[QUOTE=rogerbox]
I think that after the first few million how much the ultra rich make is irrellevent. The lifestyle of the highest percentage of the population possible should be as high as possible. So my system would consider the multimillionaires “complete” and focus on the vast majority of Americans who are not multimillionaires and measure their lifestyle. As long as there are people living in third world conditions and middle class people cannot pay their bills or send their children to college or expect the insurance companies to actually PAY OUT when they become sick (Or that their kids are even insurable if they have a pre-existing condition), then I would say no, the US is not healthy just because our extremely rich are by themselves richer than the majority of the rest of the planet combined. The average American could be doing a lot better, if we chose to make the people at the top pay their fair share, and FIGHT FOR OUR WORKERS instead of just LETTING, or even ENCOURAGING jobs to get outsourced to save a few percentage points.
[/QUOTE]
Then I can only say that you lack even a basic understanding of economics. I’m sure I’m not the right person to explain the basics to you…maybe someone like Same Stone will wander in. I’ll just say that in order to build any of those jobs you want you need to get over your disdain for the ‘ultra rich’ having those few millions after the first few, since that’s where jobs come from. The ‘ultra rich’ don’t hide their money in their mattresses or spend it all on hookers and blow…they invest it, they have it in banks and in federal monetary investments and instruments which are all used by the government and private industry to…well, do everything. You have the same knee jerk hatred of the rich that I often see on this board, but the reality is that without the rich there would be NO jobs. By the same token, without the government the rich wouldn’t be able to get rich or keep what they have without the use of force, and without regulation they would run wild and do what they want without thought to long term impact. You need to cultivate a more balanced and facts based view of the real world as it really is.
Seriously…if it were that easy then why hasn’t anyone done it? A few little policy changes and all would be goodness and light?? And what would these simple policy changes be? You say (later one in your post) that you don’t want to force companies to hire people, but how do you get them to hire people then? You are the president…or, hell, you are the King of America, since that is better suited to trying to implement crazy stuff without any sort of reality or politics…what would you do? How would you get the ‘ultra rich’ to heel and make good paying jobs for every day Americans? Just tell me broadly what you propose, because high sounding words and phrases SOUND good, but, again, if there were easy solutions or a few policy tweaks that could fix everything then I have to ask…why hasn’t anyone done them?
If it was in GE’s best economic interest to stay in that town then I ask you…why didn’t they? Did they do it simply from spite? Do they like Mexicans better? Did the US offer GE a lot of money to go to Mexico? If not, how is the US subsidizing GE’s move to Mexico?
I have no problem with cutting off government subsidies to business. Hell, I’m all for it. It distorts the market, and part of the problem in the US is that our government (Dem and Pub) are in bed with Big Business™…and that’s a real problem. Here’s the thing about your example though…even if we take it at face value and your remember everything as it was said, and heck even if this random guy calling into a radio show is 100% correct, GE had to have seen some benefit in closing that plant and building a new one (which would have cost a lot in up front capital). So…what’s your answer to that? The town offered GE some sort of deal according to you…and they took it for 4 years, again, according to you. So…what would you have GE do at that point? What would you have the town do? What should they do?
And what’s keeping some other company from coming into that town and using that labor? Or from those people who lived there from starting their own company if their labor is so valuable? Or preventing those people from taking their valuable labor to somewhere it’s more marketable? What is your proposed solution to this? You say you wouldn’t force GE to stay. You want to get rid of subsidies for GE to move (though you’d have to prove they got subsidies to move to Mexico). Is that it? Just stop subsidies to American companies moving offshore? Would that solve the problem, assuming it’s a major factor?
So, you’d be good doing a job that has no value and is basically meaningless just to protect your salary and at others expense? Well, that’s fine…to each his or her own. Perhaps one of your problems is that lack of pride in your work. Or, perhaps you just have bad luck. Or, perhaps your labor isn’t as valuable as you thought it was…or you need to take your labor somewhere else where it would be more valuable…or any number of other things. Only you would know that.
But let me ask you. Let’s say that you were given a job (by magic or from the government, which is pretty much the same thing), and your salary was protected and would increase with the costs of living at a rate that you and others on this board consider equitable. You can’t be fired. Your salary is up to some level of ‘living wage’ that you think is fair, and will increase to keep up with the rising costs of living. What will that mean to the prices of the goods or services your company makes? Do you think they will go down, go up or stay the same? And what about all the other companies that have to do the same sorts of things, and perhaps make products or material or services that your company uses to make whatever widget your company would theoretically make? And for the $64,000 dollar question, would your company be able to compete with foreign companies importing competing goods and services? Or would you prevent sales or set tariffs on those foreign companies to make US companies forced (or whatever) to use US labor competitive? Overall, what would that do to prices in the US for the every day goods and services you use?
