kallend 2,150 #76 July 24, 2011 Quote there is not enough money with the rich to dig us out of this I guess we'll just have to get the money from the indigent and homeless, then, since the rich can't help. Those damnable paupers, hoarding all the wealth!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #77 July 24, 2011 >is there a productivity increase or not? A good question! The answer is - probably yes. When the evil, greedy company lays off the poor, struggling employees to line their own pockets, then yes, there is often a productivity increase (more work done per dollar spent) because they are doing more with less. Why is that important? Because a productivity increase helps everyone in the economy. I'm glad to see you recognize this; it implies a somewhat more sophisticated economic model than the one you have used in the past, which was basically "corporations are evil and should be held to account for their exploitation of the poor helpless workers." Sometimes firing someone, or paying them less, makes good economic sense - and that benefits everyone in the economy eventually (although, at first, not the person whose pay is being cut, or who is being laid off.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #78 July 24, 2011 Quote >is there a productivity increase or not? A good question! The answer is - probably yes. When the evil, greedy company lays off the poor, struggling employees to line their own pockets, then yes, there is often a productivity increase (more work done per dollar spent) because they are doing more with less. Why is that important? Because a productivity increase helps everyone in the economy. I'm glad to see you recognize this; it implies a somewhat more sophisticated economic model than the one you have used in the past, which was basically "corporations are evil and should be held to account for their exploitation of the poor helpless workers." Sometimes firing someone, or paying them less, makes good economic sense - and that benefits everyone in the economy eventually (although, at first, not the person whose pay is being cut, or who is being laid off.) i've never said corporations are evil - i've called them 'amoral'. i've pointed out they have government sanctioned 'limited liability' - the rest is your imagination. the whole of my model is contained within my novel (the universal announcer) - but that's a lot more words than can be fitted here. i'm glad you realise the importance of productivity - it's taken a while to get you to see this. we are now in agreement that raising the minimum wage will increase productivity stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #79 July 24, 2011 QuoteThe main reason that the tax rate in the United States for the rich is low is that being rich, many of the rich do not need to work. It has long been accepted by Republicans in Congress, among others, that unearned income should receive more favorable treatment than earned income. According to the IRS, in 2008 only 8 percent of the income of the top 400 earners in the country came from salary and wages. Close to 10% came from dividends and about 56% came from capital gains. Happy to help those who have prospered, either through their own efforts or through a wise choice of ancestors, Congress decided that people who receive dividends should only pay 15% tax on those dividends. Similarly, Congress thinks that capital gains, subject to a few non-onerous rules, should only be taxed at 15%. There is another group with very large incomes that also pays tax at the 15% rate. Those are hedge fund managers. Like the VERY RICH, among whom many hedge fund managers find themselves, money that hedge fund managers get from investors for managing their money is treated like capital gains and is taxed at only 15% even though to the unsophisticated observer money paid to them looks for all the world like the sort of money that the typical wage earner gets, except for its considerably larger amount than what most wage earners receive. (One commentator pointed out that if hedge fund managers paid taxes like the people earning $50,000 or even $100,000, the national deficit would be reduced by $44 billion in the next 10 years. In 2008 the top 25 hedge fund managers “averaged”: $1.01 billion in annual income. ) http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/23stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #80 July 24, 2011 >i'm glad you realise the importance of productivity - it's taken a while to get you to see >this. Oh, I've seen it for quite some time. I was somewhat surprised to hear you say it, since you have been a staunch advocate of remedies that reduce productivity (i.e. higher corporate taxes, higher minimum wages, stronger unions etc.) >we are now in agreement that raising the minimum wage will increase productivity. Nope. In many cases DECREASING minimum wage will increase productivity. When you can get adequate labor for the minimum cost you are at your most productive. As productivity climbs, workers do better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #81 July 24, 2011 looks like those chinese jobs will be coming back to the us... QuoteAmid all the gloom and anxiety in Europe, America and Australia lately, it’s nice to be able to report some good news for once: Chinese workers are going on strike. It’s possibly the best thing to happen in China since Mao Zedong carked it in 1976. Last week Honda agreed to a 24 per cent wage rise at its Guangdong parts factory to end a damaging two-week strike by 2000 workers, who were acting without any support from China’s only recognised trade union, the All China Federation of Trade Unions. The day before, Foxconn, the world’s largest electronics contract manufacturer (and producer, among other things, of Apple’s iPads) had increased wages by 30 per cent after a shocking spate of suicides at its massive plant in Shenzhen. Elsewhere, TPV Technology, the world’s largest manufacturer of computer displays, has agreed to another 20 per cent wage rise this year, following a 15 per cent increase in January, and Merry Electronics Co in Shenzhen was not so merry on Sunday when it was hit by a two-hour strike. Wages there will rise by 10 per cent next month. It’s all part of spreading labour shortages and unrest leading to big pay rises across China’s manufacturing sector this year. