U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2012, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Ohio
22,325 posts, read 15,668,717 times
Reputation: 18849

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Crickets from conservatives.
Crap like this has been debunked on 500 different threads already. It's a poor use of time and energy to continually debunk the same stupidity over and over and over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
So more broadly, I would ask whether the poor and the working class ended up worse off because they faced greater cost increases than the homeowning middle and upper classes, or because they truly mismanaged their money.
They mismanaged their money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kanhawk View Post
The conservatives have had no answer for this.
I do.

Watch me shred this crap into nothingness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Most conservatives, and many liberals which is what I personally identify as, don't really give a hoot about equality of outcome.
Well, that's good, because Economics doesn't give a damn about equality either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012 View Post
It's interesting that you read that chart (post #5 in this thread) as saying that poor and working-class people are simply "stupid" with their money .....
You're right, they are not stupid with their money. That was a very, very poor characterization.

They are dumb AND stupid with their money.

Retarded people as a group actually do better than the poor and the so-called working-class.

There is little doubt in my mind that one segment of the economy that has not been affected by the employment crisis is idiot moronic writers, because there are millions of them working hard every day to prove they are stupid. Okay so income stopped growing and started falling.

Income. What is that? Are we talking wages? Are we talking sources of income other than wages/salaries? Or are we talking about income in the sense of all sources of monies? "That's nit-picking"....yeah, well, tell that to the IRS, because they don't see it that way.

Have wages declined? Yes, absolutely, no doubt about about it. Why? It's the nature of the Laws of Economics -- which are inviolable. The Laws of Economics are like nature -- they abhor a vacuum and they love equilibrium.

But note that equilibrium and equality are not the same thing and the purpose of Economics is not equality, rather it is about achieving harmony, balance and equilibrium (exactly like the Laws of Physics and Natural Law).

What was happening in the
US in the 1970s and 1980s? You had an imbalance -- wealth in the form of wages were high in the North, but low in the South and so Capital shifted and wages in the southern States rose while wages in the northern States became stagnant or declining.

That very same thing is happening now on a global scale......the Laws of Economics are creating an equilibrium -- not equality-- between wages in the
US/Western World and wages in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th World States. This process will take decades before it begins to abate --- to about 2060 or so --- and more decades before it finally ends (assuming it ever does).

Can we be certain wages are declining? Sure. We can look to two separate sources that use the same basic data but apply it differently, the first being the Social Security Wage Index:

National Average Wage Index

1951-1960: 4.09%
1961-1970: 4.45%
1971-1980: 7.31%
1981-1990: 5.34%
1991-2000: 4.35%
2001-2010: 2.64%

Next we can look at wages and salaries from IRS data:

1990 $37,655.... -0.72%
1991 $36,847.... -2.15%
1992 $37,900..... 2.86%
1993 $37,602.... -0.79%
1994 $37,926..... 0.86%
1995 $38,259..... 0.88%
1996 $38,503..... 0.64%
1997 $39,600..... 2.85%
1998 $41,073..... 3.72%
1999 $42,027..... 2.32%
2000 $43,066..... 2.47%
2001 $42,609.... -1.06%
2002 $41,952.... -1.54%
2003 $41,718.... -0.56%
2004 $42,425..... 1.70%
2005 $42,296.... -0.31%
2006 $42,206.... -0.21%
2007 $42,430..... 0.53%
2008 $41,773.... -1.55%

If wages are declining, does that mean income automatically declines?

Not necessarily.

Income is a product of wages. Household income is declining and the reason is neither nefarious nor sinister....it is due entirely to moronic stupidity and personal choice (same thing really). There's been a paradigm shift in
America concerning household income, resulting in households abandoning wealth-building as the top priority in favor of instant self-gratification and the immediate satisfying of all infantile urges and desires --- and that is accomplished by sacrificing both income and wealth.

Instead of building wealth to increase income, Americans...

