I'm not sure exactly how to phrase this, but it seems to me that the conversation about the deficit that we're having right now as the primary economic concern is wrong-headed and likely politically motivated.
Sure, banks and the stock market are doing fine, but our economy is still suffering from at least two major crises, unemployment and the housing market. I don't think that the latter is something that we can do all that much about, other than make it worse, but the former seems like something that we really should be focusing on. And yet, at least to me, it seems like it has slid right off the radar.
It seems to me like the Democrats have, on the whole, failed in their attempts at job creation and the smart Republicans are seeing that giving companies more money, absent demand to fuel them hiring people to me it, leads to those companies keeping that money. Neither side wants to talk about unemployment, because then people would expect them to do something about it. Thus, isn't it great that they have the deficit and ways to reduce it to fight over?
---
This feels more like a blog post than a discussion starter. Sorry about that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Politicians are like magicians, "Look over here!" while the truth escapes behind a false door, never to be revealed, and the audience gasps, and says, where are our results?
Personally, I don't find it reasonable to expect help from our "representatives", but then again, I'm not a big fan.
I mean, they vote for laws that they don't read, when they vote at all, that is. We can't get a line item veto passed, and special interest groups openly bribe them.
Their fighting over ideology is the flash of light they need to distract us, and blame each other for their lack of actual progress.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jobs are a trailing indicator, so they already tend to lag other parts of the economy.
Add to that how entrepreneurs are the biggest source of jobs in the economy, combined with how many of the efforts to "fix" problems with "wall street" also squash the growth of new companies (SarbOx, the more recent financial reform bill, some of the possible up and coming tax code changes that are causing uncertainty, along with the general air of "we haven't stuck it to the companies enough"), and you've got a recipe for stagnant job growth. Companies aren't going for IPO until they're much larger, nowadays, and a lot of startup companies that would formerly be eager to begin in the US for the networking possibilities are now choosing to launch outside the US.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is there a way to really fix the job market without forcing Americans to take a hit to the wallet? We've lost a lot of manufacturing jobs because it's so expensive to make things here in the US.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Is there a way to really fix the job market without forcing Americans to take a hit to the wallet? We've lost a lot of manufacturing jobs because it's so expensive to make things here in the US.
Things being made more cheaply elsewhere means they're also available more cheaply here, effectively increasing the income of Americans. There is no limited stock of jobs that gets depleted; as we become better at doing something and automate it more, fewer people are involved in that endeavor (assuming there's still demand). This frees up people to be involved in other endeavors. That's what happened with making toothpicks, that's what happened with washing clothes, that's what happened with making lightbulbs, and that's what happened with industrial manufacturing. We're still the most productive manufacturing nation in the world per manufacturing job and per capita, and we're just barely not the largest by output (China's first, just barely, and they have rather more workers). What's more, a large portion of the value add from manufacturing that's being done in SE Asia is being captured by the US firms that are driving it -- that is, when a factory makes a lot of iPhones, that gets counted as manufacturing income for them . . . but it's a heck of a lot more income for Apple.
Trying to "fix" the job market by somehow forcing or enticing jobs that it doesn't make sense for Americans to do any more back to the US would make Americans take a hit to the wallet. Then there's the downside of how it wouldn't work. Luckily, there are much easier ways to improve the job market: simplify the legal situation for new businesses; lower corporate income taxes; subsidize effective, cheap vocational education.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Things being made more cheaply elsewhere means they're also available more cheaply here, effectively increasing the income of Americans.
I'm not sure that really holds true, fugu. Detroit is a ghost town now because automobile manufacturing was moved overseas (and other reasons, sure); at least that's how it looks to me. If jobs that we had are gone, it doesn't matter how much goods cost because we don't have the money to buy them.
quote:simplify the legal situation for new businesses; lower corporate income taxes; subsidize effective, cheap vocational education
Well...I grant you two of three. Are corporate income taxes so high that they're greatly burdening companies' ability to hire and expand their workforce?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:when a factory makes a lot of iPhones, that gets counted as manufacturing income for them . . . but it's a heck of a lot more income for Apple.
Does that income necessarily translate into more American jobs, though? Granted, its more capital for the owners of the company.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: ... at least two major crises, unemployment and the housing market. I don't think that the latter is something that we can do all that much about, other than make it worse, but the former seems like something that we really should be focusing on.
Personally, I wouldn't really think of the latter as a problem, rather an opportunity Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:We're still the most productive manufacturing nation in the world per manufacturing job and per capita, and we're just barely not the largest by output (China's first, just barely, and they have rather more workers).
How are we the highest per manufacturing job and they have rather more workers? That seems to me to be a very conflicted statement. Please explain?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
My narrative is somewhat different to fugu's. While regulatory burden and uncertainty presumably have some effect, by far the major factor behind the slow fall of unemployment is a lack of demand. This is especially true in the housing market, and there is an associated extremely high unemployment rate among construction workers.
With US bond prices what they are and unemployment what it is, one might expect talk of more government stimulus. However, the deficit and public opinion being what it is, this option is unfeasible. As the government is not going to do anything about unemployment, it makes no sense to talk about unemployment (beyond pointing out things the other side is advocating that might worsen the situation).
MrS, the numbers I've seen indicate that the Dems were basically on the money in terms of number of jobs created by the stimulus. Where they failed at was predicting how bad unemployment would actually be.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
On a personal experience level, my dad's company has hired almost 25 people in the last year.
On a national level, the unemployment rate in March fell to the lowest point in two years.
In other words, whence the headline? It is getting less attention because it is, in fact, getting better, and as fugu said, it is a trailing indicator.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The reason it is still important to talk about is that we are in danger of stopping the things that are working. People tend, when things don't work immediately, to think that they don't work at all and stop doing them too soon. This is still the wrong time to make drastic spending cuts.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
It is still a huge problem. Consider the following: - by historical standards the current unemployment rate is extremely high. It is almost mind-boggling that the rate can be so high and it not be at the center of every conversation. - the drop in unemployment rate is partially aided by people simply giving up looking for a job. If things improve they will try again, so the scale of improvements seen is somewhat illusory. - even with the improvements in employment being overstated as just described, at the current rate it will take ages to return to a "healthy" unemployment rate.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
As someone who associates with teachers and NASA workers, the economy still seems to be in the gutter. Just about everyone I know is terrified. Many are unemployed or waiting for the news. For me, it seems like the unemployment rate is all that is talked about.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:We're still the most productive manufacturing nation in the world per manufacturing job and per capita, and we're just barely not the largest by output (China's first, just barely, and they have rather more workers).
How are we the highest per manufacturing job and they have rather more workers? That seems to me to be a very conflicted statement. Please explain?
Because a per capita basis takes into account things like efficiency, productivity, management techniques, training, education and the equipment in the factories and how things are produced. Also services.
Thus China is more inefficient on a per capita basis because precisely becausse they employ more workers for the same output, if they could produce more for less like the USA than its a different story.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: - the drop in unemployment rate is partially aided by people simply giving up looking for a job. If things improve they will try again, so the scale of improvements seen is somewhat illusory. - even with the improvements in employment being overstated as just described, at the current rate it will take ages to return to a "healthy" unemployment rate.
These two, especially the former (the way we measure the unemployment rate is only slightly less bollocks than the way we measure the poverty rate)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Things being made more cheaply elsewhere means they're also available more cheaply here, effectively increasing the income of Americans.
I'm not sure that really holds true, fugu. Detroit is a ghost town now because automobile manufacturing was moved overseas (and other reasons, sure); at least that's how it looks to me. If jobs that we had are gone, it doesn't matter how much goods cost because we don't have the money to buy them.
quote:simplify the legal situation for new businesses; lower corporate income taxes; subsidize effective, cheap vocational education
Well...I grant you two of three. Are corporate income taxes so high that they're greatly burdening companies' ability to hire and expand their workforce?
Re: Detroit, it doesn't work that way at a local city level, certainly. But I think you'll find that for a large proportion of Detroit's population it did work that way -- after the automobile jobs declined, they moved (there are some serious social justice issues relating to who is able to move, but at a macro scale the narrative's fairly accurate). Again, this has happened before. Take a tour through the upstate New York area sometime and peruse the many formerly much larger cities involved in industries like film photography.
I'm not saying there's no pain associated with the creative destruction of changing industries. I'm saying that's ultimately the path of least pain, and that people really do find jobs (or rather, the periods of unemployment are largely uncorrelated with whether there's an industry losing jobs or not; unemployment was quite low during most of Detroit's decline). The history of this country (and the world) is a history of entire industries being devastated over and over again, and that's always going to happen. Acting like jobs that no longer make sense can somehow be "protected" in a way that isn't a net loss is misunderstanding history.
Regarding the second, our corporate income taxes are a bit high (compared to international norms), and more importantly, corporate income taxes don't really make much sense (from an economic standpoint). Corporations deal with vast sums of money, but almost entirely as a mechanism to distribute it among people working for them and making things they use and so forth. There's a huge industry dedicated to avoiding corporate income taxes because the question of how to arrange them is so complicated, creating a big barrier to entry (if you aren't as good with tax structuring as a competitor, you could go out of business, despite being better at your manufacturing of the same product), lots of lobbying opportunities, and a bunch of other things that don't make much sense. The main reason corporate income taxes exist is because taxing corporations makes people feel like they're hitting "somebody else", even though the impact of corporate income taxes falls disproportionately on the poor and middle class, and is felt by the population as a whole. The money needs to be raised, but it could be raised much more efficiently and with fewer negative externalities through personal income taxes (without actually costing anyone money in the equilibrium state; I think corporate income taxes should be phased out gradually over a decade).
quote:Does that income necessarily translate into more American jobs, though? Granted, its more capital for the owners of the company.
Certainly; Apple employs tens of thousands in the US, many of them related to the iPhone (half their revenue comes from the iPhone and closely related things), with pretty good wages even at their retail stores (which aren't that high a percentage of the employees).
quote:My narrative is somewhat different to fugu's. While regulatory burden and uncertainty presumably have some effect, by far the major factor behind the slow fall of unemployment is a lack of demand. This is especially true in the housing market, and there is an associated extremely high unemployment rate among construction workers.
The housing market was drastically overheated by a things like the mortgage interest deduction and overly low interest rates. It isn't surprising that construction is one of the worst job markets. There just isn't call for that many construction workers in the US, generally speaking. Many will have to (and are) go into other industries.
Low demand is definitely a factor, though demand's picking up a lot in many industries. Not much in construction, but that's because we have a heck of a lot of houses on and waiting to go on the market.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This frees up people to be involved in other endeavors.
I'm not sure which sectors are currently hurting for employees right now. Which ones did you have in mind?
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
Microsoft to jack up employee salaries
Fears of head hunting Software giant Microsoft is starting to boost its employee's salaries in a bid to stop a huge brain drain.
Apparently competition from younger businesses like Google and Facebook has prompted the firm to significantly improve salary deals for many junior and mid-level workers. Some this included shifting some of their compensation from shares to wages.
Silicon Valley outfits are starting a huge hiring spree. Lots of young talent is being tempted by corporate head hunters. Chief executive Steve Ballmer has apparently told employees compensation will be increased for staff 'where the market has moved the most.' This is junior and mid-level workers in research and development, and all mid-level employees in certain areas.
quote:This frees up people to be involved in other endeavors.
I'm not sure which sectors are currently hurting for employees right now. Which ones did you have in mind?
I've read a lot of reports that say that we're at the very beginning of what is going to be a talent shortage over the next couple decades. Many employers who are hiring are looking for high tech workers, and simply can't find them, and that's increasingly going to be the case in the decades to come unless we start graduating more computer programmers and the like from colleges.
My own field is so damned specific and glutted with excess qualified workers that I'm not exactly holding my breath on finding my dream job, but, I think I'll be fine when push comes to shove. Too many humanities graduates out there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Many employers who are hiring are looking for high tech workers, and simply can't find them...
Call me cynical, but when I see this particular headline when Republicans are in charge of Congress, I immediately assume that Silicon Valley wants more cheap labor through H1 visas again.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Cheap overseas manufacturing and the tech infrastructure to allow many jobs to be performed overseas is great for transferring wealth across borders and making money for the top one percent, but ultimately it's crushing us. No matter how cheap manufactured goods get, they're still too expensive for someone without income. The American economy is in the process of destroying the consumer base that drives it.
In the long run, we may have new consumer bases as income levels even out and new markets emerge in the places they're now drawing labor. Whether there will be something identifiable as a strong base of American business still existant when such a thing comes about is another matter.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To Sterling...great post.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I'm not sure which sectors are currently hurting for employees right now. Which ones did you have in mind?
If you'll check out the rest of the post, you'll see I note that at times employment might be worse -- but that it doesn't have anything in particular to do with industry shifts (which often happen during times of low unemployment, too), but with larger economic factors.
I'm only arguing the movement into other jobs happens at least long term, even if at some times it happens short term.
Of course, some of the jobs are in the companies that would be going public if recent regulations hadn't made companies not want to go public until they were several times larger .
quote:Cheap overseas manufacturing and the tech infrastructure to allow many jobs to be performed overseas is great for transferring wealth across borders and making money for the top one percent, but ultimately it's crushing us. No matter how cheap manufactured goods get, they're still too expensive for someone without income. The American economy is in the process of destroying the consumer base that drives it.
In the long run, we may have new consumer bases as income levels even out and new markets emerge in the places they're now drawing labor. Whether there will be something identifiable as a strong base of American business still existant when such a thing comes about is another matter.
Strangely, this basic assertion been levied at the US job market since our founding as our dependence on agriculture was starting to decline. It is based on the extremely faulty assumption that some subset of jobs is somehow the "base" of the economy, without understanding that the core of the economy constantly changes. Just like someone from 300 years ago thought the idea of an economy founded on manufacturing was poppycock and was wrong, this view is wrong.
quote:No matter how cheap manufactured goods get, they're still too expensive for someone without income. The American economy is in the process of destroying the consumer base that drives it.
In particular, this at worst silly fearmongering, and at best a badly phrased argument for an increase in social safety nets (which, I note, I support greatly). We can measure the impact of cheaper goods on effective income, and it is dramatic. Cheaper food, clothing and manufactured goods of other kinds (and by cheaper we're talking about decreases in price of 50%, 90%, or more in many cases) have made poor people much, much better off even when there have been slight drops in income as figured by CPI adjustment (which generally does not give much weight to those goods, despite the high percentage of income they take up for poor people).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I can not speak as well or likely as knowledgeably on the topic as fugu but I can say how this particular aspect, sending tech jobs overseas, affected me.
I am drafter, I got a temporary job with a semiconductor corporation to make drawings of possible new layouts of their test floor. I completed the task set before me in about two weeks. I was taken under the wing of a mechanical engineer, in charge of care and upgrading the testers. From time to time I was pulled from his tasks to modify plans so big wigs could decide if reconfiguring slightly differently would effect cost efficiency.
In my time there I got two engineers, two supervisors and a manager all excited about my joining their team.
I was let go. A corporate VP had told my supporters in no uncertain terms that "I don't care if he is amazing, and does a job that is needed and works well in the team, there is no position to be had."
