Low skill jobs pay less every year (adjusted to inflation) (real estate, status)

[subsound]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

What you left out of your analysis is the cost of obtaining education and skills.

Why would a person pay 10's of thousands of dollars for a college education, when they have a better chance of making $10 an hour then $20 when they graduate?

Well, there it depends on degree too. If you get a useful degree with a bright future you can make a good bit more starting out, and continue to increase...while if you get a useless degree you just pissed away all that money. Not all education or training is equal, you can't get an undergrad in philosophy and get a job doing financial analysis. Plus people have to be smart about debt, you can't borrow till your credit score bleeds and blame the college. There are many stories where people borrow like that then try and look at availability and pay scale of jobs in the field.

If you went to college and made double an hour starting outside of it, and then that increases progressively as you get more experience it can be beneficial (and not borrowing more then you will make). If people are just getting a bachelor's, any one, to just get a job it's silly...it is a good qualifier for what you might want to do. On the other hand, you can't expect to preform a job that requires little skill or training for the rest of your life.

The big thing is moderation, foresight, and wise choices. There is a big range of choices in this arena, extremes are not the only choice.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

At what point will you not be able to move though?

If I were a seriously injured. Other than that I can get on a plane and be anywhere in the world for a $100 or so (taxes are expensive when going abroad).

[Huckleberry3911948]

yes they are.
if you look at the debt factor we are rapidly moving towards indentured servitude/slavery.
we ripped off alota people, chinese forced labor products at walmart, 21 million illegal mexican people low wage no benefits, what goes around comes around.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

Increasing tax rates and printing money with the associated inflation are not the ways to go either.

Umm, that's what I said.

The free market will work it's way out. We don't need Government taking money from us. We need them cutting taxes and expenses. More money in my pocket means I spend more and save more, both good for the economy.

The Government used to borrow to build infrastructure, now it's borrowing to fund wars that are merely expenses.

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

If I were a seriously injured. Other than that I can get on a plane and be anywhere in the world for a $100 or so (taxes are expensive when going abroad).

I meant as in, what if the demand for that job completely dried up? What if you couldnt just "go somewhere else" and find employment?

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

Umm, that's what I said.

The free market will work it's way out. We don't need Government taking money from us. We need them cutting taxes and expenses. More money in my pocket means I spend more and save more, both good for the economy.

I agree, they do need to cut taxes, but the lions share need to go directly to the consumer, not the wealthy and businesses through "trickle down" methods.

Originally Posted by wheelsup

The Government used to borrow to build infrastructure, now it's borrowing to fund wars that are merely expenses.

I dont think the government should borrow for anything, personally. I really dont see why the government isnt held to any limitations on what they can spend.

If we cant afford to be the worlds police, then we cant. Period. We should not borrow to do this.

[texdav]

Face it unless you own part of the means of production and take the risk ;you will always be part of teh trikle down section.Even if governamnt gives you something its trickle down. Goverment remember does nothing that really produces a finished product they do it by contract in the vast majority of cases. That is why governamnt should have a very limited role in society becuase they give ou these contracts thru politics which is a very rigged game and tied always to funding campaigns.

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by texdav

Face it unless you own part of the means of production and take the risk ;you will always be part of teh trikle down section.

There is no risk in owning the means of production. The risk is in employing that means to create something above what you yourself can produce.

For instance, there is no financial risk faced by using your land to produce vegetables you can harvest yourself. The risk is incurred when you are paying someone else to harvest additional produce. You have to pay them whether or not you can sell the produce. You, essentially, are assuming the risk of the labor value fluctuation.

Originally Posted by texdav

Even if governamnt gives you something its trickle down.

Tax cuts and transfer payments arent trickle down.

Originally Posted by texdav

Goverment remember does nothing that really produces a finished product they do it by contract in the vast majority of cases.

There is nothing super wrong with this, in theory. The US government is not suited to run programs directly responsible for task completion.

However, the government must make moves to abandon back scratching contracts, pork barrel crap, and no bid contracts. They also must force wage rates as part of the contract, and restrict profit margins to ensure the money actually gets to the people at the bottom.

Originally Posted by texdav

That is why governamnt should have a very limited role in society becuase they give ou these contracts thru politics which is a very rigged game and tied always to funding campaigns.

This kind of crap needs to stop though.

[floridasandy]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

I agree, they do need to cut taxes, but the lions share need to go directly to the consumer, not the wealthy and businesses through "trickle down" methods.




I dont think the government should borrow for anything, personally. I really dont see why the government isnt held to any limitations on what they can spend.

If we cant afford to be the worlds police, then we cant. Period. We should not borrow to do this.

the government can't fund itself! it has to get money from somewhere and that somewhere is the private sector. anything that the government does to spend more money costs somebody in the private sector, either through increased taxation, borrowing, or the printing of money and thus inflation.

the more spending the government does, no matter what form it takes, the more it hurts the private sector and the taxpayers. the first stimulus was a bad idea and the next stimulus (i am sure that there will be a next stimulus since this one is not working) will be another bad idea. the basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, according to the congressional budget office.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

I agree, they do need to cut taxes, but the lions share need to go directly to the consumer, not the wealthy and businesses through "trickle down" methods.

The rich already pay the majority of taxes in the US, what more do you want? We ALL need to be paying more in taxes now to pay off our debt.