And lastly, how would you encourage (or force) companies to build new plants or create new jobs in such an environment? If you can’t be fired, make a large ‘living wage’, know your job is protected even when it becomes useless, then everyone is going to get a similar deal, right? So…what incentive would those nasty ‘ultra rich’ folks have to create new companies along similar lines (forget about their incentive to even maintain those already here under such conditions)? Again, what’s your proposal to do all this? What easy policy tweaks need to be put in place to make all this happen?
No quarrel from me that the Iraq war (and hell, Afghanistan too) was a huge waste of public funds. But let’s say that you could take all that back and have all that money…what would you do with it? Would you still have taxes people for it and we’d still have the deficit, or would you not have and then not had that money to do anything with? Would you have put it into government funded space exploration and exploitation, or poured it into education and jobs training? So, assuming the latter (I’m good with the space exploration bit btw ;)), we’d still have the deficit, we’d have still had the housing bubble burst, we’d still have had the recession and the economic downturn, but what? We’d have a lot more people trained for what jobs? In 2003 what jobs would you have been training people for, and what effect would that have today? How would having people trained (for what?) create jobs today?
As for education, we already spend a lot on education and we don’t get all that great of a return on our investment. Would you just pour more money into the existing system or would you spend more money on some revamped education system? And what kind of education? More college grants, or grade school money? And, again, how would that help us right now or in the future? Do you think it’s a lack of education or training that is keeping people unemployed overall?
You are crazy. Feel better? Again, however, even leaving aside the poolboys bit (and that’s a salary for someone, right?), you don’t seem to grasp what rich people actually do with their money. I really don’t know where folks who think along the lines you are posting in this thread think jobs come from, or where the money to build all the stuff you use comes from. Where you think the tax revenue the government uses comes from. It’s not all from the ‘ultra rich’, but you have to realize that at least some of it comes from them and those extra millions you disdain…right?
Try thinking about it from the company’s point of view, and set aside your hatred for the company. If it has 100 people working for it, and then improves efficiency requiring only 90 people, the result is a cheaper product.
Yes, that savings might end up in a rich guy’s pocket, but more than likely it goes to reducing the cost of the object making it more competitive.
Why does it need to be competitive? Because there are other producers also working on efficiency that are trying to sell for less (or make a better product). If your company doesn’t stay efficient it will run out of business. Now 90 people are out of jobs instead of 10.
Which would you rather?
Not sure I see any facts there. Lots of opinions, but no facts. You seem rather angry at rich people, not sure what Warren Buffet ever did to you to warrant such hostility.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
It was doomed to be derailed, our libertarian/conservative posters always show up and tell just-so stories and whatnot whenever the idea that funneling money to the rich as fast as possible is a bad idea is floated.
[/QUOTE]
Could you name any of thee ‘libertarian/conservative’ posters who think it’s a good idea to funnel money from the government to the rich as fast as possible?? I don’t know any, so I’m curious to see who you are talking about.
Specifics? What would you offer companies to keep them here in the US? Tax breaks? Subsidies?
What effect do you suppose this would have? To me this seems a sure fire way to get many companies to kill whatever jobs they have here in the US and to give foreign companies less incentive to build plants here in the US and use US labor. Wouldn’t that mean that you’d effectively get less taxes too? Or do you think there would be a flood of companies who would completely divest themselves of all their foreign holdings and manufacturing and, what? Build it all back here to take advantage of high priced US labor and tighter regulation??
Would you offer incentives consummate with the savings companies get by outsourcing or offshoring their manufacturing or services? And, again, how would this build more jobs? I can see several ways to game this already, the best would be to build a shell company or to build a highly automated manufacturing plant staffed by real red blooded Americans…maybe 1 or 2. Then you get the benefit and it doesn’t really cost you anything…and also has several unintended consequences and not the one consequence you are apparently trying to have happen, namely a bunch of high wage high benefit US jobs. Of course, when you try and put a bunch of restrictions or other stipulations what will happen is either the companies will game your new scenario or it won’t be worth their while and they will move everything out of the US and still be able to out compete local companies because their lower labor costs will balance whatever goodies you think you would give US companies using US labor.
I’m all for cutting off corporate subsidies, but I don’t think your punch list there will have the effect you seem to think it would have.
The result is not a cheaper product. it is more profits. Owners are not sharing with the employees. Like the increased productivity from the last few years. It went into owners pockets, wages have dropped.
I read an article this weekend that said Chinese wages have gone up 17 percent this year. It is the second year in a row with such an increase. They were wondering at what point, it becomes cheaper to make some products here. The wages have no way near caught up but the shipping charge is a big deal. So some products, especially small ones, can be made here for almost the same profit margin.
