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.
So who decides who gets to toil and who gets to sleep late?
Give me some time to think about that.
(tick tick)
OK, here it is. Those who want to work can be paid more than those who don't. Then dangle a lot of glitzy big screen TVs and delivered pizzas in front of them, and a sufficiently large work force will break their necks working for it.
Those who don't want to do the mindless grunt work to keep increasing the size of their wall-size plasma TV and fill their basement with a hundred milliion rounds of ammo, we still have enough money that America won't have to look like Calcutta or Kinshasa, with their destitute for whom there is no gainful employment.
In other words, the potential labor force decides for themselves whether they get to toil or whether they get to sleep late. Choice. There's a novel idea. Choice, but with liveable and dignified consequences and rewards. All work that needs to be done, will be. Choice of work and the high life, or leisure and a common life within the peaceful American garden of bountiful wellbeing for all.
The per capita GDP in the US is over $40,000 per person, which is about $140,000 per family of 3 or 4. Any family can live on a quarter of that, so just distribute equally to everyone a quarter of the total wealth -- the reward for making America such an obscenely wealthy nation, to which everyone contributes in their own way to the overall fabric. Anybody who wants more than that can get a job for extra pay. But nobody would be forced to just to have a warm bed and a hot meal.
Answer me this: Why would a farmer starve his horse when there is no plowing to be done? This is a serious question, I'd really like to hear your answer to it.
Try this:
The Jtur widget factory has an annual production schedule for 100,000 work hours.
Currently they have three basic staffing models as choices to meet that need.
1) 42 people at 2000 hours each + 380 hrs of OT each
2) 50 people at 2000 hours each
3) 100 people at 1000 hours each
Which approach is best for Jtur Widgets Inc?
Which approach is best for the employees of Jtur Widgets Inc?
Which approach is best for the town Jtur Widgets Inc is in?
You can't calculate "man-hours" like that.
Does Jtur Widgets LLC have the equipment or work load available to keep 100 people busy?
I do not believe in "busy work", but there is usually something productive for everyone to be doing.
What kind of wage rate is Jtur Widgets LLC paying? (over-time rate for over 40/wk or 8/day?)
What benefits are included or are available?
Some may be surprised how many "widget" factories are still around, some paying poverty wages some paying very well, usually depending on the skill level of the employees or a better description - the amount of people that can DO the job efficiently.
How about this: 100% floating shift schedule, the factory is running 24/7 and each employee picks their work hours, but must be 8hrs/day and must be the same every day and strict punishment for being late or calling off, also available would be fill in schedule - those employees are paid a bit more($1-3/hr) but must work the hours needed to fill in the gaps of those that want to pick their own hours, again those hours would be the same every day but the employee doesn't get decide(could be crazy). Over-time is available only to fill in for those calling off or are on vacation.
Last edited by Trackwatch; 08-15-2012 at 07:32 PM..
OK, here it is. Those who want to work can be paid more than those who don't. Then dangle a lot of glitzy big screen TVs and delivered pizzas in front of them, and a sufficiently large work force will break their necks working for it.
Those who don't want to do the mindless grunt work to keep increasing the size of their wall-size plasma TV and fill their basement with a hundred milliion rounds of ammo, we still have enough money that America won't have to look like Calcutta or Kinshasa, with their destitute for whom there is no gainful employment.
In other words, the potential labor force decides for themselves whether they get to toil or whether they get to sleep late. Choice. There's a novel idea. Choice, but with liveable and dignified consequences and rewards. All work that needs to be done, will be. Choice of work and the high life, or leisure and a common life within the peaceful American garden of bountiful wellbeing for all.
The per capita GDP in the US is over $40,000 per person, which is about $140,000 per family of 3 or 4. Any family can live on a quarter of that, so just distribute equally to everyone a quarter of the total wealth -- the reward for making America such an obscenely wealthy nation, to which everyone contributes in their own way to the overall fabric. Anybody who wants more than that can get a job for extra pay. But nobody would be forced to just to have a warm bed and a hot meal.
Answer me this: Why would a farmer starve his horse when there is no plowing to be done? This is a serious question, I'd really like to hear your answer to it.
And where does all this lovely money come from? Not from taxes on the workers. 3 workers cannot be taxed enough to support 47 late sleepers. So, it's poor Mr. Widget who pays for all 50. The only way Mr. Widget agrees to this is at the point of a gun. But, hey, he's a big bad business owner so he deserves it. Short of seizing the profits from all private companies, the numbers don't work. But you already knew that.
A farmer doesn't starve his horse because the horse may be valuable during the next harvest. But, the farmer does poison rabbits who are are a pest to his crops and offer no value to his farm. They consume without producing, unlike the horse.
OK, here it is. Those who want to work can be paid more than those who don't. Then dangle a lot of glitzy big screen TVs and delivered pizzas in front of them, and a sufficiently large work force will break their necks working for it.
My mother taught me since I was very young "You want your toys? You have to work for them."
As I grew the definition of "toys" grew along with me, it went from a $.50 matchbox car to a $600 TV and so on.
I really have no problem with our taxes taking care of those who are unable to support themselves due to birth defect, accident, or illness, but for all others, after a short period to "recover" your abilities, that's it, there should be NO long term support from the government.
Two years of Unemployment Insurance? I think that is a bit much.
UNLESS you are enrolled in some training program/secondary education.
With many qualifiers, two years of "Welfare" should be plenty of time.
Last edited by Trackwatch; 08-15-2012 at 07:31 PM..
And where does all this lovely money come from? Not from taxes on the workers. 3 workers cannot be taxed enough to support 47 late sleepers.