Two months later the entire operation was shut down and sent overseas. I guess my drawings showed that modernization would be more expensive then simply packing everything up and shipping halfway around the world.
I guess the American people can now purchase semiconductors at a slightly less expensive price, but to me personally and my friends who lost their jobs, this was hardly a good thing.
I wonder if the corporation had been owned by a single flesh and blood person instead of nameless faceless shareholders that thousands of people loosing their jobs would not have been preferred to saving a bit on production costs.
I know if they had asked us, we would all have taken a pay cut.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:simplify the legal situation for new businesses; lower corporate income taxes; subsidize effective, cheap vocational education
Well...I grant you two of three. Are corporate income taxes so high that they're greatly burdening companies' ability to hire and expand their workforce?
Not from what information I've seen. Tax planning and loopholes mean that at least the larger corporations, for example Microsoft, pay something like 1%. Effectively nothing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
fugu:
Thanks for a well-reasoned and informed argument. I may not always agree with your conclusions, but it's never a trial talking with you about them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:simplify the legal situation for new businesses; lower corporate income taxes; subsidize effective, cheap vocational education
Well...I grant you two of three. Are corporate income taxes so high that they're greatly burdening companies' ability to hire and expand their workforce?
Not from what information I've seen. Tax planning and loopholes mean that at least the larger corporations, for example Microsoft, pay something like 1%. Effectively nothing.
From what I understand, that is part of the problem. There's an enormous difference between the nominal corporate tax rates and what many companies pay. The corporate tax code is full of exemptions, deductions, credits, etc.
This constitutes a large barrier to entry for new businesses that are not as able to take advantage of them and so pay a comparatively much higher tax rate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:On a national level, the unemployment rate in March fell to the lowest point in two years.
In other words, whence the headline? It is getting less attention because it is, in fact, getting better, and as fugu said, it is a trailing indicator.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment numbers have dropped, but several measures of real unemployment and especially underemployment that I'm aware of don't show anything like this corresponding drop.
Jobs are a trailing indicator, no question about that. Historically, it can take many months for it to reflect the upward swing in the economy. Right now, we're talking about almost 2 years. There's a reason we've been talking about a jobless recovery for the part two years.
If the Democrats had good reason to expect that the unemployment numbers are going to make huge improvements soon, they've have very little to worry about come 2012 and I'd expect them to be setting themselves up to reap the benefits of "saving" the economy. As I said in my initial post, I find it very troubling that instead of them trying to milk that biggest of political cows for all it is worth, they're not talking about it at all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tax Cuts do not directly link to more hires.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This frees up people to be involved in other endeavors.
I'm not sure which sectors are currently hurting for employees right now. Which ones did you have in mind?
From my personal experience the high tech job market is absolutely warming up. And I'm not talking about development and support jobs that can be performed in India.
We're looking to hire 5 or 6 people on both coasts and in EMEA and are having a tough time finding them. Plenty of folks with a pulse, but many of the highly qualified people seem to be happily employed. I'm not claiming this is statistically relevant by any stretch, but I am hearing the same thing from many of my peers as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Fugu--you offer a fine Macroeconomic argument why unemployment is not to be scared of at this time.
However, it is in the Micro-economic realm that politically, the noise will be made.
Sure, losing 10,000 jobs here may result in 7,000, or 10,000 or even 12,000 jobs somewhere else, but that somewhere else requires a person to pick up and move to that somewhere else.
More importantly, it requires that person to be trained on how to perform that job.
But job training is being cut in all this budget balancing fever.
And if Joe-Co needs 10,000 new employees, it will get them locally, or its almost the same to ship them in from overseas if they work cheaper, than it is to pay moving expenses from another state.
The new jobs being created have so far been in one of two fields--High Tech requiring specialized degrees that take years to master, and thousands of dollars to pay for, or by minimum wage/part time service jobs which leave one in the realm of poverty.
Trading down in income is common from people forced to trade jobs.
Before in this country we had a way of handling Macro-economic shifts with a maximum of efficiency and a minimum of pain. It was the safety net. Yet as we are in the midst of this economic downturn we continue to cut at those strands of the safety net.
I am not talking a Welfare-State where people remain asking for money for life. I am referring to the welfare programs that help people get from one place in their lives to another--to leave when their 10,000 jobs disappear, and be prepared and on site where the new 10,000 jobs appear.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I said nothing about not being scared of the lack of jobs, I simply explained some of the aspects of the current lack of jobs. Seeing emotions seems to have clouded your reading of what I said (which included several statements about how the federal government was acting in ways that I felt should be changed to improve job growth).
I find my own current lack of job somewhat scary, even though I'm doing pretty well with the social safety net of unemployment (btw, anyone hiring in Seattle?).
Most of the rest of the post you're just making up things that aren't actually true, because they feel true to you. And to an extent that's fine, but it isn't fine to the extent you're mistaking them for actual facts.
quote:And if Joe-Co needs 10,000 new employees, it will get them locally, or its almost the same to ship them in from overseas if they work cheaper, than it is to pay moving expenses from another state.
In the large majority of cases false. Very few jobs are balanced on that cusp.
quote:The new jobs being created have so far been in one of two fields--High Tech requiring specialized degrees that take years to master, and thousands of dollars to pay for, or by minimum wage/part time service jobs which leave one in the realm of poverty.
Ridiculously false. Even if the current change in distribution is worrying to you, it makes this nowhere near a reality.
quote:Before in this country we had a way of handling Macro-economic shifts with a maximum of efficiency and a minimum of pain. It was the safety net. Yet as we are in the midst of this economic downturn we continue to cut at those strands of the safety net.
Nonsense. The biggest shifts have always been extremely painful, and often made a lot more painful by government intervention (including a lot of attempts to use government intervention to "help", like gasoline quotas in the oil crises).
As for welfare programs that help people between jobs going away, I think you'll find that the amount of government investment in such programs per person unemployed was considerably expanded during the past few years. Unemployment was extended for many months, lots of money has been funneled to retraining of (among others) autoworkers, et cetera. You're saying the support system went away, but that's directly opposed by the facts.
That said, I'm generally supportive of extensive retraining support; I think that would work nicely with efforts to revitalize the community college program.
(btw, thanks Scott)
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Fugu, there's a question I've been meaning to ask you that relates to some of this stuff.
I tend to agree with your view (as I understand it) that the best way to construct a welfare state is to tax top earners and pay something like a guaranteed income to those below the poverty line. Just straightforwardly redistribute wealth. But that sort of thing is politically impossible in the present-day environment. What do you think is the next best alternative that could actually be implemented in America?
FWIW, I agree with Scott that you tend to strike an admirable balance of substance and civility.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The housing problem feeds into the job problem. When you are upside down on the house, it is hard to move to were the jobs are.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I tend to agree with your view (as I understand it) that the best way to construct a welfare state is to tax top earners and pay something like a guaranteed income to those below the poverty line. Just straightforwardly redistribute wealth. But that sort of thing is politically impossible in the present-day environment. What do you think is the next best alternative that could actually be implemented in America?
It isn't quite as infeasible as it might seem, though I agree no politician will get anywhere framing it as directly or approaching it as wholeheartedly as I'd like; we already pay especially poor people for no other reason than their being poor and having a job, through what's called the Earned Income Credit (which is increased for things like having kids). So, one of my preferred steps would be expanding that to whatever extent is politically feasible (and I think at least some expansion would be considered reasonable).
I view simplification of the tax code as one of the other most important steps towards reform. Right now, interactions between different provisions of tax law are extreme and result in very disparate tax rates between people at similar true income levels. It also makes it much harder to estimate the effects of other tax moves, and causes far too much kerfluffle for a month or so a year. I'd start by removing almost all deductions in the tax code and reducing the stated rates so that the actual overall rate is revenue neutral. That's a starting point to moving in other directions with a tax code. Then I'd probably try for a VAT (or rough equivalent; not a sales tax, as sales taxes cause severe collection problems).
Then I'd tweak the tax rates upwards some, a little more on the high end, and reduce spending in a number of places in ways that I don't have the knowledge to fully assess. Some military cuts, definitely, but nowhere near the extent many would like; our military is a far more important asset in my opinion than many rate it (including some who don't want its funding cut for other reasons). Many of those cuts would be in programs that are providing valuable services to people, but that is unavoidable. I would replace all parts of cut programs providing social safety nets to the poorest with increases in the most direct programs available, hopefully the EIC. I think that could be done (though not at all that it would be easy).
I'd remove the cap on social security and medicare taxes and lower the rates to be revenue neutral, and I'd means test benefits recipients.
While I'd prefer another system, I'd throw up my hands and implement single payer insurance, which I feel is both within political reach in the near future and a darn sight better than the current system or the system coming in (keeping insurance tied to employers is a disaster).
I'd take a long, hard look at federal education loan programs. Right now, they're funding a gigantic expansion that's actually creating a large burden on the middle class (and, in a disturbingly increasing number of cases, many poorer people). Some loan programs are important to making school affordable, but the system we have now is doing more to funnel large sums into the coffers of universities. I would definitely focus on expanding community college programs (in forms of encouragement to states; I think the federal government should stay out of many parts of educational policy, at least beyond loose encouragement).
I should emphasize that it wouldn't just be the rich paying in my ideal system (note: the rest of the post isn't talking about my ideal system, but my at least vaguely realistic initial moves in the current system). The upper middle class would bear a fairly severe tax burden as well; there's really no way to do it by just taxing the rich to an extreme degree without having an extremely counterproductive system. However, I think the upper middle class's ability to pay is very tolerable. Of course, there'd also be the higher gasoline tax (I vaguely suspect somewhere in an extra $3/gallon range, based on estimates of gas's many externalities, though phased in very gradually), which would hopefully start the long, slow process of reshaping the middle class to a category of city residents rather than suburb residents (the vast expansion of suburbs being one of America's biggest mistakes). Of course, part of that gasoline "tax" (though not the majority, since most of gasoline's externalities aren't from carbon) would be due to carbon permits from cap and trade.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Strangely, this basic assertion been levied at the US job market since our founding as our dependence on agriculture was starting to decline. It is based on the extremely faulty assumption that some subset of jobs is somehow the "base" of the economy, without understanding that the core of the economy constantly changes. Just like someone from 300 years ago thought the idea of an economy founded on manufacturing was poppycock and was wrong, this view is wrong.
Equally surprising, saying something is wrong, no matter how patronizing the tone, is not an argument.
Of course the economy changes. This is somewhat like saying that the tides go in and out. But sometimes the tides go in and out and make nice little waves, and sometimes the tides come in and when they leave the house is gone. On a global scale economy will probably equal out in time, but when it does, there's no compelling argument- certainly no argument in anything you say- that what remains will be anything like the relative prosperity we see in America today.
So, all right, three hundred years ago, the economic base was agriculture. Today, individual farmers are all but gone. It's a lousy time to be a farmer.
But there was a transition. After World War II, the United States had some of the best manufacturing infrastructure in the world, a host of wartime products ready to be repurposed, and a whole lot of people ready to seek training and education in manufacturing.
Now manufacturing is going everywhere it's cheaper. So are a lot of the call-center and technical jobs, the ones that suggested that the Internet was going to be our salvation.
The suggestions I've heard as to where employment is going to be growing now are laughable. The service industry? How many people do the top 20% need to "serve" them?
Even between the relatively short period between 1983 and 2007, the top 20% of the United States have gone from having about 81% of the net worth to 85%.
The "faulty assumption" here is that there can be something out of nothing: that the lack of financial solvency can be made up for by making things cheaper, even while those who sell those goods pocket much of the difference.
If there is no income, there is no consumer. That is the problem. Fail to address that problem, you have nothing.
quote:In particular, this at worst silly fearmongering, and at best a badly phrased argument for an increase in social safety nets (which, I note, I support greatly). We can measure the impact of cheaper goods on effective income, and it is dramatic. Cheaper food, clothing and manufactured goods of other kinds (and by cheaper we're talking about decreases in price of 50%, 90%, or more in many cases) have made poor people much, much better off even when there have been slight drops in income as figured by CPI adjustment (which generally does not give much weight to those goods, despite the high percentage of income they take up for poor people).
Unless the cost of goods can be brought below zero, they remain too expensive for someone with an income of zero. One can shell-game it out with welfare programs, but those programs don't describe income in any real way.
In 2011, the US Department of Agriculture predicts our use corn, soybeans, and wheat will exceed our production. In the wake of rising petroleum prices, cheap imports are unlikely to provide a simple panacea.
Cheap goods are not wealth. Like credit (a point worth mentioning as the bottom 90% is also shelving about three-quarters of the debt), they provide an illusion of affluence. The foundations of those illusions are giving way.
Now if I dress up these comments with a few more aspersions about "silly fear mongering" and "poppycock", will it make it more convincing?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: One can shell-game it out with welfare programs, but those programs don't describe income in any real way.
Generally, income from welfare programs isn't taxable. But it is income and has to be reported to the CRA/IRS just like any other income.
The fact of the matter is, if welfare recipients were forced to buy domestically produced goods, it would be a massive increase in prices and in hardship.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Unless the cost of goods can be brought below zero, they remain too expensive for someone with an income of zero. One can shell-game it out with welfare programs, but those programs don't describe income in any real way.
Is this supposed to be the argument?
(1) Unless goods cost nothing, they're too expensive for someone with zero income.
(2) Welfare recipients have zero "real" income.
(3) So even cheap goods are too expensive for welfare recipients.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Lowering the price of goods (in and of itself) does not help our lack of jobs problem. Welfare/unemployment are a stop gap, and while cheaper goods stretch those dollars further, if part of the price of those inexpensive goods is a lack of jobs, it is self defeating.
I'm sure the owners of companies who ship jobs overseas are enjoying increased profits, but that doesn't help most people.
quote:In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[13]
I think it's important to separate the two problems, since it is the case that as you point out that the richest 1% of Americans are picking up most of the gains from overseas employment (as opposed to Chinese people), then thats an increase in American income.
So America doesn't actually have an income problem, real or not. Your GDP is still growing.
What you're highlighting with your statistics is a distribution problem, as in the lower classes aren't getting a fair share of that growth in income.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I never said anything about an "American income problem", I'm saying outsourcing jobs is causing a lack of jobs here, which contributes to "a distribution problem", instead of helping us poor folk by giving us cheap wears as you said.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Outsourcing isn't causing a lack of jobs in the US. If anything, it's supporting whatever growth of jobs there are in the US. Take one of the recent major growth stories in the US, Apple. Imagine if Apple had to make every iPad it sold in the US.
The price of the iPad would soar and Samsung, RIM, HTC, or any number of competitors would undercut them dramatically. Apple would go out of business and their American workers would be totally out of luck.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Lowering the price of goods (in and of itself) does not help our lack of jobs problem. Welfare/unemployment are a stop gap, and while cheaper goods stretch those dollars further, if part of the price of those inexpensive goods is a lack of jobs, it is self defeating.
Why does it have to be a stopgap? Aside from anti-"welfare mom" sloganeering, what's wrong with people being on welfare or unemployment for long periods of time?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Mucus...there is an assumption in your post, that to manufacture things here in America must drive the end price of the products up.