Hahaha. This is funny for two reasons. One, I like Warren Buffet, he’s a rich man who believes in paying his fair share of taxes. For two, I only advocate a progressive fair tax system unlike what we have today. You don’t say a conservative who argues tax cuts for the top percent of a percent of the richest in America is “hostile”, nothing I have said could be construed as hostile. I said I don’t believe tax cuts for the wealth encourage job creation WHICH IT DOESN’T since we have lived with Bush’s tax cuts for 10 years now and seen no job creation. FACT.
Middle class or poor person arguing for progressive taxation= “hostile”
Rich person trying to keep more of their money and protecting corporate welfare= uh, not hostile.
It’s only class warfare and redistribution of wealth when normal folk advocate it.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The result is not a cheaper product. it is more profits. Owners are not sharing with the employees. Like the increased productivity from the last few years. It went into owners pockets, wages have dropped.
[/QUOTE]
And every business in the world is in on the scam? They are all price controlling all their goods and services? Because if not, then why isn’t someone selling those goods and services for lower prices and taking their market share?
The answer, of course, is that goods and services in the US ARE cheap…much cheaper than in many other parts of the world…even places like many of the European countries.
I’d like to see a cite that wages in China are up 17% this year and 17% last year as well, but it wouldn’t surprise me all that much. When your wages start out in the basement there is no place to go but up. I do find it ironic that you fail to realize that the Chinese government has deliberately undercut their own workers by keeping their currency artificially low and by pumping a large amount of the money they make on trade back into the economies of the countries they compete with, including the US. They do this in order to keep their currency prices low so that they can keep their products and goods and services cheap and artificially keep up the current trade imbalances…and that all of that is a detriment to their own people in the short and medium terms.
It’s rellevent because republicans demanded the rich get their Bush tax cuts extended under the auspices of job creation. It is a proven lie.
The 95% of wealth going to the wealthy was mildly hyperbolic but googling briefly find numbers like the top 1% own 43% of the wealth, and other varying numbers you can pick and choose. It is only common sense that “net” gain for America does not necessarily benefit regular Americans in any way.
Please answer my hypothetical, is it better for “America” (define as you wish) that 100x people get employed at 40,000 USD (4 mil) or that Warren Buffet gets 5 million dollars that materialized out of thin air? The NET for America is more if Buffet gets 5 million, but I think it is better for “America” as I define it if the former, assuming those people are unemployed or unDERemployed.
My argument in this thread is that we need to stop measuring how well the US is doing by including the mega-wealthy. Your pool boy advocacy is nothing more than trickle down economics "But we CAN’T make the wealthy pay their fair share, they would employ fewer maids and we’d ALL suffer!!! "
[QUOTE=rogerbox]
It’s rellevent because republicans demanded the rich get their Bush tax cuts extended under the auspices of job creation. It is a proven lie.
[/QUOTE]
Tell you what…why don’t we reascend ALL of the tax cuts? Is that a fair deal? Since they were only for ‘the rich’ and all. I’m game…let’s get rid of all of the Bush Tax Cuts™ and go back to the rates as they were pre-Bush. Deal?
They also pay a larger percentage of the federal taxes as well, and their capital is the grease that allows the machines of industry to move. But ok…what do you propose to do about it? Tax the rich obviously, but how…and at what rate? What seems fair and balanced to you?
Why? What will Warren do with the money? Will he invest that $5 million in businesses that could potentially expand and hire new workers? Will he invest it in new businesses or in companies that will use it for R&D? Why is it an either/or proposition? Who is giving this money away? If you employ 100x people at $40k a year is this random people you are giving the money to or are we talking about 100x people employed by companies getting real value out of them? If the later, Mr. Buffet will make his $5 million AND those people will be employed…right?
How should we measure it then? Why does the ‘poolboy’ not count? Is s/he not a worker? What about the company that employs him? What about the chemical company and their employees who provide the chemicals? What about the construction workers who built the pool…and the materials vendors that provided the materials? What about the architectural firm who planned the pool? Are all those people not real workers? And I don’t believe that the ‘mega-rich’ are confined to just having a pool. They buy cars, boats, houses, clothes, food and all sorts of other things. Their money is also, again, not buried in the backyard or in their mattresses…it’s out doing stuff, even if they are the cartoon worthless rich person.
Uh, okay, but it’s not relevant to your own OP which was about efficiency and job loss.
I’d rather not since it rarely gets anyone anywhere.
Spending $4mil on a make work project might be a really good idea and might benefit a lot of people. It might also end up building a bridge to no where that no one will benefit from.
On the other hand, I consider Warren Buffet a genius and I think he’d do a far better job with the $5mil than the government. He might evaluate a business with a durable competitive advantage (a favourite phrase of his) and invest in it. That business might employ any where from 1 to 1000 people, but more importantly it would provide a product that people want, there by providing sustainable income to those workers.
