Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the citizens really don't understand business and economics, is it reasonable to expect that they're going to recognize a candidate for governor who understand business and economics?
It's kind of like, looking at Obama vs. Romney. Romney obviously knows what it takes to run a business, but Americans will trust that Obama knows how to draw business even though he hasn't run one.
I'm asking, shouldn't you be throwing rotten eggs at your neighbors for voting for an obviously incompetent governor?
I do. That isn't the issue though is it. You ever hired someone only to find out after the fact that the person is incontinent? I'll be the 1st in line to fire her. She was the lesser of two evils and should have quit by now. But what about the people that didn't vote for her, that was quite a few. So now the competent people and the incompetent people are stuck with her? She's the one where the buck stops isn't she? So everyone is stuck with her and the ones that can are leaving. Lets hire competent people to live here. BTW, I talked to an old friend today, a computer whiz. Was making $25 an hour. Now the BEST he can do in Mich. is half that.
Michigan is not in a depression. i guess if you are in the bottom 20% then yes but guess what? u will be in a depression anyware u go in this country!
I suppose the poverty rate....the homeless rate.......high unemployment, shrinking population mean nothing to you? Have you lived without access to the outside world? In this economy no one is able to say they will be unaffected by globalization and the effects of constant restructuring of corporations. I suppose you don't travel often.......when you get back to Michigan after being in other states you notice the difference, trust me. Did you know that over 80% of this countries available funds (cash, money markets, etc) belong to the top 3% of the elite class. Middle and upper classes split the next 15%(mostly property, not cash) followed by working class which has roughly 3.5% secured. What does this mean? Well your bank and the money in your account is a "investment" to someone sitting in Paris right now. So are you above the situation at hand?
I suppose the poverty rate....the homeless rate.......high unemployment, shrinking population mean nothing to you? Have you lived without access to the outside world? In this economy no one is able to say they will be unaffected by globalization and the effects of constant restructuring of corporations. I suppose you don't travel often.......when you get back to Michigan after being in other states you notice the difference, trust me. Did you know that over 80% of this countries available funds (cash, money markets, etc) belong to the top 3% of the elite class. Middle and upper classes split the next 15%(mostly property, not cash) followed by working class which has roughly 3.5% secured. What does this mean? Well your bank and the money in your account is a "investment" to someone sitting in Paris right now. So are you above the situation at hand?
What does "restructuring" a corporation mean?
In regard to wealth distribution, what does that have to do with recessions/depressions? The poor have always and will always be broke. The middle-class the same. It's because of how they handle their money-- Just as fifty years of high union pay garnered many consumables and toys instead of solid investments, so too will the same people blow the money when they're making regular wages.
In regard to wealth distribution, what does that have to do with recessions/depressions? The poor have always and will always be broke. The middle-class the same. It's because of how they handle their money-- Just as fifty years of high union pay garnered many consumables and toys instead of solid investments, so too will the same people blow the money when they're making regular wages.
Distribution of wealth is probably one of the most significant problems in this country. It has been long known that working and middle class families are taxed un-proportionally compared to their assets. One might argue that the upper classes pay more out of their incomes, which is true, although compared to their total wealth it affects them very little. Take the Clinton's for example.....at this level many of their assets (homes, properties, etc) can be written off. How does this affect a recession? Well lets look at the recent tightening of credit guidelines of banks and other lending institutions. If you have liquid assets (cash, bonds and other municipals), your need to go to Jane Doe bank and take a loan out is relatively slim. Furthermore, your chances of paying 12% interest on a high balance is even slimmer. In economic downturns such as the present, lower income families are paying the wealthy through higher interest rates and fees. Not to mention, when you average paycheck is 400 a week before taxes.... 25% can mean the difference of buying food or not. These are just instances of what the top classes in society do not have to deal with....they benefit from the unfortunate situations of most Americans. The cost of financing is something that the wealthy do not have to worry about. Even if general education of finances was given to every family in America, their chances of moving up through the class ranks is almost zero. It is true that the wealthy do know how to make money, simply because their money makes more money. I'm not disagreeing that some people do not handle their finances well, the fact remains that most people in this country rely on the products that the wealthy created.
