laborers, factory owners, capital investors, etc, are taxed some non-zero amount. We can agree on this, right?
Now that money, for simplicity's sake, lets say its $1000, is taken from all the producers. So they, as a group, have $1000 fewer dollars.
Now, what group of people in the economy tend to create jobs? Is it the poor, who have no capital or capital goods? Or rather, is it those who are already productive, and have saved capital and acrued capital goods? I would choose the second of those two.
So if the idea is to grow the economy, do we allow capital and resources to accumulate with those who know how to use them(read as the successful businessmen), or do we take those resources from them before they can use them, and spend them on people who do NOT know how to use them?
The choice is clear. If we want to have a successful economy, it cannot be an egalitarian economy. Each individual will recieve what he/she deserves on the open market.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Here's the thing, I'm not talking about snatching money out of the hands of the rich to give to the poor or some sort of Robin Hood vigilantism.
Then you go on to say:
quote: I'm talking about paying the poor enough money to be self sufficent.
Where is this money coming from?
If people are payed ANYTHING but their free-market wage, it is their own responsibility to decide what to do. Forcing companies to pay above the fair market wage is destructive of wealth.
quote: which in the past did a great deal of damage to society and in third world countries is doing more
Please give at least one example for each, keeping in mind that imperialism is not a result of capitalism, it is a result of statism.
quote: I'm talking about keeping jobs in America instead of shipping them overseas and thinking about long term profit instead of just short term gain.
Keeping jobs in america! Sounds good, but its also destructive of wealth and bad for the economy to interfere in the natural flow of capital.
quote: I want to narrow the gap between rich and poor, not widen it because widening it really hurts society.
We must all SUBMITT to the greater good.
quote: Middle ground. That's what I'd like to achieve.
So you want a balance between capitalism and socialism? What about our country today is not socialist enough for you? Where is there too much freedom?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Examples- Child labour Bad working conditions in mines and factories Environmental distruction
Just to name a few. In the past and in the present.
The problem is that if you don't respect your workers that work so that you can be wealthy sooner or later they do get mad. No one's going to put up with unfair conditions for long. In American there are probably laws against sweatshops and paying workers 10 cents an hour for 15-18 hours worth of work. So what do they do? Move to another country, pay the workers unfair wagesand reap the profits until these workers either get fed up, or workers in America can no longer afford their products... Which could be far fetched, but not impossible. It's true that companies exist to make money but they are not exempt from simple social responsibility.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's where I have trouble wrapping my mind around the “affordable housing” issue. Let’s say I own a house. I’m moving out of the area and decide to sell my house rather than keep it and rent it out. When I put it up on the market, I am naturally going to try to get the highest price possible for it. Assuming I’m honest about the condition of the house, I doubt anyone would think it’s wrong to do that.
When I moved into my old neighborhood, families with a single wage-earner with an above average job or families with two slightly lower than average jobs for the area could afford a 3 BR townhouse fairly easily. Families with two average wage-earners could afford a 4 BR single family house, and there were a few even nicer houses in the area. It’s a medium to long commute to DC, decent commute to the Virginia outer-ring jobs, good schools, nice neighborhood, etc. Basically, it was a quintessential neighborhood for young families just starting out.
My townhouse went up in value about 79% in 7 years (believe me, my property taxes went up with accordingly). I made a decent profit on the house. Which, I think, most people would agree is perfectly fine and dandy.
But, this increase meant the neighborhood is only suitable for people with at least one above average and one average job, or couples who were lucky enough to buy a house before the housing boom and got enough equity out of their old house to afford a new one. What this means is, this neighborhood is no longer really a starter neighborhood. There’s only two ways to keep this from happening: either force me to sell my house for a lower price, or somehow subsidize the construction and sale of more housing.
I hope no one thinks the first option is fair. The second is highly problematic. Remember, two average wage-earners could probably not afford a house in this neighborhood. This means that way more than half the families in my area might require some sort of subsidy. To me, this seems impossible to pull off without devastating the economy.
Looking at apartment complexes doesn’t help matters. If I invest in an apartment complex, wouldn’t I naturally want to rent it out for the highest possible price? And who would say that this unfair, given that it’s my money being risked and that I am responsible for repairs, maintenance liability, and property taxes. Is a property owner supposed to say to someone willing to take a small apartment because it’s more convenient to work, “No thanks – keep your extra $500 a month.”
It’s a problem I just don’t see a solution to.
Dagonee
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:First of all, I refuse to keep using the meaningless term "trickle down." I am not even 100% sure of what it means. Let us speak of Laissez Faire capitalism and Welfare-statism.
That's why debating economics with you is a useless gesture: you demand an extreme in one direction, and anything not directly applying to that extreme is assumed (by you) to be the extreme opposite. The problem with this thinking is that both of those extremes are piss-poor economic systems for all but those who are in positions of power, it's just that the places those positions are in are different for each extreme.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This is true - "trickle up" and "trickle down" both refer to different ways to tweak our current economic system, which is largely capitalist with government providing regulatory, wealth-distribution, and service-provision components.