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/China-at-a-tipping-point-pd20100609-68SZH?OpenDocumentstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #82 July 24, 2011 Quotewell, if we start with a large tax increase on the rich (them having the money and all) we're a good way down the road to balancing the budget... They did make you read Animal Farm in Middle School, didn't they?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #83 July 25, 2011 QuoteSimilarly, Congress thinks that capital gains, subject to a few non-onerous rules, should only be taxed at 15%. There is another group with very large incomes that also pays tax at the 15% rate. Those are hedge fund managers. Right... you already made a thread about this that I replied to. Keep in mind I don't comprehensively reject the existence of problems in all these threads you repost from alternet and commondreams, it's just that your "solutions" (or whoever's solutions you plagiarize) are anything but. You constantly propose untenable nonsense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #84 July 25, 2011 QuoteQuote there is not enough money with the rich to dig us out of this I guess we'll just have to get the money from the indigent and homeless, then, since the rich can't help. Those damnable paupers, hoarding all the wealth! "Everyone needs to have skin in the game." - Barack ObamaMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #85 July 25, 2011 Quote>i'm glad you realise the importance of productivity - it's taken a while to get you to see >this. Oh, I've seen it for quite some time. I was somewhat surprised to hear you say it, since you have been a staunch advocate of remedies that reduce productivity (i.e. higher corporate taxes, higher minimum wages, stronger unions etc.) like they have in germany - that haven of the unproductive?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #86 July 25, 2011 Quote Why is that important? Because a productivity increase helps everyone in the economy. that's the theory - but recently the rich have subverted that principle - productivity increases are going to the rich - not the worker. how do you explain that?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #87 July 25, 2011 Quote>we are now in agreement that raising the minimum wage will increase productivity. Nope. so you don't think that checkout example is correct?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #88 July 25, 2011 Quote Quote there is not enough money with the rich to dig us out of this I guess we'll just have to get the money from the indigent and homeless, then, since the rich can't help. Those damnable paupers, hoarding all the wealth! the dishonesty of your posts continues "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #89 July 25, 2011 >>Because a productivity increase helps everyone in the economy. >that's the theory - but recently the rich have subverted that principle - productivity >increases are going to the rich - not the worker. how do you explain that? I'll let Dreamdancer explain that one: "increased productivity is usually a good thing for the economy (or we'd all still be throwing spears). you're not a believer in capitalism then?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #90 July 25, 2011 QuoteQuote>we are now in agreement that raising the minimum wage will increase productivity. Nope. so you don't think that checkout example is correct? Your checkout example is flawed. You fail to take into account many of the impacts that price floors have on a market, the big one being supply and demand imbalance. The problem is that the people working in the grocery store checkout line worked there because they had a low level of skills or other characteristics that made them a good match for the wage that the employer was willing to pay, and what they were willing to accept as wages. Packing groccery bags is a good job for many people, for example our youth as part time jobs. They don't have the skills to command a 25 dollar an hour job doing something else. But they have good work ethic, can pack grocceries well enough. They get a job, and they get spending money that they can spend, which is good for the economy. When you change the value of that worker, by making the minimum wage 20 dollars an hour, the employer responds by cutting employment, investing capital in ways that increase productivity of remaining workers, they automate, and they move jobs over seas. They don't do this because they are evil, they do this because you have forced the price of the wages above the equilibrium point where the wage matched the skill set, the amount of workers available, and the wage above the level that workers were willing to work for. In the short term the three fired groccery workers don't find another job easily. The highschool students will eventually go to college and learn the skills that put them into a different labor pool. But they stay unemployed until they get through college. That isn't good for the economy, they could have had a part time job for a few years that would have allowed them to be a part of the job maket earning money which allowed them to make purchases. The seniors are shit out of luck. They don't have the time to build new skills to put themselves into another labor pool. Others end up in the social net because they have no earnings, instead of low earnings. Markets don't work well when you arbitarily mess with price points."