....voluntarily chose to throw away $Billions on credit card interest by buying right now this minute to satisfy that infantile urge instead of planning and saving and buying on lay-away or installment plans --- like previous generations of Americans used to do;
....voluntarily chose to throw away $TRILLIONs on mortgage interest, because they wanted the home, right now, this minute instead of saving up 25%-40% for a down-payment
--- like previous generations of Americans used to do;
....voluntarily chose to throw away $TRILLIONS in cash and mortgage interest buying homes that were 2x to 5x larger in size than previous generations had;
....voluntarily chose to throw away $Millions in cash on larger electric and natural gas heating bills and maintaining their homes which were 2x to 5x larger than what other generations had;
....voluntarily chose to throw away $Billions on auto payments buying cars with no money down and financing them on outrageous terms like 60 and 72 months -- something previous generations never did;
....voluntarily chose to throw away $Billions in cash and interest buying cars they didn't need and getting trapped in a cycle of perpetual car payments --- the car note is upside down so might as well trade it in for a new car -- something previous generations never did;
....voluntarily chose to throw away $Billions in cash purchasing the most latest technology and then financing it through credit -- something previous generations never did.

Those are just some of the things Generation X-Box and Generation Y-Work have done, and then they have the unmitigated gall to complain that they don't have any "wealth."

You can either spend $400 on stocks, bonds or annuities, or you can buy the latest generation iPhone, but you cannot do both.

Buying an iPhone neither generates income nor wealth.....at least not for the buyer.

Folks, $189/month, $199/month, $249/month for 60 to 72 months buys one helluva lot of stocks, bonds, treasury notes, Certificates of Deposit, money markets things, annuities and so on --- all of which generate wealth --- the car note does not generate wealth for you (but it does for other people).

The Silent Generation, Boomers and Tweeners bought a Princess or Trim-Line phone once -- and only once -- and parked it somewhere in the home. What are people doing now? You all are a bunch of freaking dogs. Pavlov would be proud. A new generation cell-phone comes out every 90-180 days (like clock-work) and you all are queued up ready and willing to forfeit $50 to $200 to get it and then pay more for service plans than Ma Bell ever dreamed people would actually pay per month.

And then everyone screams I ain't go no wealth! No kidding. You can either buy toys to satisfy your infantile urges like a small child, or you can act like an adult and buy tools to build wealth...but you cannot do both at the same time.

Bottom line: You all had a choice, and you made a bad one ----repeatedly --- over and over and over.

My point is that, instead of Göbbelizing we need to be looking at facts, and the facts are that America did not have ~$1 TRILLION in household debt in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s.

America became a "2-Car Family" in 1974, because that is when 51% of American households had 2 cars. How many cars do American households have now? Okay, so then who wants to ask a really stupid question like why don't Americans have wealth?

You squandered your wealth because you squandered your income buying stuff that you don't even need....and I won't even get into the issues of your disposable society.....which builds wealth and income faster....buying 3 dish-rags for $0.99 and using them for 2-3 years or spending $5.95/week on Chlorox Orange-Scented Disposable Wipes (made from foreign imported light oil since you ain't got no light oil)?

Which builds wealth and income....buying chicken breast tenders at $6.99/pound or buying split chicken breasts for $1.29/pound and then taking 6 seconds to de-bone them and 20 seconds to slice them up into chicken breast tenders?

Yeah, that's right....convenience costs money....it ain't free.

You use your wages to create income to produce wealth, got it?

Questions? No, of course not. Debunked. Y'all come back now, ya hear?

Productivity....what a bunch of crap.

American workers are NOT more productive. Fat Union Fred getting $30/hour and Long Wang getting $1.45/hour and Hi Chin getting $1.35/hour and Tagalog getting $1.60/hour and Vlad getting $2.60/hour ----- they are all equally productive, because they are all using the exact same MAZAK machine that grinds, turns, mills, bores, presses or whatever it does, or they're using the same German or Italian made packaging machine or they're using a Japanese-made Nissei plastic molding injection machine......and they all produce the exact same parts per hour.

The productivity measurements are all wrong. Anyone want proof? Okay.

1 Million hours ----- $150 Million
1.1 Million hours --- $200 Million

Productivity increased, right? Wrong, at 1 Million hours they produced 1 Million widgets and at 1.1 Million hours they produced 0.9 Million widgets.