Frankly, the call to remove regulatory aspects is the weakest part of Laissez Faire capitalist doctrine. Regulatory controls are necessary to ensure that the free flow of information necessary for capitalism occurs. At minimum, there must be a consistent set of legal rules for tort, contracts, and property. Since no two parties ever fully articulate every contingency of an agreement, there must be a set of default contract terms and expectations of care or the market will not function. Further, people must be able to rely on the consistency of property rights - this does not meant they have to be absolute, just predictable. These controls allow people to make reasonable decisions about the proper way to allocate their resources and bargain for goods and services. Safety regulations and such would not be strictly necessary if the information-forcing rules were able to be absolutely enforced. Since they're not, there needs to be a minimum floor for such things as health, safety, etc. Finally, there is the old town commons problem, in which commonly owned (or not owned, if you prefer) finite resources are encouraged to be used inefficently if they are not regulated. This is the basis for environmental regulations (the air belongs to all of us). Finally, some situations just require a set of common rules - which specific rules exist is not as important as the fact that there are common rules. The rules of right-of-way in maritime law is a good example of this.
Government-provided services are merely the result of the recognition that some services can be more efficiently provided by large groups of people pooling resources. Common defense, police, fire protection, roads are examples of these. Frankly, I would require separate, specific proof for each of these types of services before agreeing that they could be provided for more efficiently via pure capitalism.
Wealth distribution is far more controversial. At minimum, it means that people with more resources should contribute more to the common services. It can also mean providing services only for those deemed to need them. For example, health care for the poor. I think each of these needs to be debated separately and priotiized with other government services in creating budgets.
In all of this, people will vary widely on the specifics. But Robes, if your going to call for the widespread alteration of the current economic system, it behooves you to give more than two sentence assertions that things would be provided better under a pure capitalist system. Show us how roads could be privatized, or some other service commonly accepted as the proper role of government. Then people could understand what it is your actually advocating.
Dagonee
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
This trickle down thing with the tax cuts. What gets me is the 'investment' incentive? Thats a bunch of BULL!!! Every penny spent on investing is already taken off the taxes through loopholes. Every penny thats invested is returned by the gov't ANYway. So they get money twice. And even 3 times. So Robe, you say that giving money to the poor is wrong? So is giving money to the Rich. Whats wrong for the goose is also wrong for the gander. Instead of giving money to ANYone, why not make the gov't more efficient in its workings and cut the pork and waste and then you'd see better tax levels across the board. For EVERYone
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Every penny spent on investing is already taken off the taxes through loopholes.
Would you mind taking a look at my taxes and show how the money I've invested can avoid taxation? 'Cause that ain't the case for most people in the world.
Dagonee
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Are you investing in the Market or are you investing in buildings, machinery, equipment etc. Those things ARE tax deductable. Investing in the Market isn't deductable up to a point. Cars, trucks stuff being used and bought for the company are tax write-offs. Been there, Done that a number of years ago. Including milage on said vehicles. Thats tax deductable. Why do you think some folks have gotten a bit up in arms about some flks taking advantage of the loopholes to get 80k Hummers for less than your average family car? Thanks for playing. Try again.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Question for Robespierre,
It appears that you favor a free market economy completely free from government intervention. What are your views regarding antitrust laws and illegal monopolies?
I apologize if you have addressed this before, but I did a search (Robespierre, monopoly(ies)) and did not see anything.
In real estate terms, what are your views regarding zoning laws. Beyond the minimum safety regulations, should the government have the right to tell land owners what they can or cannot build on their property?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you investing in the Market or are you investing in buildings, machinery, equipment etc. Those things ARE tax deductable. Investing in the Market isn't deductable up to a point. Cars, trucks stuff being used and bought for the company are tax write-offs. Been there, Done that a number of years ago. Including milage on said vehicles. Thats tax deductable. Why do you think some folks have gotten a bit up in arms about some flks taking advantage of the loopholes to get 80k Hummers for less than your average family car? Thanks for playing. Try again.
I ran a business for 11 years. There are some loopholes, but in general it's almost impossible to deduct something more than once in its lifetime. And generally capital investments have to be depreciated over time - in my business, a far longer time than the life of the asset.
THanks for playing. Try again.
Dagonee
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
This conversation has been hijacked by information terrorists. As is the way.
<T>
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Thor! You're alive! Haven't seen you 'round for quite a bit. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Good news if you're an upper level techie:
Just heard on NPR that most of the tech jobs going to India are helpdesk-type positions. However, the number of mid- to senior- level technical jobs available in the US increased last year.
So, get that education, get those certs.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
quote: If they have been jobless for months, the savings have run out, unemployment has run out, they are not eligible for welfare, and they face being homeless-
----------------------
Who is responsible for this?
You can blame everyone for that. You can blame the person for not being able to get a good education or having job security in the first place (or hey, why not blame the person for being independantly wealthy while we're at it), just as much as you can blame the employer for not wanting to hire someone (choose whatever reason floats your boat).
quote: People do NOT always have the choice to take, or not take a job. -------- False. Unless someone is a slave, or is being coerced with the use of force, there is ALWAYS a choice. Perhaps those making the choice do not like the alternative, but there exists a choice.
