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 government can replace the private sector, then WHY DOESN'T IT?
It would go from capitalism > socialism > communism where everything is controlled by the "State".
Quote:
but i guess this country will have to find out the hard way, and maybe the lesson will actually sink in when it happens.
That's because a good portion of the population isn't educated enough to realize how all of this is playing out. They don't understand redistribution and have probably never heard of Frédéric Bastiat who warned us about it 150 years ago. Some people probably hadn't paid attention in history class or it wasn't taught in schools.
The demand stems from people's needs who have the income from those jobs to help pay for the products and services. No jobs = no income = no consumers = no business. Taxing the rich more who own these businesses will have some of them cut the jobs to make up the difference in cost (down size). It's like when Obama saying he would come after the oil companies by raising taxes on them but they will just passed this extra cost on down to the consumer at the pump. The more government takes away from business the more jobs will be cut or the more expensive the product or service will become.
Not so. Here, I'll let billionaire venture capitalist Nick Hanauer explain it to you.
It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.
Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. ... I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. ...Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be. ...
I challenge you to challenge your thinking by reading the full article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
if you confiscate the money of citizens via taxation, regulation, and/or fees, they DON'T HAVE IT to help small businesses thrive, either.
people can go to http://grandfather-economic-report.com/and see the rising government sector numbers and graphs. then they can ask themselves, "are things better now? are small businesses thriving"?
Do you know why? Because there's no demand that justifies the investment. Do you know why? Because the average wage-earner doesn't have any money to spend anymore. Do you know why? Republicans have refused to raise the minimum wage in this country for decades, and both Republicans and Democrats have refused to correct the tax incentives that go towards paying CEOs and other senior executives higher and higher salaries and bonuses by eliminating those incentives from the tax code and replacing them with incentives to pay workers thriving wages which is what actually stimulates the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
if the government can replace the private sector, then WHY DOESN'T IT?
they should be hiring all the displaced workers of the private sector and that would give krugman the stimulus that he only dreams about.
First, the government doesn't want to replace the private sector, it wants to partner with it to help it thrive. The keynote speaker on the misrepresentation of the "you didn't build that" meme at the Republican National Convention explained herself the importance of Public/Private partnership in the success of their business (a fact she conveniently forgot when she stood in that room and un-shamefacedly lied to you). Listen to her explain it to you. She's a Republican, so perhaps you'll believe her when she tells you how critical it was to their business' success.
As for the follow up question, I'm surprised you had to ask it. The government isn't hiring all the displaced workers because the obstructionist Republicans in the House of Representatives refuse to sign the president's Jobs Bill. Call your Representative and ask him or her to do so. We'll recover a lot more quickly if we do.
Plenty of demand in emerging countries. Just read the annual reports for the breakdown on profits.
Some are even in the double digits. These big multinationals aren't making those record profits off of their US revenue.
Don't you think the code favors low and high income earners?
High income earners do not qualify for the earned income tax credit.
High income earners do not qualify for child tax credits.
A family of 4 exempts $15,200 of income from taxation which, when combined with the earned income tax credit and child tax credit means most low income earners do not pay federal taxes. They will however, pay FICA and state income tax.
A childless adult working full time at minimum wage pays over $500 a year in federal income tax with no EITC and almost certainly no itemized deductions. And he probably pays higher effective state and local tax rates than the middle class and the rich.
At the higher income levels there are more options for mitigating taxes.
They didn't leave because there was money to made in the US. Wages were low and production and natural resource costs were too. Since neither of those things exist today, the outcome of a 90% tax rate might be a bit different.
You know why? Because our government invested in education, making sure we had an educated workforce so American businesses could hire American workers.
You know why? Because our government invested in education, making sure we had an educated workforce so American businesses could hire American workers.
As of now, they have because education sucks in this country. Back then when we were turning out some of the brightest people in the world? Success. Check it out.
You know why? Because our government invested in education, making sure we had an educated workforce so American businesses could hire American workers.
Uh, I'm pretty sure companies who have off-shored jobs over the last 20 years have found the education level of workers in Taiwan, China, Malaysia and other developing nations to be sufficient to produce what used to be produced by American workers and at a fraction of the cost. Guess their education caught up with ours or (gasp) it's really not necessary to be all that educated to pull a lever that makes widgets. Our "educated" workers were never all that educated, nor was a formal education needed for a large portion of the job sector.
Uh, I'm pretty sure companies who have off-shored jobs over the last 20 years have found the education level of workers in Taiwan, China, Malaysia and other nations to be sufficient to produce what used to be produced by American workers and at a fraction of the cost. Guess their education caught up with ours or (gasp) it's really not necessary to be all that educated to pull a lever that makes widgets.
We need educated workers in the country to improve our economy. I didn't say that jobs were off-shored only because of education but it IS a big issue.
For example, one of my cousins is going to tech school to be a machinist. His father, thinking it was utter bull**** to do this, asked one of his friends who works here: Unison | A Worldwide Leader in Aviation Technology about it. Turns out that there is such a dearth of educated workers in this country that they had to hire out of state for a machinist.
We need educated workers in the country to improve our economy. I didn't say that jobs were off-shored only because of education but it IS a big issue.
For example, one of my cousins is going to tech school to be a machinist. His father, thinking it was utter bull**** to do this, asked one of his friends who works here: Unison | A Worldwide Leader in Aviation Technology about it. Turns out that there is such a dearth of educated workers in this country that they had to hire out of state for a machinist.
THAT is what I am talking about.
But education is only one part of the equation. And frankly, it's typically the smallest part. Apple is not manufacturing iwhatevers in China because US workers lack the know how. They manufacture in China because labor is cheap, plentiful and educated enough to get the job done. The largest part of the equation is manufacturing cost and in that area, developing countries will always kick our butts regardless of how educated our workers.
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.