Productivity declined -- but Keynesian Economics says it increased.

What does that tell you about Keynes?

Hours per unit volume is the only true measurement of productivity, and if the CBO used hours per unit volume instead of the silly Keynesian nonsense, then in 2010 the CBO would have known, just as I did, that there is no way the unemployment rate is going to be 5% by October 12.

I said over 2 1/2 years ago your economy would be recessionary through the end of the decade and you wouldn't see 5% unemployment until about 2021-2022 or so. It's taken your CBO and Federal Reserve that long to figure that out, so how stupid are they? At least the Social Security Trustees came close....they pegged your unemployment rate down to 5.7% by 2018. Even so, for the life of me I can't imagine what would possess them to believe your GDP would grow 5% per year for the next 10 years.

Yeah, the productivity thing.

This....

"EPI's conclusion that health care costs and technology have nothing to do with stagnating wages for the middle class is controversial (see here and here for other takes). But its diagnosis for the three 'wage gaps' is still compelling. Slide here, graphs to follow."

....is all wrong, too -- the other takes are close to nearly accurate. I just fell off my chair....

"Benjamin Friedman — a Harvard professor and the author of the ambitious economic history “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth” — told me that he would put global competition and technological change at the top of his list of causes..."

....wow, one of them "You-Harvards" actually got it right. Shocking.

Notice the constant shift from income to wages to income to wages as though they were the same thing......when in fact they are not. That is typical of NAZI-style propaganda developed for the express purpose of laying blame on someone or some group.

Anyway, why are unions unnecessary? Because whether unions existed or not, wages were going to rise. Why? Because wages are determined by the Laws of Economics, specifically the Supply & Demand for workers with a given skill-set in specific labor market. The employer has no control and no say in the matter.

When the US began the industrial revolution -- and this is the electromechanical revolution in the late 1890s early 1900s where machines are powered by electricity and not animals or wind or water --- you start off with no knowledge and then with each succeeding generation of machine, it requires more knowledge, education and skill to operate the machine and that means fewer people know how to do that which means your Supply Level for that skill-set is low and that puts upward pressure on wages. There's also the "repair side" of the equation where the number of people who know how to repair those machines is few and far between and their wages rise as well -- so both operators and the maintenance (or technical) people benefit.

But then you plateau --- effectively the country reaches the top of the learning curve for electromechanical machinery and wages no longer rise as fast.

What happened? Computers. In the mid to late 1960s computer technology is coming on-line. You need people with skills that don't exactly exist right now and so low supply coupled with high demand means higher wages.

But then you reach a plateau once again.

In the 1970s and 1980s data entry operators were getting paid $10-$12/hour which was an helluva good wage. What do they get now? Minimum wage if they're lucky. Why? Because a freaking chimpanzee can do data entry. Society is at the top of the learning curve once again with respect to computer technology. Everyone grows up using a computer and so everyone has some relevant transferable skill to perform data entry -- it doesn't require training or education and it is no longer specialized. You saw the same thing for machining equipment. Lathes, borers, grinders, presses, press punches etc etc etc, those were all separate machines that required a separate skill to set them up and operate them. Now, one single machine can do all of those things and its all done by computer --- punch a few buttons on the keyboard and its done. It requires little skill or knowledge. The most difficult thing perhaps is properly seating the semi-finished parts to be grinded or bored or milled or pressed.

That's how technological changes can impact wages.

That's another reason why wages in the US are declining.

Just thought I'd point that out....so global shift in Capital, inability to compete globally, increasing immigration both legal and illegal, high unemployment, and plateaued skill-sets......

You got a lot of things working against you. Good luck with that.

Anyway, health care costs do have a negative impact on wages, contrary to what EPI claims.

What is the driving force behind health care costs? Technology, regulations and demographics.

In 1940, Americans spent 0.4% of their disposable income on pre-paid hospitalization plans through their local hospitals.

And no, I didn't stutter. That's 0.4% of their disposable income. By 1946 it was 0.47%. It might not seem like much, but it is a 17.5% increase in just 6 years.