A company which operates with a lower profit margin (that is, to it's shareholders), or who pays its executives less (as well as other cuts) can still produce cost effective products in the US.
Destineer...nothing is implicitly wrong with it (I am on unemployment) but it is hardly a long term solution to a lack of quality jobs in this country.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:what's wrong with people being on welfare or unemployment for long periods of time?
Because it's bad for their children. Unless raising kids to be dependent and poor is a goal. Parents on welfare are more likely to have their children grown up to do the same. The cycle of poverty is not something to voluntarily perpetuate.
Maybe it has to be said: it sucks to be poor. It's bad for health, it's bad for relationships, it's bad for longevity, it's bad for education, and it's bad for reported happiness. Welfare, in all its forms, can keep body and soul together, but it isn't a good place to stay. It is a totally understandable resting place sometimes - life happens. But the goal should always be to get out of it when you can.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Aside from anti-"welfare mom" sloganeering, what's wrong with people being on welfare or unemployment for long periods of time?
Cost?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
quote: Cost?
Negligeable compared to the cost of keeping uncompetitive industries alive through bailouts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wrong. Medicaid alone is orders of magnitude larger than the cost at even the height of the bailouts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Had I children, I would rather raise them to believe that society was cooperative and that the strong had an obligation to share that strength with the weak than raise them hungry, insecure and uneducated.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Parents on welfare are more likely to have their children grown up to do the same.
But is that causal relationship rather than coincidental? If someone is on welfare, it may be because they live in area with little work or opportunity for mobility. Children that grow up in this area will likely need welfare as well, but because of the work and mobility issues, not because their parents had welfare.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'd rather teach my children of their obligations to help others and how to do that and how to take care of themselves than teach them to beg and try to get others to take care of them. I wouldn't want to tell my kids they are weak.
quote:If someone is on welfare, it may be because they live in area with little work or opportunity for mobility. Children that grow up in this area will likely need welfare as well, but because of the work and mobility issues, not because their parents had welfare.
What causes poverty is a huge area of thought and controversy, so there isn't an easy answer to it, but there's no question poverty is correlated strongly with all sorts of bad results. Whatever may cause poverty, there's no question that by every measure of happiness, people are better off out of it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Mucus...there is an assumption in your post, that to manufacture things here in America must drive the end price of the products up.
Obviously. If it was cheaper to manufacture things in the US, they would already be doing it. Companies don't outsource for no reason.
As for cutting CEO pay or returns on capital, I don't see why they would want to do that just to manufacture in the US.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Destineer...nothing is implicitly wrong with it (I am on unemployment) but it is hardly a long term solution to a lack of quality jobs in this country.
I don't know, I kind of agree with the laissez-faire perspective on this question. If there is work that needs doing, there will eventually be jobs available. If not, why waste time and effort creating needless jobs?
This doesn't apply perfectly to present-day America, where our infrastructure is so badly degraded that there's plenty of work that needs doing. But my point is that in principle, "job creation" is sort of an artificial goal. Instead our goal should be wealth creation, plus a fairly even distribution of that wealth.
quote:Because it's bad for their children. Unless raising kids to be dependent and poor is a goal. Parents on welfare are more likely to have their children grown up to do the same. The cycle of poverty is not something to voluntarily perpetuate.
Maybe it has to be said: it sucks to be poor. It's bad for health, it's bad for relationships, it's bad for longevity, it's bad for education, and it's bad for reported happiness. Welfare, in all its forms, can keep body and soul together, but it isn't a good place to stay. It is a totally understandable resting place sometimes - life happens. But the goal should always be to get out of it when you can.
I agree that being poor is itself bad for people. But being out of work is not intrinsically bad. (Except for those people who really like to work.)
I think we should reform our social welfare system so that people who are out of work don't thereby become poor.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The suggestions I've heard as to where employment is going to be growing now are laughable. The service industry? How many people do the top 20% need to "serve" them?
I don't think you understand how broad the term service industry is. People designing new technologies are in a service industry. Educators are in a service industry. Doctors are in a service industry. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The service sector is over 50% of the economy in developing countries, and is one of the primary growth drivers.
In the US, over 78% of the economy is in the service sector (useful fact: that's a higher amount per person employed in the service sector than it is per person employed in the manufacturing sector; each service job contributes, on average, more to the economy, even though the only manufacturing jobs we have left are superskilled high productivity ones). Also, we haven't ceded our spot in manufacturing: We're still the best at manufacturing things in the world, and only by employing more people in manufacturing than are employed in any job at all in the entire US does China barely produce more total goods than us. We just don't need very many people to perform that manufacturing, because we're so extremely efficient at it. Putting people to work at manufacturing the sorts of things the rest of the world is more efficient at manufacturing would be consigning even more of the US to poverty (as the value added on such goods just isn't high enough to support even the amount of income handed out by the US government for free to someone working a part time minimum wage job).
Again, your argument is exactly what people argued about the transition from agriculture to manufacture. That how many people did you really need to manufacture things, since what people needed could in most cases be made for themselves? Given the huge evidence that most of the economy can be employed in the service sector, because it is, your argument that the service sector can't be large enough is very strange.
quote:Cheap goods are not wealth.
Yeah, they are, kind of definitionally. The value of money is only defined to the extent you can purchase things you want with it, since it is not something inherently wantable (unlike other goods, and ignoring the tiny amount it is wantable to collectors). If goods become cheaper, and the notional amount of income for people who want those goods remains the same, those people have become better off. Saying it doesn't work that way is a gross misunderstanding of what money is.
Wealth does not stem purely from manufacturing; manufacturing is certainly necessary for people to have things, but I think you'll find the people who manufacture things are more than willing to trade the things they manufacture for lots of other things that aren't manufactured (including the plans to manufacture better things, since most of that plan making is done in the service sector nowadays). The reason I think you'll find it? Because that's what already happens. You're arguing a view that is entirely dissonant with what's already here!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But being out of work is not intrinsically bad.
I actually disagree with this. People who work longer in retirement are healthier. I honestly don't believe that people are wired to be happy being dependent. Not that a horrid job makes life great, but there is a satisfaction from being able to take care of yourself that can't be handed to someone.
All other things being equal (and they SO aren't), someone who feels they are contributing to the world and is able to take care of themself is going to be happier than someone who knows they can't. It isn't just better for everyone else when those people who can work do, it's better for the people themselves.
There have been all sorts of studies on the long-term unemployed in the past few years, and the out of work - even those on unemployment still - have worse health, worse relationships, and worse reported happiness. Being out of work is not the end of the world, but isn't neutral either. It definitely isn't good.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I suspect that the effects you describe are mostly the result of a culture that values "self-sufficiency" as an end in itself, rather than something built in to the human condition.
It's too bad we have this culture, and I think we should try to change it if we can.
Obviously people should have fulfilling things to do with their time. But why can't these things be hobbies or family pursuits?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Instead our goal should be wealth creation, plus a fairly even distribution of that wealth.
How would that work? For example, my wife starts a business using our house, live savings, etc as collateral. She works very hard establishing the business, doing constant market research, paying taxes, getting inspected, advertising, and on and on. After some years, the business grows enough to hire an employee. Again, the work load has not let up and she continues to work very very hard making the best business in the area. Eventually she is able to hire more and more employees, and after years and years of hard work, and risk mostly on her part, she is employing 25 people and making 7 digit income. What would be a fair redistribution of her income?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Depends on how much other people need in order to live in good health and relative happiness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I suspect that the effects you describe are mostly the result of a culture that values "self-sufficiency" as an end in itself, rather than something built in to the human condition.
It's too bad we have this culture, and I think we should try to change it if we can.
Obviously people should have fulfilling things to do with their time. But why can't these things be hobbies or family pursuits?
Whatever the reasons for the results, I suspect it is easier to help peole get back to work (retraining, etc.) than to fundamentally change the causes for it, especially when we don't even know the causes for it and they are very possibly/probably unchangeable.
It isn't like people being employed is a bad thing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Mucus...[sarcasm]your brilliant argument of "nu-uh" is stunning.
I now see the errors of my ways! [/sarcasm]
Sure the companies will not want to give up being a money making machine on the backs of their workers, but they should do it, as it is better for everyone. There is enough to go around, but greedy little bas*ards who horde the life blood of this country and drive it to its knees will not allow it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Sure the companies will not want to give up being a money making machine on the backs of their workers, but they should do it, as it is better for everyone.
But they won't. If you take away the incentive to build a business, people aren't going to risk themselves to build it anyway. Why should they? Why them? Why not the people who don't want to work and want other people to take care of them? You're killing the goose when you take too many of the eggs.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Depends on how much other people need in order to live in good health and relative happiness.
Can you expand on that? You can use today's economy for reference if that helps
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Whatever the reasons for the results, I suspect it is easier to help peole get back to work (retraining, etc.) than to fundamentally change the causes for it, especially when we don't even know the causes for it.
It isn't like people being employed is a bad thing.
It is if the jobs are bad ones, or if in order to create them you have to inefficiently "make work" that doesn't need to get done, thereby spending money that could be better spent in other ways.
I definitely have no problem with publicly-funded re-training and such, if there is demand for work. What I have a problem with is the artificial attempt to create work when there's no demand for it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Who said it was artificial? What makes a job "bad"? (Fast food? Farm jobs? Swing shift?) Should "bad" jobs even exist? If yes, who is it that is too good to take them?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Depends on how much other people need in order to live in good health and relative happiness.
Can you expand on that? You can use today's economy for reference if that helps
Well, in today's economy I would say that the minimum amount of top-bracket taxation needed to cover reasonable welfare programs is probably about what it was during the Clinton years. So (assuming your wife's income puts her in the top bracket) she should be taxed a little less than 40%.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ... but they should do it, as it is better for everyone.
Not only is it *not* better for *everyone*, but moralising is an especially poor mechanism for encouraging businesses to create more jobs in the US. The latter should be somewhat self-evident.
As to the former, American companies would be less competitive putting American jobs at risk. Giving poorer returns on capital would hurt people invested in those companies, which includes a large swath of American retirees and pension plans. It would also make it harder for them to raise capital to do well in the future. Obviously their foreign workers wouldn't be particularly happy either, which would have political ramifications as well.
Considering the lethargic state of the American economy, many American companies like GM are currently actually doing very well selling cars in China. Putting that at risk would seem to be counter-productive.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:But they won't. If you take away the incentive to build a business, people aren't going to risk themselves to build it anyway. Why should they? Why them? Why not the people who don't want to work and want other people to take care of them? You're killing the goose when you take too many of the eggs.
It becomes a question of how much is too many eggs. One percent of the people control a third of the money. Some imbalance is going on here.
Companies were not always money making machines ya know. Companies used to be run by families not stockholders, and could have "quality products", "taking good care of its employees" and "reasonable expansion" as its goals instead of being a giant ATM machine to guarantee the luxury to the nth generation of greedy people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Many still are, you know. In fact, most still are. The families running business will get caught in your take-the-wealth plan just as much as the stockholders.
And every person with a 401k is likely a stockholder.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not all stock holders...I'm talking about stockholders with enough stock to sway the policy here.
And yes, there are some evil greedy family run operations I'm sure.
My point is that taking good care of your workers, who are skilled and an asset to the company, is an end into itself.
It seems to me that more and more, companies are seeing its workers as a liability and not an asset.
Mucus...interesting points, I'm not ignoring you...just have some babies who need nap time at the moment.
More to come...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not just many, most. Most companies, by far, are very small companies.
And, of course, it has never been the case that there weren't large companies that concentrated wealth a lot, since the creation of the company, so you seem to be harkening back to a time that never existed, Stone_Wolf_. Since such large companies create much more wealth per person involved in the endeavor than small companies, this is overall a very good thing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Mucus...again, your "nu-huh" argument, isn't working very well for me.
Of course "moralizing" isn't an incentive to greedy/selfish people, it is to good ones though. Should we never discuss what is right and wrong?
quote:...American companies would be less competitive putting American jobs at risk...
I don't agree with the assumption here, as I made clear before.
quote:Giving poorer returns on capital would hurt people invested in those companies, which includes a large swath of American retirees and pension plans. It would also make it harder for them to raise capital to do well in the future.
There is a line when crossed where this becomes true. But I am suggesting that you need not undercut worker salaries to stay "in the black" in this regard.
quote:Obviously their foreign workers wouldn't be particularly happy either, which would have political ramifications as well.
This is a discussion of American jobs, I wonder if your nebulous "political ramifications" would be so overwhelming as to be influential compared to say...having a decent paying job.
quote:Considering the lethargic state of the American economy, many American companies like GM are currently actually doing very well selling cars in China. Putting that at risk would seem to be counter-productive.
Again, we are talking about American jobs, not income.
fugu13...Sure, there are more small companies then large ones, but the large ones have much more impact on jobs and make much more money, I'm pretty sure.
My point is that the vast majority of the profit created by corporations today is put into very very few hands, where as the ability to make those profits require very very many hands.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Who said it was artificial? What makes a job "bad"? (Fast food? Farm jobs? Swing shift?) Should no "bad" jobs even exist? If yes, who is it that is too good to take them?
A bad job is a job that's less beneficial to the worker than the time he/she spends on it. I don't have a very clear idea of exactly which jobs are bad, but my sense of it is that many of them are.
In an ideal world there would be robots to do them. In the actual world, someone has to do the ones that need doing (who gets these jobs will be decided by the market, I suppose), but we shouldn't be asking the government to create more of that kind of work.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Mucus...again, your "nu-huh" argument, isn't working very well for me.
This is the second time you've said that. I'm not sure what it even means. If your "solution" doesn't work, then I'm going to point out why.
quote:Of course "moralizing" isn't an incentive to greedy/selfish people, it is to good ones though. Should we never discuss what is right and wrong?
Only if it makes a difference. In this case, it really doesn't. American businesses don't operate in a vacuum. Even if you somehow succeed in your crusade to make American corporations more "moral" as you understand it, businesses from other countries will eat them alive. I'm really not seeing an upside here.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: How would that work? For example, my wife starts a business using our house, live savings, etc as collateral. She works very hard establishing the business, doing constant market research, paying taxes, getting inspected, advertising, and on and on. After some years, the business grows enough to hire an employee. Again, the work load has not let up and she continues to work very very hard making the best business in the area. Eventually she is able to hire more and more employees, and after years and years of hard work, and risk mostly on her part, she is employing 25 people and making 7 digit income. What would be a fair redistribution of her income?
Great "real life" example BTW...
She has earned through risk and hard work each of those seven digits of her income. But could she continue to make them without the help and hard work of those 25 people? So, set profit goals based on performance minus expenses, that is, if the company makes this much money, everyone gets this much bonus, and share a bit of her seven figures with the people who help make them.
Offer to pay for training for them, if they volunteer their time.
Offer stock bonuses for longevity for their loyal help.
All these things in the long run help her company, but also help her workers.
Mutual benefit is the only way to do business!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:fugu13...Sure, there are more small companies then large ones, but the large ones have much more impact on jobs and make much more money, I'm pretty sure.
