Low skill jobs pay less every year (adjusted to inflation) (student loan, capitalism)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

The median income for men is not 44k. In 2007 it was 33k, and not likely much higher in 2008, in fact, its probably lower

To quote myself "The median income for men working full time is around $44k/year." You are looking at a different figure, see here:

Historical Income Tables - People

Originally Posted by Randomdude

Real median income for men has changed almost none since the late 60's, early 70's, dispite huge increases in education and skill levels.

Why should it change? Has the median life style changed since the early 70's? Most certainly....

[Rei]

While the Government creates some jobs in the form of hiring out to build infrastructure, we can't and shouldn't rely on it to create jobs for our overall economy.

Amen... +1. Now, if we could only figure out a way to make civil/public works more efficient...

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by user_id

To quote myself "The median income for men working full time is around $44k/year." You are looking at a different figure, see here:

Historical Income Tables - People

I see, so as long as we only figure in people working full time....lets ignore the people forced in to part time jobs....

Anyhow, its the exact same thing, real median income for males working full time has changed almost none in the past 30 years.

Originally Posted by user_id

Why should it change?

Why should it change? Because the cost to each invidual has risen to obtain the same salary. If I pay 20k for an education, I should get more money then my father, who didnt pay jack for an education. Instead, Im getting the same money or less.

Originally Posted by user_id

Has the median life style changed since the early 70's? Most certainly....

So has the debt load and so has science and technology. "Life style" or "material well being" is not a measurement of financial well being.

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by floridasandy

the government can't fund itself! it has to get money from somewhere and that somewhere is the private sector.

We are collecting X dollars of taxes right now, are we not? Sure, if there is nothing to start with, the government would have to borrow to pay people. However, that ISNT where the US is coming from.

Originally Posted by floridasandy

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.

That is only if there are no private sector taxes being collected already. Clearly, the US has boatloads of private sector taxes being collected.

Originally Posted by floridasandy

the more spending the government does, no matter what form it takes, the more it hurts the private sector and the taxpayers.

Not neccessarily true. It is not neccessary to do anything other then adjust current spending.

Originally Posted by floridasandy

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.

Ok, here is the thing, the government is borrowing MORE money for these stimulus plans. Sure, if you dont adjust current spending, and simply dump money you dont have, in to government projects, SURE its going to take more taxes, or more printed money causing inflation.

If the government say, used cash allocated to Iraq, for the stimulus, then no further fiscal policy to fund the stimulus would be neccessary.

[wheelsup]

Or what if we simply took the $$ that would be spent on Iraq or a stimulus and returned it to the tax payers in the form of tax cuts? That would be a much more effective way to jump start spending.

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

Or what if we simply took the $$ that would be spent on Iraq or a stimulus and returned it to the tax payers in the form of tax cuts? That would be a much more effective way to jump start spending.

Tax cuts would do the trick as well, as long as they targeted the consumer class, and not the capital class, as they usually end up doing.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

Tax cuts would do the trick as well, as long as they targeted the consumer class, and not the capital class, as they usually end up doing.

The rich already pay the majority of taxes. The poor pay next to nothing, and the middle class pays an average of 10%-15%.

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

The rich already pay the majority of taxes. The poor pay next to nothing, and the middle class pays an average of 10%-15%.

Cutting taxes for the rich does nothing for the economy, except widen the GINI index. This was proven through Reagans term. When you give rich people tax cuts, they save it, or put it in investments that do not lead to hiring of American workers, such as real estate or the stock market, nor do they spend it on consumer items which leads to hiring of workers through increased demand, and even when they do, they make up such a small percent of the population, it doesnt even matter.

It has been proven that the middle and lower class spend all of, or even more then their disposable income. They also are notoriously bad at saving, and dont invest much. In addition, they account for about 90% of the population, so the the shear number of consumer purchases they make will significantly influence demand, and jobs created to fill that demand.

Direct cash in to the hands of the middle and lower classes is the best way to fuel consumer demand and correspondingly hiring.

[wheelsup]

"The rich" in this country are the owners of the land, businesses, etc. Increasing the tax burden on them will either drive them out of the country or force them to continue raising prices on the things their companies sell in order to maintain their status of living.

This in turn will cost the poor and middle class more to buy these goods and services.

In other words, there's no free lunch.

I understand that the rich vs. poor gap has been widening. But maybe that is because "the poor" don't take the time to learn how to improve their lives. They continue living pay check to pay check and do not buy things that make them money. Rather, they buy things that cost them money.

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

"The rich" in this country are the owners of the land, businesses, etc. Increasing the tax burden on them will either drive them out of the country or force them to continue raising prices on the things their companies sell in order to maintain their status of living.

This in turn will cost the poor and middle class more to buy these goods and services.

In other words, there's no free lunch.

The rich will only leave the country if you allow them unfettered access to the American consumer from their new location.

Fact is, foreign investment is worthless without the American consumer. If you block them from access to the American consumer, they wont go anywhere.