What happened?

Penicillin and the
AmericanHospital Association.

Penicillin? Yup. It took them until 1940 to figure out how to safely and efficiently mass produce Penicillin on a commercial basis, plus safely transport it, plus safely store it for future use. Then the FDA had clinical trials in 1941-1942 and then limited authorization for use in the
US military during WW II and then by 1946 Penicillin was available to all Americans --- unless you were a Black man living in the South with Syphilis in which case you were denied Penicillin so some bureaucrats could run a neat experiment.

The
AmericanHospital Association? Yes, the AHA functioning as non-governmental organization and an Agent of Socialism introduced Stalinist style Command Economics into the US health care system, by forcing and coercing all member hospitals to offer the exact same-size-fits-all pre-paid hospitalization plans, whether you wanted it or not. You have limited choice at this point for health care because the Benevolent Great And Good All-Knowing American Hospital Association made the choice for you --- and yes, that would be the regulatory aspect I mentioned.

By 1970 pre-paid hospitalization plans cost 2.71% of disposable income.

That is a 476.6% increase from 1947 in just 23 years --- averaging 20.7% per year --- and people are complaining now.

What happened?

Again, technology and the
AmericanHospital Association.

Lots of new technology, nearly all of it computer driven. It is this new technology introduced in the late 1960s that leads doctors to realize that there is no such thing as "Women's Cancer" -- it's actually uterine cancer, ovarian cancer and cervical cancer, and each has a different cause and slightly different treatments....how little they actually knew.

During the 1950s and 1960s, there were lots of new drugs introduced to the market, typically antibiotics, but also vaccinations against certain diseases.

Heart-bypass surgery? Nope, not yet. The French dude (or maybe a miserable fat chocolate eating Belgian bastard -- Dr Rene Favaloro) doesn't figure it out until 1967, by the time it gets Academy approval and FDA approval etc, etc, etc, I think it's 1971 or 1972 when it comes out in the US.

And, yes, that drives up the cost of health care, because, you know, it ain't free.

And the
AmericanHospital Association? Due to their heroic lobbying efforts, they were able to rope in all Americans from those pesky Free Market individual plans that offer freedom of choice into Soviet-Command-Style group plans, then pile on more regulations at the federal and State level to drive up costs even higher.

What part of your disposable income goes to health care in the here and now? I'd be afraid to guess, but the culprits causing increase are still the same...technology and the American Hospital Association....and then demographics....yeah, old skins. Old skins cost a lot of money. A lot of money.

Okay, more NAZI stuff here....

The Top 1% wages vs. everybody else, grew continuously 1979-2011 except during stock declines.

Stocks are income, not wages....that's the word game he's playing again to skew his argument.

I think I can debunk that. Oh, I can, Mircea Rules!


1992 $12,495,276.... N/A
1993 $8,054,794... -35.54%
1994 $4,694,540 .. -41.72%
1995 $7,073,983.... 50.69%
1996 $8,042,858.... 13.70%
1997 $10,386,586.... 29.14%
1998 $12,486,353.... 20.22%
1999 $18,006,190.... 44.21%
2000 $26,237,932 ... 45.72%
2001 $17,913,718 .. -31.73%
2002 $10,572,018 .. -40.98%
2003 $12,729,584 ... 20.41%
2004 $18,147,739... 42.56%
2005 $14,879,358.. -18.01%
2006 $15,156,599..... 1.86%
2007 $18,545,101... 22.36%
2008 $17,227,183... -7.11%
2009 $13,602,830... -21.04%

The 400 Individual Income Tax Returns Reporting the Largest Adjusted Gross Incomes Each Year, 1992-2009

Dollar amounts are in 1990 Constant Dollars.

As you can see, the fortunes of the Top 400 come and go.....that's because many of them are sports figures and entertainers....ooops, just debunked another myth.

Since they are liars, I just operated on the assumption that the Word Game is being played and they're looking at Adjusted Gross Income and not Wages/Salaries....I was right.