My point is that the vast majority of the profit created by corporations today is put into very very few hands, where as the ability to make those profits require very very many hands.
As of 2004, there are 19 million firms that do not have employees -- almost all of those have just the owner, doing what they can, and making money from it. There are a bit under 6 million firms with employees, employing 115 million people total. Of those 115 million, only 42 million are employed at firms with 2,500 or more employees, and only 56 million at firms with 500 or more employees (inclusive of the previous statistic). In other words, smaller firms employ more people than larger firms, especially if you consider all the sole owner firms.
Keep in mind that firms don't pay employees out of profits. Employee pay is an expense before profits. Firms only make, on average, two to three percent profit (this is a very broad average). By far most of what firms take in, they pay out, and a large part of what they pay out is in payroll. Most employer firms, including many large firms, pay out more in payroll than they make in profit (unlike your assertion). Large firms (over 500) paid workers over 2.3 trillion dollars in payroll. Employer firms as a whole paid out over 4.2 trillion dollars in payroll.
But again, this sort of structure has always been the case since companies were created. There have always been obscenely large firms that capture large shares of wealth -- and then distribute those shares across a large number of people involved in the endeavor.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fascinating...where did you get your figures?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think almost all of what I cited in that post comes from here: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html . A bit of it is outside knowledge (like that most nonemployer firms are ones owned by individuals).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I'm not sure what it even means. If your "solution" doesn't work, then I'm going to point out why.
Perhaps I missed it, and if so I'm sorry, but it seems as if your arguments against what I have to say basically come down to the statement "you are wrong", or "nu-huh".
quote:Only if it makes a difference. In this case, it really doesn't.
Not your call to make, either if we should discuss it, or if it makes a difference. If you find any particular aspect of the discussion uninteresting you can simply not address it, but to declare it outside the scope of relevance for anyone to discuss seems a bit much.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:She has earned through risk and hard work each of those seven digits of her income. But could she continue to make them without the help and hard work of those 25 people? So, set profit goals based on performance minus expenses, that is, if the company makes this much money, everyone gets this much bonus, and share a bit of her seven figures with the people who help make them.
I suggest you try dividing a seven figure income by 25. Total compensation of 25 people is more than 7 figures unless pay is extremely low or it is a very high 7 figure income. In other words, she already is sharing her business's income extensively with her employees, as well as enjoying income that she sacrificed earlier in order to grow her business. Sure, she's earning substantially more than her employees, but she also took risks and sacrificed where they weren't required to, and even with that she's paying them a good bit in comparison to her compensation (if she's making a low million figure, and they're paid moderately okay, she's probably paying at least double her salary in total benefits to her employees).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Most employer firms, including many large firms, pay out more in payroll than they make in profit (unlike your assertion)
I'm not finding that stat...not saying it's not there...can you please find it? Also, that is not what I was saying...I was trying to say that the profit is not usually shared among the workers...yes, they are paid as an expense...yes investors need to get return on their investment, but the company growing in and of itself is a return, as their stock is more valuable and that kind of theoretical profit is real enough to be borrowed against.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ... what I have to say basically come down to the statement "you are wrong", or "nu-huh".
Then you probably have to read slower or more carefully. I've explained why your ideas won't work and what likely consequences they actually would have. If you have questions about any specific part, I'm happy to elaborate further.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, that one isn't on the page, but that's common business knowledge. If you do a quick calculation based on GDP using the GDP(I) equality, you can see they're about in balance. However, except for a few very large capital intensive businesses that require fewer employees, most businesses are driven by their employment figures, and thus pay out less in profits than they do in payroll.
I think part of your problem is that you assign some special attribute to profit. Profit is the return on capital. Any profit "handed back" to employees becomes not profit, by definition, but an expense. The part that remains profit is the part that goes to the many people who invested capital in the business, capital that's necessary to keep paying those employees, and is much riskier than being one of those employees.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Mucus...thank you for the offer, I will review the posts and make sure I understand everything to the best of my ability...very slowly
fugu...I don't get this part..."...and is much riskier than being one of those employees."
And at the risk of seeming foolish (me? no!) I have no idea what GDP/GDP(i) are...should I look them up to better understand this discussion?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
GDP is Gross Domestic Product. It is the total value of all (final) goods and services produced domestically in one year. There are many ways of computing GDP that are equivalent, though in practice give slightly different numbers (due to the numbers being imperfect). One of those ways is based on Income, so GDP(I), which is the sum of incomes, profits, and taxes, minus subsidies.
Regarding risk and investment, someone putting capital into a company is putting up much more risk than someone not. With few exceptions, employees receive the pay they are supposed to. To use an example that most starkly illustrates things, if a company goes under, employees may lose their jobs, but what they have "invested", their time, is compensated. Indeed, they continue getting paid for quite a while after if they are unable to find a job, from a fund that their company was required to pay into while operating (unemployment). If, however, someone had invested money in that company, that money is generally mostly or completely wiped out when a company goes under. There's also just the general risk of bad performance -- if a company doesn't do well, a person won't make any money (or will lose money). An employee will still get paid (unless they lose their job, in which case see unemployment and that they might well be re-employed quickly, and in most periods of history will be).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Who said it was artificial? What makes a job "bad"? (Fast food? Farm jobs? Swing shift?) Should no "bad" jobs even exist? If yes, who is it that is too good to take them?
A bad job is a job that's less beneficial to the worker than the time he/she spends on it. I don't have a very clear idea of exactly which jobs are bad, but my sense of it is that many of them are.
In an ideal world there would be robots to do them. In the actual world, someone has to do the ones that need doing (who gets these jobs will be decided by the market, I suppose), but we shouldn't be asking the government to create more of that kind of work.
That just says that bad jobs are jobs that are not good enough. That doesn't actually mean anything.
If you want to blithely dismiss jobs as bad and argue that people should be able to do nothing instead and live the life they want without working, at a deep cost to those who do actually work, you need to define what bad means, beyond "not good enough".
Pay? Schedule? Difficulty? Physical difficulty? Boring? Messy? Self control required?
You just said that you think lots of jobs are bad. So, what makes a job bad? If a job is "bad", are you advocating it not be done at all? If it should be done, who should do it?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks for the explanation fugu13...
Oh and a bad job from my point of view is one which pays less then the cost it would take to pay a stranger to watch my one a half year old son and three month old daughter.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One thing about risk. I think that the risk relative to what the person has to available to risk needs to be taken into account. An investor may be risking lots of money but not more than he can easily afford to lose. A worker may only be risking his time, but that may be all he has.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
A lot of people like different kinds of jobs than I do. I'd rather not presume to judge once and for all which ones are good or bad for who. Nor is it important to the point I'm trying to defend. My point was, when you "create a job" you don't automatically thereby make the world a better place.
I was just responding to your claim that it's generally better for people to be employed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:A worker may only be risking his time, but that may be all he has.
This is true, which is why I favor good social safety nets for post-job periods (and unemployment isn't too bad already, overall). Between the near-guarantee of being paid for time actually worked, combined with unemployment, it takes a very, very large event, such as the one that just happened, for people to start falling through those nets in considerable numbers.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How about a tax cut for companies equal to half the amount of income tax generated by their employees? The more American employees they pay, the less corporate tax they pay.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: A lot of people like different kinds of jobs than I do. I'd rather not presume to judge once and for all which ones are good or bad for who. Nor is it important to the point I'm trying to defend. My point was, when you "create a job" you don't automatically thereby make the world a better place.
I was just responding to your claim that it's generally better for people to be employed.
But you said that some jobs are bad. What makes a job bad? Are you saying that every job that someone doesn't dream of growing up to be is a bad job? Should no one have to do jobs that aren't dream-worthy? Is everyone too good to work at anything but a dream job? If not everyone, who?
In our non-StarTrek world, what is a bad job?
In answer to what I think you might be saying, I disagree that a job is bad unless the person do it as a hobby if they weren't getting paid. The self-esteem boost of being able to take yourself, the mental peace that comes from being independent, and the satisfaction of doing a job well occur even in boring jobs, when those boring jobs are necessary. In private industry and especially in small businesses, they are are necessary and not make-work, because it is coming out of the owner's pocket to employ people just to give them busywork.
That a job is boring doesn't negate all the benefits that come from being employed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But my point is that in principle, "job creation" is sort of an artificial goal. Instead our goal should be wealth creation, plus a fairly even distribution of that wealth.
I agree completely. People don't need jobs. People thrived for thousands of years without jobs. People need food, shelter, clothing, medical care, companionship, something meaningful to do and probably a few more things. Jobs are the primary way people in our society get access to those things they need, but they are a means to an end, not the end in itself. In that context, I call any job that does not reward the employee well enough to cover the essentials of living a bad job. If your job doesn't pay enough to put food on the table, a roof over your head, clothes on your back and cover your doctor bills when your sick, its a bad job. By this definition, at least 10 million Americans have bad jobs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:People thrived for thousands of years without jobs.
What? What utopia are you thinking of where people didn't work? Thrived for thousands of years without jobs? Just because you are working your own land or running your own store doesn't mean you don't have a job.
This is so strange and nonsensical a statement I can't imagine where you got it. When, exactly, in time and space, did the majority of any society have nothing but leisure? And "thrived", no less, with food, shelter, clothing, and good health care?
I'm not talking about a Star Trek world. I do mean this one.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:In answer to what I think you might be saying, I disagree that a job is bad unless the person do it as a hobby if they weren't getting paid. The self-esteem boost of being able to take yourself, the mental peace that comes from being independent, and the satisfaction of doing a job well occur even in boring jobs, when those boring jobs are necessary.
Definitely true. But I think there are plenty of jobs where the boredom, plus perhaps the unpleasantness of the coworkers, plus maybe the length of the commute, plus the time away from family and friends, etc., outweighs the beneficial feelings of independence and success.
The feelings of satisfaction you describe are beneficial, I agree, but there are many ways for jobs to be so unpleasant that the (non-financial) benefit is dwarfed by the personal cost.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I agree completely. People don't need jobs. People thrived for thousands of years without jobs.
Sure, this statement is arguably true. But I think the current system of careers/employment is, for multiple reasons, both superior (as in, preferable) and a natural structuring (as in, unavoidable) of productivity organization in the modern world.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Nobody's arguing that there shouldn't be jobs. What I was suggesting is that the government shouldn't consider it so important to create jobs when the same goal (providing unemployed people with a livelihood) could be achieved through wealth redistribution instead.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, no jobs != leisure
The Rabbit is probably referring to retirement, childhood, and home-makers. According to the Canadian census, in 2001, only about half the population was in the workforce.
Theoretically (if there was the demand) you could for example, re-structure tax policy to further encourage home-makers to go out and join the workforce, but that wouldn't necessarily be a positive result although the number of jobs would be greater.
The other issue is that there are many jobs that pay less than essentials that aren't necessarily bad. I'm thinking of simple jobs intended for students like tutoring or sometimes retirees can get some minor supplemental income by doing things like travel writing or stock photography for magazines.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:People thrived for thousands of years without jobs.
What? What utopia are you thinking of where people didn't work? Thrived for thousands of years without jobs? Just because you are working your own land or running your own store doesn't mean you don't have a job.
I didn't say people didn't work. I said they didn't have jobs. Below are the two top dictionary definitions of job.
From the online dictionary
quote:1. a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price: She gave him the job of mowing the lawn. 2. a post of employment; full-time or part-time position: She was seeking a job as an editor.
I'm certain that there are other ways that the word is commonly used but when politicians and economists talk about "creating jobs", which is the context of this discussion, they aren't talking about any kind of work people do. They are talking about employment for pay. Even in today's world people do lots of different kinds of work that doesn't count as a job -- for example caring for your own children, cleaning your own house, mowing your own lawn, volunteering at church, and so forth.
This is a really important concept to understand if you are interested in actual human well being and not just economic indicators. To understand what I'm talking about, considering the following two hypothetical example.
1. Two neighbors, A and B, help each other out by exchanging work. The Mrs. A tends all the children and prepares meals, while Mr. B does yard work and assorted odd jobs.
2. The two neighbors decide to formalize the arrangement by paying each other for the work done. Mr. B pays Mrs. A $1000 for tending his children and Mrs A. pays Mr. B $1000 for yard work and assorted odd jobs.
In case 2, two jobs are created and $2000 is added to GDP but I think we can all agree that there has been no increase in the well being of either Mrs. A or Mr. B. In fact, the exchange of cash most likely reduces their well being in numerous ways (such as more red tape, reduced feelings of appreciation and friendship, and a higher tax burden.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I agree completely. People don't need jobs. People thrived for thousands of years without jobs.
Sure, this statement is arguably true. But I think the current system of careers/employment is, for multiple reasons, both superior (as in, preferable) and a natural structuring (as in, unavoidable) of productivity organization in the modern world.
No argument here. I'm simply saying that the simple number of jobs isn't a reflection of level of human well being. You also have to look at the quality of the jobs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:People thrived for thousands of years without jobs.
What? What utopia are you thinking of where people didn't work? Thrived for thousands of years without jobs? Just because you are working your own land or running your own store doesn't mean you don't have a job.
I didn't say people didn't work. I said they didn't have jobs. Below are the two top dictionary definitions of job.
From the online dictionary
quote:1. a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price: She gave him the job of mowing the lawn. 2. a post of employment; full-time or part-time position: She was seeking a job as an editor.
I'm certain that there are other ways that the word is commonly used but when politicians and economists talk about "creating jobs", which is the context of this discussion, they aren't talking about any kind of work people do. They are talking about employment for pay. Even in today's world people do lots of different kinds of work that doesn't count as a job -- for example caring for your own children, cleaning your own house, mowing your own lawn, volunteering at church, and so forth.
This is a really important concept to understand if you are interested in actual human well being and not just economic indicators. To understand what I'm talking about, considering the following two hypothetical example.
1. Two neighbors, A and B, help each other out by exchanging work. The Mrs. A tends all the children and prepares meals, while Mr. B does yard work and assorted odd jobs.
2. The two neighbors decide to formalize the arrangement by paying each other for the work done. Mr. B pays Mrs. A $1000 for tending his children and Mrs A. pays Mr. B $1000 for yard work and assorted odd jobs.
In case 2, two jobs are created and $2000 is added to GDP but I think we can all agree that there has been no increase in the well being of either Mrs. A or Mr. B. In fact, the exchange of cash most likely reduces their well being in numerous ways (such as more red tape, reduced feelings of appreciation and friendship, and a higher tax burden.)
Oh my stars, for the majority of human history, the labor necessary to grow food and build communal buildings has been done by SLAVES. The reason people could afford to pay the doctor's bills is because the doctor could 1)apply leaches, 2) make tea, or 3) cut it off, whereupon you would die from infection. Multiple generations lived in the same tiny place. People owned outfits in the single digits.
This nostalgic dreaming of a time when people didn't have to work is so...out there, so ignorant of actual history, so laughable I have to wonder if you're pulling my leg.
