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.
We work less hours per week now than ever before in the history of this country. We are hardly overworked.
You seriously want our productivity to fall behind the rest of the world? What would that do to bring us back to competitive levels with emerging markets?
You mean, oh yay, we only for 50 hour weeks and take a week of vacation every year? Gee whiz, wonderful. You want to return us to the days of third world sweat shops - sorry, but I don't agree. And no, actually, the 1970's was when Americans worked the least (and made the most) - Americans now work more and make less.
As for productivity, our productivity per hour is not the highest in the world, it's behind many other countries, so it's a bit misleading, we are only productive because we work so many more hours.
The only thing I might envy about the really, really, really wealthy is they have more time to do what they want. The time is the important factor and the luxury and thrills are secondary. Soon I will have all the time I want, outside of immortality (that would be interesting because I could watch geology in real time), so I will have to figure out how to use the time I have to help my friends and amuse me.
....and there is the rub. You value your time and not money. I've made a similar decision along the way in my life.
Can you imagine if in order to raise incomes and tax income that the government instead of increasing taxes, instead increased the minimum work week up to 60 hours.
Originally Posted by GregW
The only thing I might envy about the really, really, really wealthy is they have more time to do what they want. The time is the important factor and the luxury and thrills are secondary. Soon I will have all the time I want, outside of immortality (that would be interesting because I could watch geology in real time), so I will have to figure out how to use the time I have to help my friends and amuse me.
Obama did not go after the really, really, really wealthy. He went after working Americans
The problem is that you are assuming that people CAN work until the day they die. Many can't. What then?
What was their backup plan?
Quote:
The people that collect SS are indeed paying into the system as well as their employer so SS is an enforced responsibilty which frankly is conservative in my mind. It's no different than mandatory auto insurance.
Ok, then force people to put the money somewhere, but do not force it into SS. Force it into the stock market so that people actually have respectable returns when they retire.
Quote:
Hey, your financial views and work ethic have my complete respect, I wish everyone was like you in that regard. That's how I was brought up, that's how I'm raising my kids too. I could however still give you some examples of how components of SS provide a solid social benefit that do indeed follow conservative fiscal policy.
Ok, you probably don't want to go there but show me the source for your stock market example. I will gladly look it over for soundness of analysis.
I have given you the numbers on numerous occasions, but I will do so again.
Here is a nice article summarizing average returns for various income levels from SS.
A single income couple born in 1943 would see a 4.59% annualized return, assuming mean wages. A single female born on the same date would see 2.49% returns compared to a male earning 2.09%. A low income couple born in 1943 would see 6.79% returns, whereas a high income couple would get 3.92%.
A diversified portfolio over that same time period in all US stocks receives a lifetime annualized return of 9.67%. Obviously there is more volatility day to day, but you don't look at day to day balances when investing for retirement. I apologize for not citing sources for the stock market number. I used a system at work that cannot be accessed for free online.
Let me ask you this: Can you name a single 35 year period in the history of the country where the stock market under-performed social security's averaged returns?
You mean, oh yay, we only for 50 hour weeks and take a week of vacation every year? Gee whiz, wonderful. You want to return us to the days of third world sweat shops - sorry, but I don't agree. And no, actually, the 1970's was when Americans worked the least (and made the most) - Americans now work more and make less.
As for productivity, our productivity per hour is not the highest in the world, it's behind many other countries, so it's a bit misleading, we are only productive because we work so many more hours.
...no...the average hours worked is close to 33 hours/week. The number of hours of leisure spent per week is 7 hours/week higher now than in 1965. The amount of money spent on leisure activities has tripled among the middle class since 1950.
Do you have any data to support your claims? We have it better now than ever before in history.
...no...the average hours worked is close to 33 hours/week. The number of hours of leisure spent per week is 7 hours/week higher now than in 1965. The amount of money spent on leisure activities has tripled among the middle class since 1950.
Do you have any data to support your claims? We have it better now than ever before in history.
You're right, in the 1970's, people had real jobs, now we have a glut of part time service sector jobs worked by people who want real jobs.
You're right, in the 1970's, people had real jobs, now we have a glut of part time service sector jobs worked by people who want real jobs.
But this isn't true either. There was no legal definition of what constitutes a 'part time job' in government recorded statistics until Obamacare was passed, and thus after Obamacare it looked like we had an influx of part time jobs simply because that was the first time part vs full time was measured using a concrete format.
But this isn't true either. There was no legal definition of what constitutes a 'part time job' in government recorded statistics until Obamacare was passed, and thus after Obamacare it looked like we had an influx of part time jobs simply because that was the first time part vs full time was measured using a concrete format.
We've had part time jobs replacing full time jobs for a while.
The devastation of the manufacturing industry is an example of this.
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.