I dunno. Where does our $40,000 per capita GDP come from? How does it "trickle down"? How come the workers get such a tiny fraction of it? If tens of millions of people are left in poverty when the nation as a whole is creating $40K in wealth per capita, how come it so mentally challenging to figure out a way to distribute it, besides taxing workers when there is work for them to do and starving them when there isn't, and letting people with economic power keep as much for themselves as they want? I've made a 75% concession to wealth and greed, but the prevailing argument won't settle for a penny less than 100%.
Nobody seems to think that a 25% tax rate is outrageous. Simply tax capital wealth creation at 25% and see to it that that becomes the pie from which all members of society have security and well-being. The remaining 75% is still there for the rich and powerful to divide up any way they see fit, which includes having to pay a few cents extra to the labor pool who creates their wealth for them. How much of that has to be offered in wages to those who work will depend on how many of them need to be working to produce the necessary output, and how much purchasing power for glittery trinkets and fattening junk food and MMA videos you need to give them to keep them coming to work.
This isn't freshman-level Economics 101, its Economics for Friends and Neighbors with Dick and Jane, that a fourth grader would understand, if their minds weren't so full of Ayn Rand BS glorifying the unelected and malignant gentry and their extravagant entitlements.
Couldn't the Economic Crisis Be Largely Solved by Cutting All Domestic Programs for 55 & Under?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
I know that sounds harsh but we're in desperate times. 100% tax on the wealthiest doesn't even make a dent, but fully one third of all Americans are on some sort of government subsidy. Food stamps for 50 million people alone adds up to real $$$'s. Shouldn't benefits for the elderly (SS/Medicare) be preserved because they are too old to go out and work, while the younger should bear the larger share of the pain because they have more years ahead of them? Younger families will cope. They'll double-triple up; grow gardens; sew their clothes; manage to find ways to meet their needs without sucking on the govt's teat for generations. Seems like the only step we have left, unless we want to elect Ryan and see the elderly out on the street dying on a piece of cardboard. Of course cutbacks in wasteful military outlays should also be a part of the equation.
No.
First, your question is misphrased because until the Fed started printing money and thereby increasing inflation there isn't a direct correlation between national debt and the economy save oblique concepts like consumer confidence.
Further, SNAP (food stamps/WIC, etc.) are essentially promisory notes for legal tender. Eliminate those and you would most likely see a boomerang like collapse of the retail sector...moreover, that would be accomplished with only a net savings of 12% of the budget since the "one third of all Americans are on some sort of government subsidy" includes Social Security.
Do you understand how Social Securiy works? Because most people don't. There isn't some Fort Knox-like building out there with 300 million safety deposit boxes, each assigned to a citizen to hold his contributions for later. The dollars that you and I pay in today pay for the retirement of the elderly now under the auspices that others will pay for us tomorrow. It, too, is a promisory mote of sorts based on the realization of income tradeoffs in Treasury Bonds.
The system was devised when the country was in an unprecedented rate of economic and population growth. It's essentially a Ponzi Scheme dependent on both those factors sustainance with inflationary rates remaining relatively constant. Each year it takes up a bigger and bigger part of our budget and will continue to do so until the Boomers are gone.
Essentially:
--the national debt is comprised of government (over)spending and the solvency of the bond market.
--the economy is based on overall performance
--people's quality of life has to with employment which is generally at odds with the first two
All of these are givens, but the cuts have to add up to roughly 10-15 trillion just for starts because our unfunded liabilities stretching out for 20 years are in the neighborhood of 100 trillion. I cannot even being to fathom such a number. Scientists estimate that the entire Milky Way Galaxy is 100 billion light years across. We're talking a number that is--what, 10,000 times that estimate?
They're only liabilities if the intent is to pay them. The various governments have no real intention of ever paying the benefits they've promised.
I dunno. Where does our $40,000 per capita GDP come from? How does it "trickle down"? How come the workers get such a tiny fraction of it? If tens of millions of people are left in poverty when the nation as a whole is creating $40K in wealth per capita, how come it so mentally challenging to figure out a way to distribute it, besides taxing workers when there is work for them to do and starving them when there isn't, and letting people with economic power keep as much for themselves as they want? I've made a 75% concession to wealth and greed, but the prevailing argument won't settle for a penny less than 100%.
Nobody seems to think that a 25% tax rate is outrageous. Simply tax capital wealth creation at 25% and see to it that that becomes the pie from which all members of society have security and well-being. The remaining 75% is still there for the rich and powerful to divide up any way they see fit, which includes having to pay a few cents extra to the labor pool who creates their wealth for them. How much of that has to be offered in wages to those who work will depend on how many of them need to be working to produce the necessary output, and how much purchasing power for glittery trinkets and fattening junk food and MMA videos you need to give them to keep them coming to work.
This isn't freshman-level Economics 101, its Economics for Friends and Neighbors with Dick and Jane, that a fourth grader would understand, if their minds weren't so full of Ayn Rand BS glorifying the unelected and malignant gentry and their extravagant entitlements.
Wow. You really need to go back and read Ryan's proposal. You two have a lot in common. Ryan's proposal did not touch Medicare for current seniors. In fact, it didn't touch Medicare for anyone for the next 10 years. Someone who is 55 now, could relax as they would have the same benefits when they turn 65 as the current seniors have.
That's perfect: the Republican appeal is apparently to those who think an event ten years in the future is something we don't need to think about. Kind of like Bush's tax cuts.
That's perfect: the Republican appeal is apparently to those who think an event ten years in the future is something we don't need to think about. Kind of like Bush's tax cuts.
Please! That's not at all what the Ryan plan is about. That is what the OPs plan is about. Either way, we all know that our current plan isn't sustainable.
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.
Couldn't the Economic Crisis Be Largely Solved by Cutting All Domestic Programs for 55 & Under?