What determines wages? I already explained that. CEOs are not immune. Their salaries are based on the Supply & Demand of CEOs. Let's face it, many Americans can barely manage their own households, much less the lunch shift at McDonald's. And, why, yes, in developing States, as their talent pool increases, they will be producing CEOs that will compete against American CEOs and so American CEOs will face the same declining stagnant wages that you are all facing...so at least you can look forward to that.

If y'all want my advice, and that's all it is, stop it with the Penis Envy and the "her-Breast-Implants-are-bigger-than-my-Breast-Implants" Envy already....stop worrying about how much everyone else is getting and start worrying about how you can stop being dumb and stupid and throwing away your money needlessly on interest and disposable things and things that you don't really need.

Everything else mentioned in the article is nonsense. Deunionization? I'm all for it. Unions cause harm because they --- like the American Hospital Association -- function as Agents of Socialism and they employ Stalinist-Soviet-Style Command Economics dictating wages.....always above market rates. You cannot set wages above market rates, since that violates the inviolable Laws of Economics and eventually results in suffering due to job losses and lower incomes.

How'd that work out for Zenith employees? What was their great union advantage? Working at McDonald's, Starsucks and Wal-Mart......that's right....the union coerced Zenith into paying employees above market wages, Zenith could not compete globally against foreign competitors -- in this case specifically Korean corporation LG--Life's Good (I have one of their external DVD players sitting right here next to me), so Zenith is losing money, LG is making money and using that money to buy up all the stock in Zenith and now Zenith is no more.

Whose fault is that? Unions....and the stupid union members who drank the Kool-Aid.

Three simple rules of life: nothing is free (everything costs); you cannot get something for nothing; and you cannot cheat the system -- or fate (especially where Economics is concerned).

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain how increasing the wages of American workers helps America compete globally.

Industry Deregulation? Red Herring.

Taxes...I thoroughly destroyed that myth on another thread. The top 1% or 10% or whatever only paid 48% in taxes, not 91%. That declined in 1964 with a change in the tax laws.

Minimum wage, blah, blah, blah, blah.... another failed argument. The market sets wages, not unions, not governments and not employers and if you want to violate the Laws of Economics, go right ahead, but know this...you will suffer....you will pay a penalty....and there's no way around that.

I find this....

"Explaining the stagnation of the middle class is more complicated. According to EPI, the story begins in manufacturing, where trade with less developed nations (who can produce cheaper goods with cheaper labor) hurt wages among the non-college-educated class that once relied on manufacturing jobs."

...to be absolutely completely hilarious.

Why do "less developed nations" exist?

That's because US foreign policy violated the human and civil rights of those people by wrong-fully imprisoning them, torturing them, murdering them in cold blood, murdering their democratically elected heads-of-State in cold blood, illegally overthrowing their democratically elected governments, stealing all of the wealth and resources of those "less developed nations" and then to add insult to injury, foisted a murderous dictator upon those people to rule them and keep them in servitude.

We can discuss Iran -- and the 3 attempts by the US to murder Prime Minister Massadeq in cold-blood.

We can discuss Guatemala -- let's do that. Chiquita -- yeah, the banana people -- operating as United Foods owns 100% of all electrical power generation in Guatemala, and yes they charged monopolistic rates, and kept all of the profits and wealth for themselves and it was transported back to the US to build the US interstate system (with the help of the Greeks, Iraqis and Iranians), and they owned the only port in Guatemala, charging monopolistic rates to use it and the Guatemalan government was deprived of the ability to collect import/export tariffs, taxes or duties -- but Chiquita did -- and then Chiquita owned the only freaking road in the country that went to the port -- and so yes, it was a toll road, plus Chiquita owned 80% of the telephone system.

President Arbenz starts building a port to compete against Chiquita and starts building electrical power plants to compete against Chiquita, and what does Harry Truman do? Instead of congratulating Arbenz and offering to help Arbenz and the people of Guatemala, Truman wants to murder Arbenz in cold-blood, but at the very last minute, Dean Acheson (then-Secretaraty of State) talked him out of it.

And then a couple of years later, Eisenhower authorized the CIA to overthrow Arbenz in a coup-de-tat.