Restructuring happens from the top down.....most top managers will analyze sales data, productivity data, and other information and realize that some positions are not needed, just as some practices are not needed. Look at the retail industry, many companies change CEO's as quick as cashiers, simply because restructuring processes go bad, or board members don't agree on specific aspects of a consultants findings ( someone who finds ways to save money) This is something that GM and the big three would love to do right now, but cannot due to unions.
Distribution of wealth is probably one of the most significant problems in this country.
With all due respect, I don't see any reason behind this statement. It's a big problem why? What I read in your argument is that you're a socialist who's doing nothing more than attacking the capitalist system; advancing a circle argument: Socialism is good because social classes are bad.
Quote:
Even if general education of finances was given to every family in America, their chances of moving up through the class ranks is almost zero.
Maybe the problem isn't financial education, but the socialist legislation, like Social Security that brings the self-employed individual's (the person who'll rise through the classes) up to 50%? Maybe it's the administrative and tax burden and fear of legal action that prevents one person from assuming the risk of hiring another?
Quote:
the fact remains that most people in this country rely on the products that the wealthy created.
I would assert, in my own experience, although I'm well versed in two manufacturing trades and one service trade, I'll not open another serious business because it's not worth dealing with the public so I only work for family and friends and don't bother implementing divisions of labor by low skilled workers to induce higher production.
The left-leaning government has burdened potential business and caused an absence of competition excpet that which comes to our shores... which is generally made for companies with American investors... That's socialism chasing our own investment out of the country.
Quote:
and realize that some positions are not needed, just as some practices are not needed.
Let me get this straight, in one breath you say restructuring is bad-- and define it as improving efficiency-- and in the next breath, you claim American manufacturers are failing on account of being inefficient?
With all due respect, I don't see any reason behind this statement. It's a big problem why? What I read in your argument is that you're a socialist who's doing nothing more than attacking the capitalist system; advancing a circle argument: Socialism is good because social classes are bad.
Maybe the problem isn't financial education, but the socialist legislation, like Social Security that brings the self-employed individual's (the person who'll rise through the classes) up to 50%? Maybe it's the administrative and tax burden and fear of legal action that prevents one person from assuming the risk of hiring another?
I would assert, in my own experience, although I'm well versed in two manufacturing trades and one service trade, I'll not open another serious business because it's not worth dealing with the public so I only work for family and friends and don't bother implementing divisions of labor by low skilled workers to induce higher production.
"The left-leaning government has burdened potential business and caused an absence of competition excpet that which comes to our shores... which is generally made for companies with American investors... That's socialism chasing our own investment out of the country.
Let me get this straight, in one breath you say restructuring is bad-- and define it as improving efficiency-- and in the next breath, you claim American manufacturers are failing on account of being inefficient?
Wow...well to start in reference to your first paragrah, I must say that I have no interest in the ideologies that form "socialism"....and at this point I'm still clueless as to how this was gathered by what I said. Again, I will try to make case that most people in this country are in the grip of capitalism, and not the owners of the system. What do I mean? Well if you work for a wage chances are some capitalist ideologies have been incorporated into that little handbook of employee rules you got when you hired in. Now, to seprate a capitalist state and a socialist state..... You said "socialism is good because classes are bad." I have bad news for you.....our country has one of the most segregated class structures in the world. Do you really know what socialism is? Many countries that imply a socialist regimine are communist...is that what your implying you want? I think further reading is required on your part. Social classes are becoming less defined, as what is required to be "rich" is out of reach for the majority Finnaly, there was no "circle argument", the problem is simple and ongoing....America has more inequality than most nations.
Okay, moving on to your second paragraph...there is no "socialist" legislation in this country. Maybe I should give the definition of socialism before it is confused any further. Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This is nothign like America, nor does it have anything to do with us, we are die hard capitalists here, corporations like Wal Mart paying their employees poverty wage while top executives enjoy a lifestyle you and I cannot imagine. I've never known a "self employed" individual that "rised through the classes", unless he/she sells a whole lot of used cars, or whatever they do. What does "administrative and tax burden" of companies have to do with the FINANCIAL outcome of most familes, as I was trying to imply?
And in your last paragraph you actually make a very good point regarding capitalism! You said......