A few of you are making decent points, and a few of you are also putting words in my mouth. I really like the discussion but I need to pull an all nighter at my home business so I can get maybe 90 minutes sleep and then go to my day job tomorrow (I’m hoping one of you Horatio Alger rich conservatives will see my initiative and save me from poverty with a cushy job+nice looking daughter, hint hint )
So, I will have to get back to this when I can, sorry.
When you compared the Euro to China you implied it was pegged.
Teach, should have read cheat, which is what you accused the Germans of doing.
I fail to see how costly bailouts of Greece and Portugal is cheating. Especially when the Euro is at an all time high against the US$.
Agreed. But the reason I mention the GD is because this and to some extent WW2 lead to major overhauls in social policies for just about every industrial nation except the US.
After the war as Europe was rebuilding, they were adapting new policies such as universal healthcare and labor unions.
The US never did get the universal healthcare Roosevelt had promised before he died, but they did have strong labor unions. You can still find strong labor unions in the US for jobs that can’t be exported, but in the ‘80’s and onwards, Reagan started the move of systematically removing them.
The point was that Canadian industry also fared well in WW2, and immediately after.
The difference is, that when the US started exporting key industries and the jobs that went with them in the ‘80’s. The Canadians didn’t. Why would they?
Perhaps I worded that incorrectly. The EU as a hole has a long way to go before they are united like the US. So, yes I did mean compare individual countries.
Countries like Greece and Portugal drag down the “average” as you point out. Frankly, they should not have been allowed to join the Euro as their fiscal policies were not up to par, and now Germany is paying for it. But that’s a different disussion.
The point is, even if you are comparing the poorest states with the poorest EU nations, there still isn’t anyone allowed to go hungry in the EU. Nor are people systematically made homeless.
Frankly, I don’t follow sports either. Golfers are highest on an individual level, but for each Tiger Woods, there are a vast number of pro golfers who don’t make even close to that. My impression was that European professional football players earn the most on average, but every search I tried came up with US pro leagues.
I guess I was wrong on this point.
Xt and his illogic. Suppose we give a 100 percent tax to Warren Buffet. Would that balance the budget. No, therefore we should not have a reasonable tax rate for him ,He should continue to pay a much smaller rate?
Fact is the rich have been getting tax breaks since Reagan. It has stripped billions out of our tax base.
I believe the wealthy should pay at a rate closer to the Ike times.
Corporations evade taxes. Many of the largest pay zero. The real tax rate for business is under 8 percent. It is nothing like the 35 percent you pretend is real.
Close the damn loopholes and tax evasion tactics that we have passed legislation to permit, and we could lower the corporate tax rates and make you feel all warm and fuzzy. But we have to start collecting taxes. You can not cut your way out of the Bush deficits. We need more tax money.
You might want to look up the industrial output of Canada vs the US between 1930 and 1960. Within that you’ll see the answer to to your second question.
You, Sam Stone, John Mace, msmith, Rand Rover, most any libertarian, really.
Tax breaks. Subsidies, not so much.
xtisme, explain to me why the US government should support companies that export jobs first. I mean, it sounds like you would be all fine and dandy with a company that consisted of a US board of directors and management that did all it’s business overseas getting tax breaks. At what point does the madness stop, xtisme?
And the same plant being built overseas would employ how many Americans, xtisme? Zero? That about right? Your extreme example notwithstanding, automated plants in the US are fairly common now, it’s how we leverage the productivity of our employees. Let’s keep em here, hmmm?
The tax incentives would be commensurate with the number of Americans employed, xtisme, especially at decent wages. That’s the point of them, the savings to offshore workers is a moot point.
Of course companies will try to game the system that’s what they do, that’s why they need to be regulated. That’s why unregulated capitalism is a failure.
Companies that move everything out of the US would be wise to move their owners and boards of directors and stockholders out, too.
I think it would take vigorous enforcement for some, but I think a lot of owners and businesses would take the tax breaks and be happy.
It not a scam. it is legal. They can take as much as they want and they do. They can fight to lower wages, and they do. they can slash benefits while profits are soaring. And they do. I suppose I could look up the jump in corporate profits the last decade or so and hand it to you, but you would declare it left wing.
The article was page 2 Detroit Free Press last Sunday. I would actually go through the trouble and give it to you but you would erroneously declare it left wing.
Feel better? Again, however, even leaving aside the poolboys bit (and that’s a salary for someone, right?), you don’t seem to grasp what rich people actually do with their money. I really don’t know where folks who think along the lines you are posting in this thread think jobs come from, or where the money to build all the stuff you use comes from. Where you think the tax revenue the government uses comes from. It’s not all from the ‘ultra rich’, but you have to realize that at least some of it comes from them and those extra millions you disdain…right?
"
)