That's what happens when you try to help your people.....Lather, Rinse, Repeat.....for about 70 other countries on this Earth.

And then people on this forum have the unmitigated gall to scream bloody hell because Nike has a plant in Guatemala and they are using, um, you know, "slave labor."

So, what? You want me to get all teary-eyed because "non-college educated workers" cannot compete against the very people they enslaved and tortured and murdered and stole from for decades?

Sorry, fresh out of tears.

And after all of his nonsense, the author gives you this as a conclusion...

"So, there's your crisis. And it's not something we can fix with a tax tweak for the top 2%.
"

Uh, gosh, no kidding. He's right, but for all the wrong reasons.

Another question, why are you trading with these "lesser developed nations?" How did they get to a point where they could trade with the US?

BRIC -- Brasil, Russia, India and China.

BRIC is doing now what you should have always been doing for the last 70 years --- "nation-building."

Here's the Great Irony: if you had developed those States, your wages, your standard of living, your quality of life, and your life-style would be nowhere near where they are now. Where would you have been? About 2-3 notches higher than where Russia is today, right now.

The reason I mention that, is so you can look forward to something.

If you can't handle China now with Hi Chin earning $1.45/hour running his Japanese-made Nissei plastic molding injection machine kitchen gadgets for you, then what are you going to do when development shifts to Central Asia 15 years from and Ulan the Turkmen is
earning $1.45/hour running his Japanese-made Nissei plastic molding injection machine making kitchen gadgets for you?

What are you going to do 15 years after that when Mbutu the African is earning $1.45/hour running his Japanese-made Nissei plastic molding injection machine making kitchen gadgets for you?

Right now, Mbutu is earning $0.08/day -- and no I didn't stutter. He gets paid $0.08/day for a 10-16 hour day ---- about $348/year. He's not alone. There's about 999,999,999 others in sub-Saharan Africa wanting to work. Some of them make a little more money, about $0.90/day for an 8-12 hour day.

As the world continues to develop, it will create a lot of Demand-pull/Cost-push Inflation that will drive up the prices of commodities....that will cause you a lot of grief.

Perspective is good, and you might want to take a different tact on perspective, because from the point of view of 3/5th of the Earth, you are the 1%.......and they can do things like draw up funky looking charts that explain the "Income Inequality Crisis in 16 Charts."

And then from the perceptive of 1/5th of the earth, you are the top 2%,
and they can draw up funky looking charts that explain the "Income Inequality Crisis in 16 Charts," too.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Eating chocolate covered crickets (they taste like peanuts -- only they're cheaper than M&Ms)....

Mircea

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2012, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
17,389 posts, read 16,091,478 times
Reputation: 17263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

In the 1970s and 1980s data entry operators were getting paid $10-$12/hour which was an helluva good wage. What do they get now? Minimum wage if they're lucky. Why? Because a freaking chimpanzee can do data entry. Society is at the top of the learning curve once again with respect to computer technology. Everyone grows up using a computer and so everyone has some relevant transferable skill to perform data entry -- it doesn't require training or education and it is no longer specialized. You saw the same thing for machining equipment. Lathes, borers, grinders, presses, press punches etc etc etc, those were all separate machines that required a separate skill to set them up and operate them. Now, one single machine can do all of those things and its all done by computer --- punch a few buttons on the keyboard and its done. It requires little skill or knowledge. The most difficult thing perhaps is properly seating the semi-finished parts to be grinded or bored or milled or pressed.

That's how technological changes can impact wages.
To start, I envy the freedom of time...

What you described regarding manufacturing is not unique to simply manufacturing. The process of any job can be simplified to improve productivity and decrease wages indirectly. When you deskill a job, you allow yourself to hire the lowest common denominator. McDonalds led the way by automating the process employed to make their products. By doing this, they were able to eliminate the need for people to actually flip burgers and fill drinks. At such a point, you can hire damn near anyone. When you increase the potential supply of workers while maintaining the demand, you allow yourself great freedom to dictate wages. Hence, McyD's can basically pay minimum wage for a pseudo burger flipper. You still need managers, franchise owners, and all those who still make a livable wage, but the company is able to pay basically minimum wage for most of the jobs.