"The left-leaning government has burdened potential business and caused an absence of competition excpet that which comes to our shores... which is generally made for companies with American investors... That's socialism chasing our own investment out of the country."
Well first of all, there certainlly is NO absence of competition in ANY realm of business in this country. When you sav "except that which comes to our shores..." What does that mean at all? Your first argument in the paragraph states that "government is bad and chases away business, but then you go on to say that there is no competition, and then later say that "which" comes to our shores? What is which? Which is made for what investors? Socialism doesn't chase away anything from our shores....because we are not a socialist nation.
Let me begin by saying that I've read Smith's "The Wealth of Nations"; Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" and his "Capital". In my youth, I spent several days in English Lit. and Psych. silencing the instructors by correcting their misconceptions about capitalism and socialism.
It was over ten years ago that I read Marx, so feel free to correct me if you have quotes.
I rearranged the order of some of your writing so that my argument was more clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sociologist
Distribution of wealth is probably one of the most significant problems in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onethousand
With all due respect, I don't see any reason behind this statement. It's a big problem why? What I read in your argument is that you're a socialist who's doing nothing more than attacking the capitalist system; advancing a circle argument: Socialism is good because social classes are bad.
...You said "socialism is good because classes are bad."
"Socialism is good because classes are bad" is the argument I read in your posts. You just keep saying "redistribution of wealth is bad" in different ways over and over.
Distribution of wealth is the primary characteristic of social classes. Socialists are opposed to social classes. If you believe that distribution of weath is a problem, then you support a socialist ideology.
You have yet to explain why distribution of wealth is a problem. Please do.
Quote:
I will try to make case that most people in this country are in the grip of capitalism, and not the owners of the system.
In the "grip" of capitalism? Are you implying that capitalism is something to escaped from and peole should "own" the system? (You do understand that people "owning" the system would be socialistic?)
Quote:
I have bad news for you.....our country has one of the most segregated class structures in the world.
Why should anyone care about that?
Quote:
Social classes are becoming less defined, as what is required to be "rich" is out of reach for the majority
So?
Quote:
...America has more inequality than most nations.
I should hope so. Equality is the opposite of liberty and liberty means freedom. Equality is bad.
However, if you mean "inequality" in the eyes of God, like our country is founded on, then I think you're mistaken. In America, you're free to use the gifts God bestowed upon you the best you can. If you get rich, great. If you don't, go back to the drawing board and start over.
Quote:
...there is no "socialist" legislation in this country. Maybe I should give the definition of socialism before it is confused any further. Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.
Social Security takes 15.65% of my income and redistributes it. That's socialistic and makes me question your understanding of the topic.
Further, every law that dictates what an employer is to do for his employees is socialistic. Not only because it consumes money, but because it consumes time. An individual's time-- labor-- is a form of property. In this way, the hardship put upon an employer for something like federally mandated maternity leave is socialistic-- it effects the employers time.
In fact, the socialism in this country is quite extensive.
Quote:
...corporations like Wal Mart paying their employees poverty wage while top executives enjoy a lifestyle you and I cannot imagine.
So? You think they should be equal? Or do you just think the government should tell Walmart how to use it's money to compensate employees... more socialism?
Quote:
I've never known a "self employed" individual that "rised through the classes", unless he/she sells a whole lot of used cars, or whatever they do.
Yeah, that's how it works. I have three family members who are exceptionally wealthy and my work has brought me in contact with many more.
Those people work very hard for a long time. They don't marry for love, they're away from their kids 80+hrs a week and they eat people's crap if it'll get them ahead. The reward for doing what I can't bring myself to do is wealth. The reward for me not being willing to sell myself like they do is considerably less.
Do you see something wrong with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by soc
Even if general education of finances was given to every family in America, their chances of moving up through the class ranks is almost zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onethousand
Maybe the problem isn't financial education, but the socialist legislation, like Social Security that brings the self-employed individual's (the person who'll rise through the classes) up to 50%? Maybe it's the administrative and tax burden and fear of legal action that prevents one person from assuming the risk of hiring another?
What does "administrative and tax burden" of companies have to do with the FINANCIAL outcome of most familes, as I was trying to imply?