If you think the level of nourishment, shelter, and health care people got by bartering throughout human history is acceptable, what's with all the complaining? That's NOTHING. You can get a shack, monotous food, and useless health care by begging on the corner a few times a week and crashing your grandchildren's house. If that's the bar for "thrive", then America doesn't have a problem at all! A balanced budget and tax cuts for everybody!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Well, no jobs != leisure
The Rabbit is probably referring to retirement, childhood, and home-makers. According to the Canadian census, in 2001, only about half the population was in the workforce.
I was actually think more of a time before people lived in a cash economy. People have always worked, but working in exchange for cash payment is fairly new economic model in the scope of human history. But you are correct that his has modern implications since a very large fraction of the work done even in modern economies, doesn't count as "jobs".
quote:Theoretically (if there was the demand) you could for example, re-structure tax policy to further encourage home-makers to go out and join the workforce, but that wouldn't necessarily be a positive result although the number of jobs would be greater.
This is absolutely valid. A huge fraction of economic growth in the US over the past 50 years has come from women moving out of the informal economy and into the formal economy. The value of what women did in the informal economy is largely neglected. The majority of Americans feel like they are worse off than Americans felt in the 1970s. The decline of the informal economy is likely are very large factor in this.
quote:The other issue is that there are many jobs that pay less than essentials that aren't necessarily bad. I'm thinking of simple jobs intended for students like tutoring or sometimes retirees can get some minor supplemental income by doing things like travel writing or stock photography for magazines.
It is in fact a very complicated situation because jobs are not the only means by which people meet their essential needs and there is a great deal of variability in what people actually need. You will note that in list I gave of things people need, were things like "companionship" and "something meaningful to do". I suspect there are very few jobs that meet all of a persons needs, but some are worse than others in terms of inhibiting people from meeting those needs outside work. A person who is comfortably retired, may not need money but they may still need a job that gives them something of value to do with their time or provides an opportunity for social interaction. A student who is being supported by their parents, may not need money to pay rent, but can still benefit from the opportunity to gain job experience, help other students or earn money to buy luxuries.
The biggest challenge in my mind that teenagers, whose essential needs are being filled by their parents and retirees, whose essential needs are being met by SS and a pension, compete for jobs with people who need to earn a living wage to live. That's one of the reasons I support minimum wage laws.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I was actually think more of a time before people lived in a cash economy. People have always worked, but working in exchange for cash payment is fairly new economic model in the scope of human history.
1. When and where? Name the time and place. Considering cash has been around since before Egypt, I'm interested as to exactly which hunter gatherer society where the women are treated like chattel and there is a 60% child mortality rate you're nostalgic for.
2. You glorify a non-cash economy, but want the benefits of a cash economy. Unless you have an actual wormhole to some other universe, you're writing a Star Trek episode here.
This is as relevant and real a possibility as the teleport.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Kat, I would've phrased that differently, but I think you're basically correct. But the fact that our present-day system is far superior to historical alternatives doesn't do much to imply that more jobs are better.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:fairly new economic model in the scope of human history
Oh yeah, along with the wheel and agriculture.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Kat, I would've phrased that differently, but I think you're basically correct. But the fact that our present-day system is far superior to historical alternatives doesn't do much to imply that more jobs are better.
More jobs than what? Than less jobs? Than historically? Than can be filled?
Sorry - I'm so distracted by the Laffy Taffy history I can't even imagine what the discussion should be. I guess I'll return when the lovefest for stone tools is over.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
katharina, You are missing the mark. I suggest that you educate yourself on the issue least you continue embarrassing yourself.
More jobs than are needed to keep the economy going and keep generating wealth.
At present, for example, the US economy doesn't "want" to employ more than about 90% of the workforce. I say that's fine, as long as unemployed people's needs are provided for.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
katharina: It sounds like you and Rabbit are not understanding each other, could you perhaps try to clarify those misunderstandings. I'm not too pleased with statements where posters are accused of being so silly sounding they must be trolling. It's frustrating to have that said to you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The biggest challenge in my mind that teenagers, whose essential needs are being filled by their parents and retirees, whose essential needs are being met by SS and a pension, compete for jobs with people who need to earn a living wage to live. That's one of the reasons I support minimum wage laws.
This is a debate for sure, but my understanding is that the overlap between people who need a living wage (and don't currently have one) and those on minimum wage is vanishingly small. Edit: Rather, the disproportional amount of overlap as compared to the general population
So increasing the minimum wage would be pretty inefficient and counter-productive.
Ex:
quote:Even under the assumption that there are no employment effects, "only 10.66 percent of total wage increases accrue to workers belonging to poor households." Given that 10.3% of households are in poverty, increasing the minimum wage is only slightly more effective as an anti-poverty measure as would be distributing money at random across households.
Not really cause for celebration, is it? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you want to help people in poverty, give them money.
I'm not really talking about unemployment. I'm talking about whether increasing the minimum wage would actually help anyone that has a low income.
They've already covered Card and Kruger here
quote:In the US context, Card and Krueger conclude (h/t to Alex Tabarrok)
quote:The minimum wage is a blunt instrument for reducing overall poverty, however, because many minimum-wage earners are not in poverty and because many of those in poverty are not connected to the labor market. We calculate that the 90-cent increase in the minimum wage between 1989 and 1991 transferred roughly $5.5 billion to low-wage workers.... an amount that is smaller than most other federal antipoverty programs, and that can have only limited effects on the overall income distribution.
Interestingly enough, this point of view is shared by the people at Toronto's Daily Bread Food Bank. In their profile of food bank clients, they note that
quote:It is often assumed that the low minimum wage is the reason for hunger amongst the working poor. Indeed, the minimum wage stayed at $6.85/hr in Ontario between 1995 and 2004. However, Figure 10 shows 53% of all food bank clients earn more than $10/hour, higher than the current minimum wage of $7.75/hour; just 10% receive exactly the current minimum wage. The key issue identified in the research is not the wage, but that food bank clients only work, on average, 25 hours weekly. Working part-time hours, 72% of employed clients are not receiving health benefits. Sixty percent say they want more hours at work, but are unable to get them from their employer.
Their preferred policy? An earned income tax credit.
Yeah, the minimum wage sucks at actually helping poor people, and it puts the highest costs on smaller businesses that are the main drivers of recovery. It is effectively a tax on small businesses that employ low-skilled workers -- exactly the businesses we shouldn't want to penalize.
The earned income tax credit, however, is extremely effective in helping poor people, and because it is paid for out of general taxes, its cost does not fall in ways that are potentially counterproductive (and even if not, practically vindictively focused). That's why I comment above that my first priority in starting to fix things up would be to make the EITC as large as politically feasible.
This is one of the few things you'll find general agreement among economists of all stripes (excepting the most hardcore anti-subsidy, and even they'll agree that if you have to have some sort of subsidy, the EITC's probably the best way to do it), even if they think the minimum wage is an acceptable policy.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My mom is a pretty low wage earner- higher than minimum wage but not much. She hated when the minimum wage increased because her work said, we had X money for wages, everyone at minimum wage is getting a raise and that is our raise money for this year. She was pretty bitter over that. She also just got her 25 year award, on the same day she found out her position is being eliminated in June. She is 3 years from being able to be on medicaid and she is terrified how she will find another job or cover her own health care costs She is just barely not disabled- her doctors have debated filling for disability but her job right now has been very accommodating and physically undemanding so they figured better to work and keep all the perks of having a job. Getting a new job for a sickly woman in her 60s with very little training is not going to be easy. My mom says we should buy big (we are moving when sell house) and plan on them moving in with us.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:This is one of the few things you'll find general agreement among economists of all stripes (excepting the most hardcore anti-subsidy, and even they'll agree that if you have to have some sort of subsidy, the EITC's probably the best way to do it)
Makes it pretty laughable when Republicans grouse about how "too many Americans pay no federal taxes."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
(I was talking about the "fair tax" in that last post, btw.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
*bump*
The best that can be said about job growth is that at least it is happening, albeit in very small numbers and with a bias towards underemployment.
But, for some reason, we're fighting about the deficit and little to nothing is being said about the huge hole in our economy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's astonishingly little the federal gov't can do about job loss right now (and it's turning out, as predicted by many, that even if you take optimistic numbers for jobs created/saved by federal stimulus legislation, it would have been a heck of a lot cheaper to just give everyone large sums of money) other than wait it out. Employment is a trailing indicator, it was hit particularly bad, and the economy has only mildly recovered per other indicators. I'm not sure what you want them to do, especially that won't end up being badly counterproductive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Handing out money is okay by me as long as it is handed to people who need and will spend it.
Hey! They could give money to all those schools in Wisconsin who are having to fire teachers.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Here at the payroll company I work at (Paychex) we are seeing an increase in checks per payroll, but not a lot of new businesses.
It is both a positive and negative thing. It is good because businesses are hiring, but negative people it seems like people are still very unsure they want to take the risk of business ownership.
One of my clients recently hired an additional 500 employees. They pickup, clean, and deliver linens to almost all of the casinos on the strip. Table cloths, bed sheets, etc.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:But where are the jobs?
India.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Its become obvious that the greatest and most important thing that American Business produces is the rare and fragile thing called--Jobs.
Check any news report, any politician, any talking head.
The products are secondary. The services are unimportant. The only goal, the only value, that is placed on a business is its ability to "create jobs."
We give tax abatement to companies not because they will benefit society, benefit the locality, or benefit a single person. But if they create jobs--well they are golden.
I've seen arguments that demand we rescind worker safety laws, product safety laws, environmental safety laws, and any other law so that a company can produce--jobs.
I swear that if a company found the cure for cancer the main lead on the news would be about how many jobs would be created in producing the cure, and how many jobs lost in the health care industry if such a cure was allowed on the open market.
Some are now creating a new social status called, "Job creators". These are apparently the wealthy, corporations, and anyone else who hires people. Such Job Creators, it is argued, need no taxes because somehow taxes stop them from their primal urge to--create jobs.
What seems to be missing is the Job Destroyer class. This would be people who must then get extra taxes for destroying jobs. This would be companies shipping jobs overseas, companies laying off workers, companies who report increases in worker productivity--since they are pushing workers to produce more so they can hire less.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: What seems to be missing is the Job Destroyer class. This would be people who must then get extra taxes for destroying jobs. This would be companies shipping jobs overseas, companies laying off workers, companies who report increases in worker productivity--since they are pushing workers to produce more so they can hire less.
If every business were profitable, this would be fine. Unfortunately that isn't the case. Laying off workers is sometimes essential to keeping a business open, as well as worker productivity. Raising taxes on a business that is already suffering from those is only going to hurt them more.
Again, if it can be shown that the business is making MORE money and they are still doing this, then by all means. But hurting businesses that are already having a hard time is not the way to go about it.
As far as shipping jobs overseas, I don't love it or hate it. I see both sides of the argument. With the amount of taxes and regulation businesses have to deal with her compared to other countries, I can understand why they would want to ship the jobs overseas. I'd think Liberals would like that, as it promotes the whole world economy thing they want so badly. I can also see why people don't like it, as it does take jobs away from US workers.
Does anyone know of any articles that shows the percentage of businesses that ship jobs overseas, and which companies have the most out of country workers? I know the company I work for only has about 40 employees outside of the US, but it is a fully functioning payroll branch in Germany.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
People seem to be under the impression that if we bribe rich people enough they, in their benevolence, will create jobs for us little folk. But people don't create jobs because they have extra money and have run out of room to store it; jobs are created when there is a demand for the goods and services that the companies produce. The way to increase demand is to get more money into the hands of folks who need and want things but can't afford them and who, if they had money, will buy them. (People who want things and already have enough money to buy them will have already bought them.)
But our main mechanism for getting money to those people is jobs. I think handouts are a better and better idea.
If we want to create jobs here we need to create demand for goods and services made here. By making them cheaper* and/or better. Perhaps some conditions on those bribes as well.
*"Cheaper" being relative and can carefully be tweaked with tariffs if necessary.
[ July 19, 2011, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But our main mechanism for getting money to those people is jobs. I think handouts are a better and better idea.
How do you ensure that the recipient of a handout infuses their hard-earned money back into the economy? What if they save the money instead of consuming more?
------------------
On a related note, maybe we need a government-sponsored enterprise in the housing industry so people who don't meet lending standards can get into homes whose mortgage is beyond their ability to pay. Unless, of course, someone can point to an instance in history where this has failed miserably. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How do you ensure that the recipient of a handout infuses their hard-earned money back into the economy? What if they save the money instead of consuming more?
*laugh* I can't tell if this is a serious question or not. Is it?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
In a perfect economy, unemployment would be a good thing.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:How do you ensure that the recipient of a handout infuses their hard-earned money back into the economy? What if they save the money instead of consuming more?
*laugh* I can't tell if this is a serious question or not. Is it?
Not for you, no.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: People seem to be under the impression that if we bribe rich people enough they, in their benevolence, will create jobs for us little folk.
Wait, they don't? Dang, and here I was going to vote for Republicans because of those promises that the rich would give me a job out of said gratitude for the bribes--er, tax cuts.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Germ--the question is, what is the goal of the taxes?
If the goal is to spur the creation of Jobs, then taxing even failing companies that are shedding jobs would induce them to cut other expenses before cutting jobs. And if the company fails, too bad.
If the goal is to increase the economy by helping business, then adding taxes to failing companies would be wrong. In fact, taxing anybody would be wrong. But if that is the goal, it should be honestly admitted, not hidden behind the sham of "Job Savings".
If the goal is to pay for the needs of the country, as determined by its laws, in a fair and impartial way then somebody has to be taxed so failing or emerging companies should pay their fair taxes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What constitutes failing? We give tax breaks to companies that are making record profits. I have no problem helping out companies that are losing money and trying to stay afloat - especially those that are responsible for a lot of jobs.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'd think Liberals would like that, as it promotes the whole world economy thing they want so badly.
As far as the American definition of "Liberal" goes, sympathy for globalisation doesn't seem to be a particularly "Liberal" trait. You wouldn't expect trade unions or the local food hippies to be particularly enthused about it for example.
They're also eager (e.g.) ...
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: *"Cheaper" being relative and can [i]carefully[/i[ be tweaked with tariffs if necessary.
... to throw around the tariffs, so I don't really see it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not sure that "carefully tweaked" is the same as "throwing around".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We give tax breaks to companies that are making record profits. I have no problem helping out companies that are losing money ...
While I'm not entirely unsympathetic, it seems to me that the first should be considered a sunk cost and that the latter is an example of "two wrongs don't make a right."
Whether the government should help companies that the government thinks* are likely to prosper in the future, should be independent of whether the government has wasted money in the past.
* assuming that the government is good at determining this kind of thing, which I find kinda dubious
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm not sure that "carefully tweaked" is the same as "throwing around".
In context, your idea of "carefully tweaked" IS my idea of "throwing around." The level of tariffs required to ensure a substantial re-shoring of jobs, not just from China, but from all other developing countries that are currently taking "American" jobs would have to be substantial.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't think that we should give tax breaks to companies who are making record profits, yet we do. On the other hand, "bailing out" a company in trouble can sometimes avert disaster. I think that the auto industry bail out, while not a permanent solution to the problems of the auto industry, saved a lot of families from suffering. I do think that there should be safeguards built into such bailouts that regulate how the money is used.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: People seem to be under the impression that if we bribe rich people enough they, in their benevolence, will create jobs for us little folk. But people don't create jobs because they have extra money and have run out of room to store it; jobs are created when there is a demand for the goods and services that the companies produce. The way to increase demand is to get more money into the hands of folks who need and want things but can't afford them and who, if they had money, will buy them. (People who want things and already have enough money to buy them will have already bought them.)