This process also hit manufacturing. Most of the jobs were deskilled, greatly reducing the wages for most of the workers. The skilled workers maintained their wages, while the bulk of the workers made substandard wages to press the green button. All a matter of supply and demand. The actual work is far and above simply pressing a few buttons, but that accounts for the minority of actual jobs available. Companies basically need a few highly skilled workers to do the brain work, and they can hire hordes of illegals for the rest. Why do companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the latest and greatest in automated equipment? Because there is big money in consolidating and eliminating jobs, while deskilling them in the process. Spend a millions today to save 5 million in labor costs for the next year.

This process has been hitting every line of work, and it will continue to grow. Why? There is money in reducing the average wage of your workforce. A few lucky workers will have the opportunity to develop a skillset worth a dignified wage. The majority won't. Why? Companies train when they have to. When all they need are workers for babysitting level jobs, that's all they will train their workforce for. When they require something more, they will have their pick of the best quality candidates for the job. Technology is what makes this all possible.

Hospitals follow this order. The grunt work is handled by low paid CNAs, caretakers, PCA, etc. Above that, nurses handle more intensive monitoring, medication administration, etc. The nurses make good money, but their caseloads are maxed out as much as possible. Than you have various specialties until you arrive at the minority few who boast the MD, DO, etc.

Name a profession, and this is what's going on. We're hitting a point where people simply have to fall in any place available. After that, it's a matter of working hard and hoping for the best.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

If you can't handle China now with Hi Chin earning $1.45/hour running his Japanese-made Nissei plastic molding injection machine kitchen gadgets for you, then what are you going to do when development shifts to Central Asia 15 years from and Ulan the Turkmen is
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
earning $1.45/hour running his Japanese-made Nissei plastic molding injection machine making kitchen gadgets for you?


The real question should be... Why isn't that an American made injection mold. There is money in building the mold. There is no money in operating the mold. This is where America veered of the path to prosperity. Young people weren't train for work that paid a damn. America has a surprisingly limited presence in in the high tech automated technology arena. We seem to love to complain that we are no longer operating much of this equipment anymore... Time to set our sights a bit higher...

Last edited by andywire; 12-19-2012 at 09:48 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2012, 11:32 PM
 
5,359 posts, read 10,251,742 times
Reputation: 4379
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire View Post

The real question should be... Why isn't that an American made injection mold. There is money in building the mold. There is no money in operating the mold. This is where America veered of the path to prosperity. Young people weren't train for work that paid a damn. America has a surprisingly limited presence in in the high tech automated technology arena. We seem to love to complain that we are no longer operating much of this equipment anymore... Time to set our sights a bit higher...
[/font][/font]
You are describing the intended work product of a bunch of alphabet organizations and schemes.

OPIC, CFR, NAFTA, WTO

It is not some accident. Been planned, organized and operated across the last few decades.

Bring back tariffs to force balanced trade, and as Micrea pointed regarding interest payments -- stop paying interest on the National Debt -- and things go right real quick.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2012, 11:57 PM
 
4,173 posts, read 3,122,972 times
Reputation: 2629
Is that you Tolstoy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Crap like this has been debunked on 500 different threads already. It's a poor use of time and energy to continually debunk the same stupidity over and over and over...
And yet here you are!

A massively self-masturbatory example of ego. Convoluted and twisted logic which does not deserve to be given credibility via refutation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2012, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
17,389 posts, read 16,091,478 times
Reputation: 17263
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281 View Post
Is that you Tolstoy?



And yet here you are!

A massively self-masturbatory example of ego. Convoluted and twisted logic which does not deserve to be given credibility via refutation.
Basically the premise of what he is suggesting is founded. The argument that any of this is deserved is another matter, and entirely driven on opinion. Some people root for America, and others want to see her crumble for some reason. The country is not perfect, but as far as 1st world nations go, I believe we are still one of the best houses in the worst neighborhoods. I don't see too many Americans plotting their escape just yet anyways.