The heavier the burden, the less willing people are to go into business for themselves. Less business, less jobs. Less jobs, lower demand for labor. Lower demand, lower value. Lower value means less pay. Less pay, nothing to invest in themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soc
the fact remains that most people in this country rely on the products that the wealthy created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onethousand
The left-leaning government has burdened potential business and caused an absence of competition excpet that which comes to our shores...
Well first of all, there certainlly is NO absence of competition in ANY realm of business in this country.
If you have just one company that has two locations, there's a lack of competition. The bigger a company gets, the bigger the indication of a lack of competition: Because if there was adequate competition, a company couldn't spread because as layers of management were added, that company would become unable to compete because it's prices would reflect higher overhead.
Sam Walton, in "Made in America" said it clear as day: We went where there was no competition.
Every person with an entreprenuerial spirit has the choice to work for themselves or someone else. What's the biggest consideration? How much will I make and how much will I work? Taxes and governmental hassles is a huge reason people don't go into business. As a result, McD's is huge and those little diners are all gone... Why make $40K/yr working for yourself, taking the risks, long hours, extra taxes and headaches, when you can just go to McD's and manage for $35K/yr?
Quote:
When you sav "except that which comes to our shores..." What does that mean at all? Your first argument in the paragraph states that "government is bad and chases away business, but then you go on to say that there is no competition, and then later say that "which" comes to our shores?
Sorry, I meant "the products that come to our shores represents manufacturing that would have been done here if the government (people) didn't chase it off."
Quote:
Socialism doesn't chase away anything from our shores....because we are not a socialist nation.
If you knew how heavy the burden to conduct labor-intensive business in America, you'd wonder why anyone even tries. We have capitalism within socialist limitations... and I can tell you from first hand experience, socialism is everywhere when you employ people.
I would like to suggest to you, sincerely, that you read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations". When you realize how perfect capitalism is, you're just amazed... and then you start to question everything you've known...
I said this in 1991 to my husband (who was working for gm) that these people that drive foreign cars are ignorant (not seeing the big picture) that someday the foreign cars will take over our jobs. I tell you what kicks my butt, is these people that have bumper stickers that say "support our troops" with the american flag, as well as the american flag alone on their bumper hanging on the back of their foreign driving cars! Do they reliize how hipacrytic that is? If you care about our ecomony you need to be buy american before all of us don't have any jobs anymore. Are they really that stupid or just don't realize. Maybe we need to get the word out once and for all.
I said this in 1991 to my husband (who was working for gm) that these people that drive foreign cars are ignorant (not seeing the big picture) that someday the foreign cars will take over our jobs. I tell you what kicks my butt, is these people that have bumper stickers that say "support our troops" with the american flag, as well as the american flag alone on their bumper hanging on the back of their foreign driving cars! Do they reliize how hipacrytic that is? If you care about our ecomony you need to be buy american before all of us don't have any jobs anymore. Are they really that stupid or just don't realize. Maybe we need to get the word out once and for all.
Oh for heaven's sake. My husband has served ten years in the military, has done his time overseas, and now currently serves in the guard and he drives *shocked guffaw* a VW and I *horrified gasp* drive a Honda!
We are neither ignorant nor unpatriotic nor stupid. However, we don't see being patriotic indicative of drinking Bushie Kool-Aid or hating everything foreign. We also don't think it's stupid to do what works for us and our family first and foremost.
We support our local economy in many ways. For just one example, I do not shop at big box stores (Best Buy, Home Depot, etc..). I instead seek out smaller independant retailers locally. That is sadly becoming harder and harder to do as they are being pushed out....But I'll tell you what, when American auto-makers start making super awesome reliable cars that I personally find pleasing, I will buy one.
And I posted something about foreign cars a while ago. There was some interesting information on just how foreign and domestic autos are manufactured. Where the parts and labor comes from. You should check it out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll be the 1st in line to fire her. She was the lesser of two evils and should have quit by now. But what about the people that didn't vote for her, that was quite a few. So now the competent people and the incompetent people are stuck with her? She's the one where the buck stops isn't she? So everyone is stuck with her and the ones that can are leaving. Lets hire competent people to live here.
BTW, I talked to an old friend today, a computer whiz. Was making $25 an hour. Now the BEST he can do in Mich. is half that.
???