But our main mechanism for getting money to those people is jobs. I think handouts are a better and better idea.
Ok, but tell me what incentive those people that receive handouts have to actually contribute to society? If the government gives them a certain amount of money to live off of, what is stopping them from taking that money for the rest of their lives?
If jobs aren't the answer and handouts are, who is going to work?
Look, I'm totally for this, but I don't think the robotics field is far enough along to have robotic minions doing all of the work that needs done yet. Then there is the question of a robot uprising, etc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't care if they "contribute to society"; they are "society". Why do you assume that it has to be either jobs or handouts? Why not some combination? Right now, there aren't enough jobs. You may have heard about that in the news. When jobs where a person can make a decent living are going begging, the balance can shift away from handouts.
[ July 19, 2011, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I don't care if they "contribute to society"; they are "society".
Exactly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Ok, but tell me what incentive those people that receive handouts have to actually contribute to society?
When you are looking at pockets of extreme social stratification, and whole generations of youth in areas which give them nothing but socioeconomic hurdles that many of them will not surmount, the question of the savvy social planner is not "can I be sure that these people are going to contribute back to society?" because it completely ignores the fact that they ARE society, and if macroeconomic trends allow that society to continue to rot out unabated, the people who are standing around saying that they shouldn't feel obligated to provide for them in any meaningful sense because they're wondering if these people are going to 'contribute back' are missing the irony that they're paying for them anyway, and many of them are probably living in areas where the cost is much more personal, dangerous, and corrosive. More of our tax dollars going to prisons. More social stratification. People of means closing themselves off in gated communities wherever rampant drug use and crime take off. More of the attitude that none of this, nor the impoverished mothers, nor the homeless, nor the innocents caught in blighted regions, should be 'their problem,' even as they clean up the glass from the latest B&E and miss what's grimly humorous about this.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Besides which, it's just good to have more people in the world enjoying a decent standard of living.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am also bothered by the notion that the only way to "contribute to society" involves monetary compensation. Some people contribute to society by being a good listener or being friendly or being a loving uncle. None of which pays the rent but all of which has value to society.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
I agree that they are society. And they can take care of themselves the way the rest of society does. The people who actually take care of themselves also contribute to society with sprinkles of joy dust. They just don't expect to be handed an easy life because of their smiles.
The only excuse otherwise is youth, disability, or old age to the point of disability. They are society, but that doesn't mean they don't have to take care of themselves. It's shameful to be a mooch when you could be otherwise.
If you have convinced someone that your sunny personality is worth them giving you a living wage, more power to you. For all that work that would take, though, you might as well just get a job.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am also bothered by the notion that the only way to "contribute to society" involves monetary compensation. Some people contribute to society by being a good listener or being friendly or being a loving uncle. None of which pays the rent but all of which has value to society.
I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately we do not live in a world in which this will ever be possible.
Being friendly, listening to others, or being a loving uncle does not grow food, clothe your children, or provide shelter. Mankind has had to work for those three things for thousands of years.
If you want to test it though, I'll give everyone my phone number, and any time you want someone to listen to you, you can call me. I'll just send you all of my mortgage, clothing, food, utility, and phone bills, and you all can pay for them. The time I am not on the phone I'll just watch TV or play games. Does that sound fair? If you don't want to send me money I understand, so you can just opt to provide me with my own house, send food to me directly, and provide me with enough solar panels to power the home. I'll accept either. Trust me, this can be revolutionary! You can keep me fed, clothed, and housed for my contribution to society.
The only problem: someone is still going to have to grow the food, create the solar panels, and make the clothes.
Tell me who is contributing more to society: A person that works, pays his taxes, and provides for his own family, or a person that "listens" to others, does not work, and collects money from the government.
The difference betweem the two is that the human race can survive without one of the groups.
What you are suggesting would also do more harm for the poor than good. I assure you that if the majority of society had the same idea it would create more of a caste system than you could ever imagine. There would be two groups: Those that produce and those that only consume. It wouldn't surprise me if those that produced received more basic rights than those who only consume.
Humans are selfish, and unfortunately nothing will change that. I like the Star Trek TNG society as much as the next person, but it will never happen.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What does, say, Paris Hilton provide? I am pretty sure that we could survive without it.
Again. Right now, we don't have enough jobs to go around. We don't need more stuff done. We need to distribute the stuff we have. What part of "high unemployment rate" isn't making sense to you?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Tell me who is contributing more to society: A person that works, pays his taxes, and provides for his own family, or a person that "listens" to others, does not work, and collects money from the government.
The difference betweem the two is that the human race can survive without one of the groups.
But there are already two groups like the ones you describe. Disabled people don't work, collect money from the government, etc. And just as you observe, the human race could survive without them. Yet they haven't been exterminated, and their situation, hard as it may be in many ways, is not made worse by the fact that they receive government support.
So the question isn't, as you suggest, whether to have these two groups of people. The only question is, how many do we include in the group that receives support?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What does, say, Paris Hilton provide? I am pretty sure that we could survive without it.
Again. Right now, we don't have enough jobs to go around. We don't need more stuff done. We need to distribute the stuff we have. What part of "high unemployment rate" isn't making sense to you?
You went off of unemployment and onto a completely different topic, by trying to define someone's "value" to society. My argument is that just because you are a good listener doesn't entitle you to my money. Just because you are a loving uncle doesn't mean I should have to pay for your food, clothing, or house. If you are a good listener, there is a job for that. It's called a therapist. Then you can pay taxes just like the rest of us and contribute even more.
To answer Destineer, I have no problems caring for the sick or disabled. I have a problem with able bodied people not working or making excuses. Just because there is high unemployment does not mean there are not jobs available.
I do have a question for everyone though that is relevant:
When would you classify someone as being poor. Either by amenities, salary, etc?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:To answer Destineer, I have no problems caring for the sick or disabled. I have a problem with able bodied people not working or making excuses.
Why do you have a problem with it? As I pointed out above, the reasons you already mentioned are no good. They also apply to disabled people.
quote:When would you classify someone as being poor. Either by amenities, salary, etc?
Depends a lot on where you live. I would say that in many regions of the country, a single person is poor enough to need assistance if they make less than about $15-20K.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
People are extremely lazy. The jobs are still in India. Except Starbucks, Those are in China.
Frivolous Lawsuit attorneys? THOSE jobs are in the USA.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: When would you classify someone as being poor. Either by amenities, salary, etc?
Depends a lot on where you live. I would say that in many regions of the country, a single person is poor enough to need assistance if they make less than about $15-20K. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I just want to be clear here. You are fine with people not getting asistance if they make more than $20k a year? You do realize that is $9.62?
And I do have a huge problem with people that have nothing wrong with them that simply refuse to work to pay the bills. Take me up on my challenge if you disagree with me. Pay all of my bills while I sit at home. I will even periodically send you a thank you card (with money you provide to me of course) showing my gratitude for your generosity.
If someone cannot care for themselves, I have no problem helping them. We should take care of our sick and elderly. I want the government to use more discretion in who they give the money to. I want welfare recipients to be required to attend skill or job training courses. These welfare programs were never supposed to be used for long term assistance, yet here we are 70 years later and what has happened is just that. We were warned that this would happen back then, and now it has come true.
So again, what incentive does ANYONE have to work if their needs will be met by others? As more and more people adapt that attitude, how will we be able to sustain it?
We are already seeing companies move their workforce overseas. We are already seeing much or the rich moving from one state to others that have lower taxes. What happens when those rich people decide to move to a different country with lower taxes? Are you going to force them to stay? Revoke their citizenship? Most of the middle class can't afford to do that, but the rich certainly can. Where are we going to make up the difference?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What happens when those rich people decide to move to a different country with lower taxes?
I would personally strip them of assets, but YMMV. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Fine. Make skill and job training courses available. Also child care and transportation to make it possible for people to attend.
Then and when there are enough jobs for everyone you might have an argument.
Again. Do you understand that we have almost 10% unemployment?
People will work because they want more than just basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, medical care) met. They will want more and nicer stuff than they can get on the dole.
Companies and people who move their workforce overseas should not have the privileges that US companies have.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
And do you understand that in the 1920's we were in the same predicament?
From New Deal or Raw Deal:
quote:
In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history. Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment. High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people”
“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent. These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies. Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains. President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.
Guess what happened when they took his advice? Unemployment dropped to 3.3% less than 5 years later.
Revenues to the government increased to over $1 billion a year, until FDR got in and raised the tax rates. Revenues then dropped to only $527 million a year.
This is economics 101 people.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: ... What happens when those rich people decide to move to a different country with lower taxes? Are you going to force them to stay? Revoke their citizenship?
Actually, rich Americans would have to revoke their own citizenship in order to escape federal taxes. The IRS has recently been getting more aggressive in going after the taxes that expatriate Americans owe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, you seem to be skipping a President. You forget that the Sec. of Commerce for Presidents Harding and Coolidge - and who probably bears some of the credit for those tax policies - became the next president. Before he was elected he famously said,"We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land."
And do you know what happened next? Maybe you should try US History 101.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
100% inheritance tax I think should be instituted.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
What if the deceased left minor children?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Same thing as if they didn't have a rich parent?
Not that I think Blayne's suggestion is either workable or desirable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Instead our goal should be wealth creation, plus a fairly even distribution of that wealth.
How would that work? For example, my wife starts a business using our house, live savings, etc as collateral. She works very hard establishing the business, doing constant market research, paying taxes, getting inspected, advertising, and on and on. After some years, the business grows enough to hire an employee. Again, the work load has not let up and she continues to work very very hard making the best business in the area. Eventually she is able to hire more and more employees, and after years and years of hard work, and risk mostly on her part, she is employing 25 people and making 7 digit income. What would be a fair redistribution of her income?
How much of her wealth and income is from having clean air, clean water, a professional police force to prevent crime, firefighters to prevent destruction, wellmaintained roads and postal service that insures goods and supplies arrive on time and regulation that insures larger monopolies don't compete you out with unethical business practices, education system that insured you had well trained honest employees etc.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Subsistence social security, bareley enough to be above the poverty level.
What a temendously cruel idea. "Dear kids, your parents are both dead. You will now be ripped from the only home you've known (you can't afford the mortgage) and condemned to a life of poverty. Yes, your parents made provisions for you, but none of that matters, because we steal from orphans. It's okay, because after you've cracked under the multiple calamities, there's a nice cell in a prison that your dad paid for for you."
Just, wow. The events of Oliver Twist are not something to aspire to.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Instead our goal should be wealth creation, plus a fairly even distribution of that wealth.
How would that work? For example, my wife starts a business using our house, live savings, etc as collateral. She works very hard establishing the business, doing constant market research, paying taxes, getting inspected, advertising, and on and on. After some years, the business grows enough to hire an employee. Again, the work load has not let up and she continues to work very very hard making the best business in the area. Eventually she is able to hire more and more employees, and after years and years of hard work, and risk mostly on her part, she is employing 25 people and making 7 digit income. What would be a fair redistribution of her income?
How much of her wealth and income is from having clean air, clean water, a professional police force to prevent crime, firefighters to prevent destruction, wellmaintained roads and postal service that insures goods and supplies arrive on time and regulation that insures larger monopolies don't compete you out with unethical business practices, education system that insured you had well trained honest employees etc.
Which is already granted to everyone! Everyone is rich! Yay!
No need to steal from the person who did all the work and took all the risks.
I have to imagine that this is deliberate provocation. You can't imagine that people will work to create businesses that create jobs if there is no benefit to it for them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: 100% inheritance tax I think should be instituted.
Worst idea ever!
I include the idea that foil hats will keep the aliens from reading your mind when I say ever.
I include the idea that Prince should change his name into a symbol.
I include the idea that anthrax makes a good ice cream topping.
I include the idea that Jethrow Tull deserved to win the Grammy for best "Hard rock/Metal performance."
I include the idea that hydrogen is the best lifting gas for a skyship.
I include the idea that Pepsi Clear is the best soda ever made.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Subsistence social security, bareley enough to be above the poverty level.
What a temendously cruel idea. "Dear kids, your parents are both dead. You will now be ripped from the only home you've known (you can't afford the mortgage) and condemned to a life of poverty. Yes, your parents made provisions for you, but none of that matters, because we steal from orphans. It's okay, because after you've cracked under the multiple calamities, there's a nice cell in a prison that your dad paid for for you."
Just, wow. The events of Oliver Twist are not something to aspire to.
And how are they are worse off than a child who had nothing to inherit (except perhaps their parents' last medical bills) in the first place?
Again, I am not advocating anything near a %100 inheritance tax, but you might want to spread that sympathy for orphans around a bit.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
So your goal is to reduce all orphans to the same state? Is that seriously something you value - cut down everyone so no one has more than another, even if their parents would have provided for them? If a tragedy like both parents dying happens, make sure they never forget by stealing their home as well?
Are you REALLY advocating turning ALL orphans into Oliver Twist? Did you read that book and think, "What a great idea! The best way to support orphans is to make sure that all of them have the least possible."
I am honestly boggled. You actually think that stealing from orphans is a good idea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are you asking me? If so, please reread what I wrote.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
She clearly said she isn't saying that.
quote:Again, I am not advocating anything near a %100 inheritance tax...
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Nope, she is defending the idea. Whether is just rhetorical or not, she is defending it with the idiotic suggestion that as long as there is SOMEONE out there with a worse life, then there is no injustice being done.
Crossing one's fingers doesn't let anyone off the hook. If you don't want to advocate the idea, don't defend it.
Unless, of course, you're just being contrarian for the hell of it because it's me, which is...about what I expect from someone who defends stealing from orphans.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Instead our goal should be wealth creation, plus a fairly even distribution of that wealth.
How would that work? For example, my wife starts a business using our house, live savings, etc as collateral. She works very hard establishing the business, doing constant market research, paying taxes, getting inspected, advertising, and on and on. After some years, the business grows enough to hire an employee. Again, the work load has not let up and she continues to work very very hard making the best business in the area. Eventually she is able to hire more and more employees, and after years and years of hard work, and risk mostly on her part, she is employing 25 people and making 7 digit income. What would be a fair redistribution of her income?
How much of her wealth and income is from having clean air, clean water, a professional police force to prevent crime, firefighters to prevent destruction, wellmaintained roads and postal service that insures goods and supplies arrive on time and regulation that insures larger monopolies don't compete you out with unethical business practices, education system that insured you had well trained honest employees etc.
Which is already granted to everyone! Everyone is rich! Yay!
No need to steal from the person who did all the work and took all the risks.
I have to imagine that this is deliberate provocation. You can't imagine that people will work to create businesses that create jobs if there is no benefit to it for them.