The thing that really is hurting this country... Most businesses simply can't compete directly against $1/hr labor. No way, no how. Not for jobs simply requiring a pulse anyways. Where America went wrong was to ignore the changing of the tide. No massive, sweeping effort to retool the workforce for the jobs of tomorrow. Of course, there is also a large segment of the population that is simply not suited for more advanced jobs. Unfortunately, they are largely a lost cause I'm afraid.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2012, 10:12 PM
 
4,173 posts, read 3,122,972 times
Reputation: 2629
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire View Post
Basically the premise of what he is suggesting is founded. The argument that any of this is deserved is another matter, and entirely driven on opinion. Some people root for America, and others want to see her crumble for some reason. The country is not perfect, but as far as 1st world nations go, I believe we are still one of the best houses in the worst neighborhoods. I don't see too many Americans plotting their escape just yet anyways.

The thing that really is hurting this country... Most businesses simply can't compete directly against $1/hr labor. No way, no how. Not for jobs simply requiring a pulse anyways. Where America went wrong was to ignore the changing of the tide. No massive, sweeping effort to retool the workforce for the jobs of tomorrow. Of course, there is also a large segment of the population that is simply not suited for more advanced jobs. Unfortunately, they are largely a lost cause I'm afraid.
True, the roots of good fiction are always grounded in some reality. Where you end up is another story.

Very tough for a developed country to compete with unskilled labor on the basis of wages. But, many of those countries are still faced with their own challenges. The next fifty years will be defined by energy and water. We and our allies (Canada, Australia) have vast supplies of shale gas and oil. Once facilities are in place (liquefaction facilities) to export to Europe, we will have an enormous advantage. The US also has the farmland to feed itself, natural barriers that provide security (oceans and friendly neighbors), access to water and a well educated populace. And let's not overlook the importance of the premier military in the world. The ability to project power is not insubstantial.

We need to remain aware of the challenges, so we can prepare to meet them. We have faced tough times before. We are neither down, nor out!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:26 AM
Status: "ABCDEFGplus" (set 24 days ago)
 
19,073 posts, read 16,732,302 times
Reputation: 7424
I have seen as many arguments and economic perspectives as the rest of you. All of them have reasoning behind it. If I were to say there is no ice in southern Florida it would be a reasonable argument since the weather is warm. However the facts have changed with refrigeration. There should be a saying in economics that results are 9/10s of the truth. Once we have the results, then we can search for explanations.

Most wealth apologists tend to predict the future with new policy. I almost never see an attempt to explain the wealth gap now. They will often look at nominal wealth going down which is absolutely meaningless in real economic terms. When supply side economics was introduced some predicted it would result in large wealth gaps. One reason is because they knew this was what classical economists and turn of the century progressives had addressed with their policies which supply side undid. In other words what supply side did wasn't new and many knew the what the results would be. Now we have the same results.

The sad thing is the wealthy only win in nominal terms. Their financial wealth goes up but then we have had the fiancailly wealthy like the Pharaohs of Egypt for thousands of years. They rob themselves of real wealth as they destroy real progress.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:50 AM
 
30,946 posts, read 36,761,106 times
Reputation: 13188
When and where does the constitution discuss economic equality or inequality? Does the Declaration of Independence state that as a goal for breaking away? Not that equality is bad notion or that inequality is a good notion but where does it say that either is the way its suppose to be in our society?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:59 AM
Status: "ABCDEFGplus" (set 24 days ago)
 
19,073 posts, read 16,732,302 times
Reputation: 7424
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
When and where does the constitution discuss economic equality or inequality? Does the Declaration of Independence state that as a goal for breaking away? Not that equality is bad notion or that inequality is a good notion but where does it say that either is the way its suppose to be in our society?
The COTUS is a frame work for a just society. It left many other details up to the basic frame work. And for that matter does John Lock's natural law look familiar?

John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education


The whole revolution was to break away from absentee rentiers.


The biggest source of making money while snoozing in the sack is renting out real estate , now mostly siphoned off to banks. After all the winning bid for a property is typically the steward who bids to pay the most interest to a bank. Hence the "property" element of natural law has been violated.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top