So you're saying that if someone is disabled and can't take a job because it would hurt them, it's their fault then (since they're not a slave, and aren't being coerced)?
quote: How can a market driven price be unfair? How do you define fairness?
I can tell you how I, in part, define fairness. I don't think it's fair to send jobs overseas to pay a pittance in wages (imagine how many companies would send jobs overseas if they had to pay comperable wages) to benefit the few.
I can give you a wonderful example. My company has sent many jobs overseas. These jobs pay, on average, less than 1/10th of what they make here. Can you tell me that this is a fair wage for a job?
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
For those interested in reading up a bit on how the recovery is going, I read a very interesting article on msnbc last night. It talks about how while there are people out there that are making lots of money in the recovery, alot more people are finding it tougher than ever.
While some people will probably say "yeah, that's what you get for living in New York", this same story is repeated across the country, but is never published.
I also have to admit that I was shocked to hear about the unemployment rate among black men - it's estimated to stand at just over 51% in NYC (maybe it's just me, but I find that disturbing).
msnbc story Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Face it. For a lot of American's the American Dream is a myth and that is sad. These rich people in NY won't understand until their time to be poor comes...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:For a lot of American's the American Dream is a myth and that is sad.
It is sad that some people don't believe that they can make their lives better through hard work and perseverance. . . kind of a self-fulfilling attitude.
[ March 15, 2004, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
People DO believe that. Until they actually sit down and work hard and still get nowhere... Until every cent in their paycheck goes towards bills and unexpected expenses. It isn't true. You can go to college, work extremely hard and still end up at a dead end job doing something that you hate because you have no choice. Even if you make all the right decisions. All this talk about you can do whatever you want if you work hard enough is pure unsympathetic bunk.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
"But Madame Antoinette, the poor, they cannot afford to buy bread..."
"Silly man, then let them eat cake..."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:All this talk about you can do whatever you want if you work hard enough is pure unsympathetic bunk.
No, it isn't.
America is STILL the great land of opportunity. There are very few (secular) ideals that I believe in but America as the place where the little guy can still make it big is one of them.
Did you think I was unsympathetic? Hardly. I'm all about giving financial assistance to those just starting out. And I love the idea of giving businesses tax rebates for human investment capital-- tax breaks for employee education, in other words.
America does have a problem with corporate and political corruption-- but the heart of the country is still with the common man. I may be idealistic and a trifle day-dreamy-- but I've seen the flip side, countries where you cannot get a job unless you're a citizen, and cannot become a citizen because (suprise) you weren't born there.
I'm good friends with a number of political dissidents from Africa and from the Phillipines-- and they still dream in American. Despite all their disagreements with our foreign policy, our way of life, our culture-- America is the land of opportunity still.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
True, that's why we must work hard to make America live up to those ideas. It can't just be an empty slogan.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I have nothing of political worth to add to this thread, but I just have to say that the title has made me giggle like heck. Thank you for that.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
"In a country where K-12 education is free, college grants and loans are abundant and technology, decent teachers and air-conditioned schools are the norm, a person who doesn't make a decent wage is an idiot."
-Angelica Maldonado-Bowles Resident Alien
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"where an idiot may mean someone with a mental disability"
--Russell Duhon, person who has regularly talked with the homeless.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
George W. Bush was born with nothing, almost less than nothing. He was thrust into horrid poverty from day one, and a broken family from day three, but did he just quit?
No! Through hard work, perserverence and a never say quit attitude he went on to be a strong business man who injected great inventions into the world and became President of the United States.
Hard work and Perserverence.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
So fugu thinks people who're in thankless jobs due to their "ugh, school sucks so I ain't studyin' no classes" attitude are mentally disabled? Hrm. Could be.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, that there are many homeless people out there who have mental problems which prevent them from being able to take advantage of the opportunities out there.
Luckily, most homelessness is transitory, but one of the big reasons for that is our social safety net. Without that net, it can be extraordinarily hard to find a place to live, get to work, and be able to eat while one is busy getting back on one's feet.
Also, a disturbingly large number of the homeless have at least some college education.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
That's wonderful, but what has it to do with the unemployment rate, really? Are you suggesting that the majority of people making up the rank and file of the unemployed are homeless, too?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you'll find that, at least, most of the homeless are jobless. Based on statistics I've seen, around 10% of the jobless are homeless. That's quite a lot.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
So, 10% of what, 7%? 8%?
Wow, that's a pandemic.
What my wife was trying to say is that the majority of people who complain about their jobs (or lack thereof) have it within their power to study and improve themselves. If they don't, it's because they chose not to.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Angie speaks again: "Illegal immigrants come to the US, no diploma, can't speak English, have no work permit, and after a few years they're building their little houses, bit by bit, trying to make the best of it. Then I stop my truck by a white homeless guy begging food at the expressway and tell him to hop in, I'll pay him $35 for cutting my grass and so forth, and he refuses. Yeah, sounds like mental retardation to me."
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)