Without those taxes you would not have those services, and you would have no ability to create such wealth.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
"those" taxes? Wrong.
Ridiculous.
Do you know why?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And how are they are worse off than a child who had nothing to inherit (except perhaps their parents' last medical bills) in the first place?
Again, I am not advocating anything near a %100 inheritance tax, but you might want to spread that sympathy for orphans around a bit.
Are there no workhouses? No prisons? Bah humbug, let them die and decrease the surplus population!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't think inhearitance tax is a good thing...
But I also think that the mega rich should chip in a bit more, spread around the love yo!
boots is not suggesting that society strip the rich down to poverty level...she said so specifically and you ignoring that and inferring on her character is dishonest (or at least showing a very low interest in truth) of you.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Look, all I know is that my bed is extremely comfortable, and I would like to lounge around in it and still receive paychecks. So redistribute away. The richer the better, Robin Hood.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Move over, you hog all the blankets!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have been on welfare and I have wealthy family so I at some level know that I will always have basic needs met. Guess what? It is not enough. I want to buy my daughter the light up shoes and go out to restaurants and hire illegal immigrants to mow my lawn and clean my house. I think making sure everyone has minimal needs will not destroy incentive to work because we like perks. Now if you were to take all money and redistribute evenly so my daughter only got the light up shoes if everyone did, yeah, that would destroy motivation to work. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Only the Russians, and look what it got them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is interesting to me how the countries that became really socialist - Cuba, the Soviet Union, China - became that way in bloody revolution when the gap between the rich and the poor became crushing. Countries that are merely progressive and find a balance between production and distribution of wealth - say, Canada - are reasonably pleasant places.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:And I do have a huge problem with people that have nothing wrong with them that simply refuse to work to pay the bills.
You've already said that. My question is, why do you have a problem with it?
quote:Take me up on my challenge if you disagree with me. Pay all of my bills while I sit at home. I will even periodically send you a thank you card (with money you provide to me of course) showing my gratitude for your generosity.
It's not part of my view that I should pay all of your bills.
Rather, I'm saying that low-income people, whether disabled or not, whether employed or not, should be provided the equivalent of a living wage.
If you'd like to challenge me to pay the amount of taxes needed to make that happen, I'd be happy to accept that challenge.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:And I do have a huge problem with people that have nothing wrong with them that simply refuse to work to pay the bills.
You've already said that. My question is, why do you have a problem with it?
I have a problem with it because I find such behavior unethical, even immoral. By taking another's earnings you depriving them of a percentage of their life. The earner receives no compensation. I can't conceive of a justifiable reason to take some of a person's life and use it to support the life and leisure of lazy individuals. Conversely, why do you feel we should tolerate such selfish behavior?
-------------
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Countries that are merely progressive and find a balance between production and distribution of wealth - say, Canada - are reasonably pleasant places.
I don't ever want to live in Canada. How 'pleasant' a country is must be a matter of perspective.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Sez you. Most Canadians wouldn't want to live in your third world nation so I guess the feeling is mutual.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, are you saying that all or most people on unemployment are simply too lazy to work, or that whatever percent of the people on unemployment who happen to be lazy?
I happen to be on unemployment, and I take care of my two small children, and I do look for work, but it is very difficult to find anything in this economy that is good enough to pay a stranger to watch my children. Most jobs I would take would end up loosing me money after child care costs, not to mention the risk of them being mistreated.
In your book does that make me lazy?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heya Blayne...what do you say to this article which says that 75-90% of the population of Canada live within 100 miles of the U.S. border?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Means we need to move the border south. You don't want Minnesota anyways right?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Personally I'd say you can have that little swampy, bug infected, humid, muddy, frozen piece of redneck hell, but I'm really not in charge of that.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:And I do have a huge problem with people that have nothing wrong with them that simply refuse to work to pay the bills.
You've already said that. My question is, why do you have a problem with it?
quote:Take me up on my challenge if you disagree with me. Pay all of my bills while I sit at home. I will even periodically send you a thank you card (with money you provide to me of course) showing my gratitude for your generosity.
It's not part of my view that I should pay all of your bills.
Rather, I'm saying that low-income people, whether disabled or not, whether employed or not, should be provided the equivalent of a living wage.
If you'd like to challenge me to pay the amount of taxes needed to make that happen, I'd be happy to accept that challenge.
What do you consider a living wage? Over 99% of poor people have a home and fridge, 97.7% have a television, and 97.5% have a stove / oven. Six percent have a jacuzzi. Over 76% have Air Conditioning. Over 62% have cable or internet. Over 50% of poor households with kids have a video game system. Would you tell me that the poor do not have enough to meet their basic needs? Around 89% of those considered poor say that have enough to eat, though only 60% say they always have the food they want to eat.
So it looks like only 11% of the poor here in the US actually need our help. If we only had 11% of the poor we currently have, you wouldn't hear one peep out of me. Instead, we have a growing population of poor, many of which blame someone else for their problems. I worked hard to get where I am right now, and there is nothing stopping most of the poor from going out there and bettering their situation. When over 50% of the country does not pay taxes, we don't have a problem with the rich not paying enough. We have a problem with people not getting off their asses and doing something about it.
Of course, seeing as how you said it isn't your view that you should have to pay my bills, I don't even know why we are having this conversation, since we obviously share the same view. Otherwise, send me a PM and I'll give you my address so you can start sending me checks.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Just because they have what could be considered a luxury items considering they're in the first world doesn't mean jack.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Your stats really make it clear how technology items formerly regarded as luxurious have become ubiquitous. I quickly searched my local craigslist and I found fridges for under $100, as well as a TV + futon for $25. I hardly think it irresponsible to indulge in mod cons like ovens or fridges, or even ACs. Do you want poor people to live like 16th century peasants? In the mean time, can these poor people afford, say, child care while they work? Or to live in a safe neighborhood? Or to fund their kids' educations?
Check your tax stat. That is possibly true of federal income tax, but many more people pay payroll taxes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, are you unclear about how taxes work? For example, you may think that it is a good idea to use tax money for the police department. That does not mean that you have to write a check for it all by yourself. Helping those less fortunate is something we would all do together as we are able.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, are you saying that all or most people on unemployment are simply too lazy to work, or that whatever percent of the people on unemployment who happen to be lazy?
I happen to be on unemployment, and I take care of my two small children, and I do look for work, but it is very difficult to find anything in this economy that is good enough to pay a stranger to watch my children. Most jobs I would take would end up loosing me money after child care costs, not to mention the risk of them being mistreated.
In your book does that make me lazy?
My response was in reference to 'people that have nothing wrong with them that simply refuse to work to pay the bills.' I don't have a problem with someone receiving unemployment - for a reasonable amount of time - as long as they are seeking employment and want to once again be financially self-sustaining.
Losing one's job and unemployment can create very trying circumstances, no doubt, but I think far too many in our hedonistic society balk at the dramatic lifestyle changes unemployment can require of people. I admire the people that handle such occasions with patient determination.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, btw have you figured out the answer to our little history quiz? What were the results of that economic strategy guaranteed to end all poverty in the US?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: What do you consider a living wage? Over 99% of poor people have a home and fridge, 97.7% have a television, and 97.5% have a stove / oven. Six percent have a jacuzzi. Over 76% have Air Conditioning. Over 62% have cable or internet. Over 50% of poor households with kids have a video game system. Would you tell me that the poor do not have enough to meet their basic needs? Around 89% of those considered poor say that have enough to eat, though only 60% say they always have the food they want to eat.
There are a number of explanations for this. One is that, as you might expect, many people are poor now who were not poor a couple of years ago. I imagine many of them have some nice appliances and such left over from when they had enough money to buy them.
Additionally, I imagine much of the nicer stuff owned by poor people was bought with credit rather than cash. One of the most severe social problems in the US is how many poor and middle-class families live beyond their means. So, having these things doesn't necessarily imply that they "have enough money for them." It would be better if they had enough money to buy these things without taking out loans.
I don't know where you get your stats, but from what I understand the percentage of American families that are food-insecure is higher than the number you quote for the percentage of poor families (it was 15% in 2009).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:When over 50% of the country does not pay taxes, we don't have a problem with the rich not paying enough. We have a problem with people not getting off their asses and doing something about it.
As fugu explained earlier in this thread, the EITC (which is what keeps the poor from paying income tax) is one of the most effective social programs we have, and its expansion would, if anything, bolster the economy.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
boots is not suggesting that society strip the rich down to poverty level...she said so specifically and you ignoring that and inferring on her character is dishonest (or at least showing a very low interest in truth) of you.
It's equally dishonest of boots to accuse Aerin of not caring about poor orphans...
quote: you might want to spread that sympathy for orphans around a bit.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
capaxinfiniti: Thank you for the clarification.
maui babe: I think you are stretching it quite a bit. boots' suggestion hardly typified a lack of care on Aerin's part. Where as Aerin's assumptions went directly against boot's words and exaggerated her suggestion to include an intention of harming orphans to the point of being ridiculous.
boots and I often butt heads, but she always makes effort to at least understand where I am coming from.
I don't think Aerin's comments were warranted or fair.
Of course boots can and will stand up for herself, but it irks me to no end when people jump to judgmental conclusions and then throw them back in your face like they have caught you in a crime when all the negatives are of their own invention.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
It most certainly was an accusation of not caring about orphans. She also did it because an ad hominem was the only option possible when her ideas couldn't be defended on their own merits.
Acting as if there is no injustice done as long as there is someone worse off is such a massively stupid idea I can only think that either a stroke took place or it is deliberate stupidity in order to be contrary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Stone-Wolf. I have discovered over time that it is unproductive to engage Aerin when she gets like this. I do appreciate the support, though.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Welcome...unproductive seems like a good word.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, are you unclear about how taxes work? For example, you may think that it is a good idea to use tax money for the police department. That does not mean that you have to write a check for it all by yourself. Helping those less fortunate is something we would all do together as we are able.
I am quite clear. I make my living dealing with taxes. I COMPLETELY agree with you that we should help the less fortunate as we are able. The problem is that I'm being forced to do it. The only difference me and you have when it comes to using money to help the needy is that I believe it to be a choice, not a requirement.
I understand people fall on hard times and I want them to be taken care of. It is the chronic receivers I have a problem with. I don't think we should just throw people out on the streets, but I think a higher amount of responsibility and accountability needs to be placed on people who receive government assistance. Being on government assistance for a year when times are tough is one thing. Being on it for 10 years is another.
If recipients are able and were required to do community service for the assistance they receive, I wouldn't be as critical.
It is sad that the homeless guy that holds a "Will work for food" sign is more willing to do a job than many people on federal assistance.
Stone_Wolf I am sorry for your situation, and I wasn't calling you lazy. I think I've clarified my position that it is the chronic recipients I have a problem with.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks...no worries...I'm not offended.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, do you think that I should have a choice about whether to support the huge amounts of money we wasted on two wars? Could I opt out of that?
Helping the poor helps society in general.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I have no problem being forced* to pay taxes, because I am busy working a very busy job and raising my family, that I don't want to spend my free time research which private corporations are best at helping the poor, and then continuing to monitor them to ensure they are still the best. I'm willing to allow for some inefficiency in terms of money wasted to free up more time for me.
* To me, this is sort of like saying I am forced to be a US citizen by virtue of my birth**
** Interestingly, if I were to run for president, my place of birth would be wrong... Even the wrong state. And there is a potentially deeper question of whether I was born in any state.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I have no problem being forced* to pay taxes, because I am busy working a very busy job and raising my family, that I don't want to spend my free time research which private corporations are best at helping the poor, and then continuing to monitor them to ensure they are still the best. I'm willing to allow for some inefficiency in terms of money wasted to free up more time for me.
It's easier than ever to do this. Here's a good one-stop shop for charity recommendations: http://www.givewell.org/
quote:I understand people fall on hard times and I want them to be taken care of. It is the chronic receivers I have a problem with. I don't think we should just throw people out on the streets, but I think a higher amount of responsibility and accountability needs to be placed on people who receive government assistance.
You realize that putting accountability conditions on welfare and unemployment will cost a lot of extra money in itself? You have to investigate and enforce them. Straight-up handouts like EITC are less wasteful and more efficient.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
On the surface of the issue I have no problems with accountability conditions...but the idea that in the end they will cost more is an interesting one I hadn't considered.
Would that cost be in employee time and therefore be just plugging that money back into the economy through job creation?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, sure, but it is more government spending.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with government spending.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nor do I, but it does go hand in hand (or should) with taxes to pay for it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I didn't have a point when I posted previously...I was just thinking out loud...but I do now.
I agree with Geraine that oversight should be a part of public assistance programs, and the fact that that oversight is not free doesn't make it "inefficient" as that money goes back into the economy by creating jobs.
Win win.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jobs are not a benefit, they are a cost. A gov't program could always hire more people doing absolutely nothing, for decent wages, but that wouldn't be a good thing. The money is not wasted, but neither is it spent well, if there is an alternative that works at least within a margin about equal to the cost of employing the people to do avoid it.
It isn't really clear to me what purpose is being served by most of the requirements that some people want put in place (that would be extremely costly to *actually* enforce), other than feeling morally superior to the people receiving assistance, either.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It would be better to restructure welfare so that income earned from jobs is reduced one for one, instead of reduced at arbitrarily set income rates.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:I have no problem being forced* to pay taxes, because I am busy working a very busy job and raising my family, that I don't want to spend my free time research which private corporations are best at helping the poor, and then continuing to monitor them to ensure they are still the best. I'm willing to allow for some inefficiency in terms of money wasted to free up more time for me.
It's easier than ever to do this. Here's a good one-stop shop for charity recommendations: http://www.givewell.org/
And then I have to keep tabs on it continuously. I admit something that others probably agree with without realizing it (even those who complain about government inefficiencies in administering help), which is that my time is more precious than that. I'd rather use the time freed up from researching this to poke around with coding projects at home that could, in theory lead to me becoming an entrepreneur, creating jobs and helping people out of government assistance. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Jobs are not a benefit, they are a cost.
Not to those who need a job. And considering the title and theme of this discussion, that shouldn't be ignored.
quote:A gov't program could always hire more people doing absolutely nothing, for decent wages, but that wouldn't be a good thing.
I think that goes without saying.
quote:The money is not wasted, but neither is it spent well, if there is an alternative that works at least within a margin about equal to the cost of employing the people to do avoid it.
I'm not sure what you are saying here.
quote:It isn't really clear to me what purpose is being served by most of the requirements that some people want put in place (that would be extremely costly to *actually* enforce), other than feeling morally superior to the people receiving assistance, either.
It's not a matter of feeling morally superior, it's about fairness and making sure that the help is going to someone who needs help and not to someone who is simply abusing the system for their own gain.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: It would be better to restructure welfare so that income earned from jobs is reduced one for one, instead of reduced at arbitrarily set income rates.
I have no idea what this means.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:It would be better to restructure welfare so that income earned from jobs is reduced one for one, instead of reduced at arbitrarily set income rates.
Not one for one; then there would be little incentive to work. Probably more like reductions of 50 percent, so if someone earns an extra $10k, their gov't subsidized income goes down $5k, for a net gain of $5k.
quote:Not to those who need a job. And considering the title and theme of this discussion, that shouldn't be ignored.
Yes, for the purposes of this discussion. If you view jobs as a benefit, there's no reason not to spend money just to create oodles of $20k a year positions picking up every scrap of trash from the street seconds after it hits it. It'd be pretty cheap, and employ a lot of people, and if the jobs are a benefit, there's not really any reason not to do it. Except jobs are a cost, not a benefit.
quote:I think that goes without saying.
Why? You've said jobs are a benefit, so for a fairly low cost it is possible to create oodles of jobs doing random, simple tasks. What reason is there for not doing that, if the jobs are a benefit?
quote:It's not a matter of feeling morally superior, it's about fairness and making sure that the help is going to someone who needs help and not to someone who is simply abusing the system for their own gain.
Try to imagine the multitudes of ways people's situations could ill fit the simple criteria that're being bandied about. Now imagine the legions of people that would be involved in enforcing, especially with any sensitivity to those multitudes of ways. Now look at the statistics on how *little* welfare is abused now. There's a lot of projecting of ill intent on an imagined mass of potential welfare abusers.
I'm certain some people will abuse such a system, as any system is abused by some. I'm willing to live with that, so long as the system is set up with reasonable incentives for improving one's life. I think it is a far better alternative than requiring poor people be treated as potential criminals simply because they want gov't assistance with being poor. It is already extraordinarily hard to get the most deserving populations onto gov't assistance programs, in large part because of the onerous requirements, difficulty many people have understanding the requirements, arcane ways one can suddenly lose eligibility, and so forth. Adding *even more* conditions is an even worse idea.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm certain some people will abuse such a system, as any system is abused by some. I'm willing to live with that, so long as the system is set up with reasonable incentives for improving one's life. I think it is a far better alternative than requiring poor people be treated as potential criminals simply because they want gov't assistance with being poor. It is already extraordinarily hard to get the most deserving populations onto gov't assistance programs, in large part because of the onerous requirements, difficulty many people have understanding the requirements, arcane ways one can suddenly lose eligibility, and so forth. Adding *even more* conditions is an even worse idea.
AMEN.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Most your posts fugu show that you know a lot more about economics that I do...and that's okay, I'm sure there is good reason for you to know these things (like they are your job or are interesting to you). But to say that jobs are a cost like it is a simple and closed matter just doesn't make sense to me.
To those employing, without those people in those positions (without those jobs) they would not be able to have a profitable company, to the government jobs create huge amounts of income tax, to the people jobs create money to spend in the real world.
In what way are jobs simply a cost?
Throwing money in a pit filled with gasoline followed directly by a match is simply a cost.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You know, the WPA and CWA, while not without issues, did get an awful lot accomplished while keeping families from dissolving into terrible poverty. And a lot of those WPA/CWA buildings, bridges, and roads could use some fixing up by now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:To those employing, without those people in those positions (without those jobs) they would not be able to have a profitable company, to the government jobs create huge amounts of income tax, to the people jobs create money to spend in the real world.
The work done by the people is the benefit, not the job itself, and the work will be just as beneficial if it is done by a person or a computer (assuming it is done the same). If the job isn't doing work that is valuable, there's no benefit.
The key is realizing that money that is spent employing people in one particular position, especially gov't money, isn't doing something else. Such as providing another job that's actually needed -- if welfare administration was offloaded on the states (as is common with federal programs), then that money would likely be not employing a teacher, or not employing a garbage truck driver. You get the idea.
quote:You know, the WPA and CWA, while not without issues, did get an awful lot accomplished while keeping families from dissolving into terrible poverty. And a lot of those WPA/CWA buildings, bridges, and roads could use some fixing up by now.
It would be pretty much illegal to try to do the same thing, because the requirements we have for erecting such structures in such locations now are much more onerous (environmental assessments, engineer time for the plans, et cetera). I mean, we could do something similar, but it would be far, far more expensive than it was then, and a very different program. Also, I suspect there would be few people interested (unsurprising, as the situation in the US today is far better than it was back then, even ignoring the great depression). After all, farmers are having hard times finding people willing to diligently work picking berries for above minimum wage.
Also, the benefits are a lot less clear than you might think. People not participating in the WPA were quicker to get (better) jobs, with WPA workers staying in their gov't provided jobs for a long time. A direct handout that decreases at less than one for one with increased income means workers won't have to risk lowering their income by seeking normal jobs, the big problem for WPA workers. Further, just as it was back then, such a jobs program would probably become highly politicized, with WPA-style projects going far more to the states of those politically supportive of the administration at the time, instead of being closely focused on need, as a direct benefit based solely on income level would be.
Even with all that, I'm not really against it if it could be made to happen; the WPA and so forth people were employed doing fairly useful things, unlike the proposed welfare inspectors.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't know how you can separate the work being done from the cost of the person's pay in the word "job"...it's both, a job is a contract between the employer and the employee for work done and pay rendered.
If you want to say that "pay checks" are a cost...I might agree...but even those generate tax income and are spent into the economy.
And if governments were required to run on budget, then perhaps spending one place would remove money from another...but they aren't, thus we have a huge deficit.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: And then I have to keep tabs on it continuously. I admit something that others probably agree with without realizing it (even those who complain about government inefficiencies in administering help), which is that my time is more precious than that. I'd rather use the time freed up from researching this to poke around with coding projects at home that could, in theory lead to me becoming an entrepreneur, creating jobs and helping people out of government assistance.
Suit yourself, but it literally took me less than a half hour to pick a good charity from Givewell. Then all you have to do is check again every once in a while (if you want) to make sure they're still endorsed.
Since taxes are so unjustly low right now, I do think there's an obligation, depending on your income level, to give a bit more than you otherwise would to private charity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I don't know how you can separate the work being done from the cost of the person's pay in the word "job"...it's both, a job is a contract between the employer and the employee for work done and pay rendered.
It is pretty easy, really. For instance, if the work done can be done by computer, we say it does the work, but we don't say it has the job. You've asserted the mere existence of a job is a benefit. It isn't. Only the product of the job is a benefit. The existence of the job does, however, always require costs: the salary and other administrative overhead. That's true even if there's no benefit from the job. Thus, jobs are a cost, not a benefit, since the costs are inseparable, but the benefits are separable.
quote:And if governments were required to run on budget, then perhaps spending one place would remove money from another...but they aren't, thus we have a huge deficit.
Where do you think the money the gov't has (or has promised) comes from? Of course it all comes from somewhere. There's no magic free money the gov't gets to create from nothing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Even with all that, I'm not really against it if it could be made to happen; the WPA and so forth people were employed doing fairly useful things, unlike the proposed welfare inspectors.
That was my point.
Although I am a bit concerned about the state of some of our bridges and roads.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, btw have you figured out the answer to our little history quiz? What were the results of that economic strategy guaranteed to end all poverty in the US?
With us living in an age of pretty high corporate profits, all the stuff that was supposed to be 'trickling down' really isn't, and it's making a lot of supply siders and lafferites kind of shuffle their feet around a bit. Wealth gaps are getting kind of extreme!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:It is pretty easy, really. For instance, if the work done can be done by computer, we say it does the work, but we don't say it has the job. You've asserted the mere existence of a job is a benefit. It isn't. Only the product of the job is a benefit. The existence of the job does, however, always require costs: the salary and other administrative overhead. That's true even if there's no benefit from the job. Thus, jobs are a cost, not a benefit, since the costs are inseparable, but the benefits are separable.
You are implying that computers are free, with no maintenance and operating costs and just deliver work like magic. Jobs = work + cost. You can not separate the work part, or else it isn't a job, it is charity. The work done for the pay is integral to the concept.
quote:Where do you think the money the gov't has (or has promised) comes from? Of course it all comes from somewhere. There's no magic free money the gov't gets to create from nothing.
You suggested that paying people for oversight is like taking water out of a bucket...there is less water for other things. I'm saying there is not a bucket...we keep just pumping the well pump (printing more money and getting in deeper debt)...yes, eventually we will have to deal with all the debt, but to say that it literally takes away from doing other things is unrealistic I think.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:You are implying that computers are free, with no maintenance and operating costs and just deliver work like magic. Jobs = work + cost. You can not separate the work part, or else it isn't a job, it is charity. The work done for the pay is integral to the concept.
There are plenty of jobs that provide essentially no benefit, but are jobs. For instance, I could employ far too many people to pick up litter, as in the example. With so many of them, the streets would be nigh-spotless, but they'd be definitely in jobs: constantly on the watch for that occasional litter drop.
And your definition says the computer has a job. The computer doesn't. What's more, I never said the computer didn't have a cost. Those costs are costs too. Where did I say the only costs were jobs? I just said jobs were costs. Because they are.
Look at the quotation where you talked about jobs being a benefit:
quote:I agree with Geraine that oversight should be a part of public assistance programs, and the fact that that oversight is not free doesn't make it "inefficient" as that money goes back into the economy by creating jobs.
You called the *cost* of paying people salary a *benefit*, not the work being done. That is not true.
quote:You suggested that paying people for oversight is like taking water out of a bucket...there is less water for other things. I'm saying there is not a bucket...we keep just pumping the well pump (printing more money and getting in deeper debt)...yes, eventually we will have to deal with all the debt, but to say that it literally takes away from doing other things is unrealistic I think.
No, it's pretty much definitional. Your argument doesn't make a lick of sense. Whether the things being taken away are being taken from the future or not (and they aren't, at least not entirely; debt payments start immediately), they're still being taken away. In fact, they're taken away immediately in another sense: gov't debt is a sale of a security (such as a bond). When the gov't sells bonds, that money is *taken away* from other uses, immediately, in exchange for an asset that the person hopes will pay them money in the future. The bond then sits there earning interest until the time it is cashed, receiving money back from the government. Now, that effect isn't complete, due to the high value of the bond as a security, but it definitely happens.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Maybe it will help to look at it this way. People who count jobs as benefits tend to do the accounting this way:
The program accomplished X worth of goals plus created Y amount of payroll in jobs, for a net benefit of X + Y - expenses. See how you called the salaries a benefit in the bit I quoted? That's the exact same thing. (edit: even the more charitable way of phrasing this way of thinking, X + Y - Y - expenses, is still obviously very wrong).
But the real equation is as follows: X worth of goals were accomplished at a cost of Y amount of payroll (and expenses), for a net benefit of X - Y - expenses. That's the correct accounting. That tells us how much benefit there was to society by the project. Jobs are a cost, not a benefit.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I appreciate how much work you put into your answers, but I still disagree, and honestly don't feel like trying to go into the same level of detail myself.
I don't see jobs simply as a benefit nor simply as a cost. That there are costs associated with jobs is obvious, but that there are benefits as well I feel is equally obvious.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: And then I have to keep tabs on it continuously. I admit something that others probably agree with without realizing it (even those who complain about government inefficiencies in administering help), which is that my time is more precious than that. I'd rather use the time freed up from researching this to poke around with coding projects at home that could, in theory lead to me becoming an entrepreneur, creating jobs and helping people out of government assistance.
Suit yourself, but it literally took me less than a half hour to pick a good charity from Givewell. Then all you have to do is check again every once in a while (if you want) to make sure they're still endorsed.
Since taxes are so unjustly low right now, I do think there's an obligation, depending on your income level, to give a bit more than you otherwise would to private charity.
Of course, I do give to private charity (several, actually), but if we decided to shift the burden of helping the poor much more onto individual's shoulders, that would become an issue.
Also, some of my donations go to other causes (like my High School, my wife's College, a Children's museum, NPR, a local college radio station we listen to frequently) than simply helping the poor (which we also donate to).
Better a government bureaucrat spends time managing our our money for helping the poor, than each of us individually doing so (at potentially cross-purposes).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
fugu, I wonder if what SW is getting at is the idea Kat was talking about before in this thread: that there's some additional utility to people being busy and feeling like they're working to support themselves, so that the value of a job is more than just the benefits of the work minus the associated costs of employment.
FWIW, I disagree that that's a good reason to try to create jobs...
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Vonnegut's Player Piano is an interesting take on that sentiment.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Bok: yeah, I agree that that would be the ideal.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Vonnegut's work contains some very interesting meditations on egalitarian ideals (Sirens of Titan is especially good for those).
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yeah, as a socialist, he was under no illusions of actual equality of individuals. His aim was more promoting kindness.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Really one of the most admirable people of our time, IMO.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Los Capax Infinitos: By taking another's earnings you depriving them of a percentage of their life. The earner receives no compensation. I can't conceive of a justifiable reason to take some of a person's life and use it to support the life and leisure of lazy individuals.
You do, actually. Multiple ones, in fact. We could start with jails.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: fugu, I wonder if what SW is getting at is the idea Kat was talking about before in this thread: that there's some additional utility to people being busy and feeling like they're working to support themselves, so that the value of a job is more than just the benefits of the work minus the associated costs of employment.
Nope. The specific benefits I'm talking about (beyond the individual benefits to the employed person) are tax revenue and work generated and money spent in the economy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So you're saying the right equation for benefits from a gov't program is X + Y - benefits or X + Y -Y - benefits, roughly?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
EDIT: Destineer: I don't know. I certainly have enjoyed his stories, but something tells me we wouldn't enjoy each other's company. He came across as a jerk.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
fugu...I'm talking about jobs...not government programs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The topic came up in the context of a gov't program. We were talking about jobs that might be part of that program. How can the jobs have a benefit (especially one that's purely due to wages paid, as you've outlined) that isn't a part of the net benefits of the program that created them?
Certainly it is to the overall benefit of the economy for there to be jobs and all they entail. But for any specific situation being evaluated, jobs are a *cost*, and any accounting otherwise is wrong.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:But for any specific situation being evaluated, jobs are a *cost*, and any accounting otherwise is wrong.
I'm glad that's settled! Such a weight off my shoulders.
Dude, I suggested that we agree to disagree, I only restated to clarify because Destineer asked.
What I was stating was about jobs in general. I'm glad we see more eye to eye on the overall. Of course you didn't specify in your response that you were only analyzing the benefit of a proposed government program...all you said was "Jobs are not a benefit, they are a cost." with no modifiers.
As to why the program would be of benefit, we discussed this and there was a lack of agreement.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
/I had a real plan any fool can understand The advice, real simple—boost aggregate demand! C, I, G, all together gets to Y Make sure the total’s growing, watch the economy fly/
/Circular flow, the dough is everything So if that flow is getting low, doesn’t matter the reason We need more government spending, now it’s stimulus season
So forget about saving, get it straight out of your head Like I said, in the long run—we’re all dead Savings is destruction, that’s the paradox of thrift Don’t keep money in your pocket, or that growth will never lift…/
/The monetary and the fiscal, they’re equally correct Public works, digging ditches, war has the same effect Even a broken window helps the glass man have some wealth The multiplier driving higher the economy’s health/
^_^
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Oh man, I was all excited to be able to post that in the other thread.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
In the actual world, someone has to do the ones that need doing (who gets these jobs will be decided by the market, I suppose), but we shouldn't be asking the government to create more of that kind of work. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)