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #91 July 25, 2011 Quote>>Because a productivity increase helps everyone in the economy. >that's the theory - but recently the rich have subverted that principle - productivity >increases are going to the rich - not the worker. how do you explain that? I'll let Dreamdancer explain that one: "increased productivity is usually a good thing for the economy (or we'd all still be throwing spears). you're not a believer in capitalism then?" i don't get your point. you say that productivity increases help 'everyone' in the economy. i say that is the theory but that in recent decades productivity increases haven't helped 'everyone' - just the rich. the opposite of what you predict...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #92 July 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>we are now in agreement that raising the minimum wage will increase productivity. Nope. so you don't think that checkout example is correct? Your checkout example is flawed. not my example - someone else presented it as a critique...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #93 July 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>we are now in agreement that raising the minimum wage will increase productivity. Nope. so you don't think that checkout example is correct? Your checkout example is flawed. not my example - someone else presented it as a critique... The owner of the original example is irrelevant, a majority of your commentary and claims involving the example are incorrect and your arguments have some very big inherent logical flaws. The impact of price floors and ceilings on markets is far some loose theory, it is well supported economic theory. You are being evasive! I think one of my original questions was for you to actually support your matter of fact statement that to fix our situation we need adjust the "value" of labor versus the "value" of capital. Actually my first question was for you to quantify the impact of your plan to drain the rich with higher taxes as a solution to this deficit problem we face. My main point is that you make simple statements such as tax the rich or raise the minimum wage, with no real idea of the impact or the result. If you want to claim that raising taxes on the rich will solve the problem that is a hollow statement with a lot of hot air behind it unless you can quantify the impact of such a claim. It takes a little more effort to actual do some homework in order to gain some basic understanding about what you are claiming!! Wooooooooosh goes the hot air!"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #94 July 25, 2011 >i don't get your point. Dude, it was YOUR POINT! YOU said that it was usually good for the economy. Why did you say that if you don't get it? However, I agree with the point you originally made. Increased productivity is good for everyone on average. Let's take your example: Four cashiers work at a store. They get automated checkouts. The best (smartest, most educated, most POS system savvy) cashier is retained to manage those four checkouts since he will do a better job - and he gets a raise since he has more responsibilty. The other three are laid off. Sad. The company does better (lower labor costs, higher profit.) So far so good, except for those three people. I assume you agree with all this since it is your example. Now those three people are out of work. You can: 1) lower the minimum wage so the store can afford to employ them as janitors. 2) have them go back to school to get better educated, so another store may employ them as POS supervisors. 3) increase the minimum wage and help ensure they stay unemployed. 1) and 2) get them back to work. 3) keeps them out of work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #95 July 25, 2011 QuoteMost economists believe that productivity gains are the surest way to raise the standard of living of a country. Yet despite apparent strong productivity growth in recent years, Americans have been hit by a deadly combination of stagnant real wages and a lack of good jobs for mid-income workers. The contrast between strong productivity growth and weak wage growth is especially true in the “tradable” sector, the part of the economy most exposed to global competition. In a recent paper, Nobel Prize winner Michael Spence and co-author Sandile Hlatshwayo analyzed government data and concluded that “value added per job” in the tradable sector—one measure of productivity—rose by 44 percent from 1990 to 2008, “far above the increase of 21 percent in the economy as a whole.” Under ordinary circumstances, economic theory would tell us that an industry with rising productivity would pay higher wages and/or boost employment. However, real wages for many production and nonsupervisory workers stagnated in most tradable industries during this period, even as jobs disappeared. Notably, the durable goods manufacturing sector showed only a 0.2 percent cumulative increase in real wages for production and supervisory workers from 1990 to 2008, despite more than doubling in productivity over the same stretch, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/growth_and_productivity/not-all-productivity-gains-are-the-same-here-s-whystay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #96 July 25, 2011 Quote Now those three people are out of work. You can: 1) lower the minimum wage so the store can afford to employ them as janitors. 2) have them go back to school to get better educated, so another store may employ them as POS supervisors. 3) increase the minimum wage and help ensure they stay unemployed. 1) and 2) get them back to work. 3) keeps them out of work. 1, 2 are all medium to long term to implement. In the short term you only have unemployed undereducated, youth, and seniors. Realistically there is allways going be a group of people that are a good match for low skill lower pay jobs. Highschool kids that need their first jobs, seniors that didn't put away for retirement and need to cover the shortage between living expenses and the SS payments, and people that for what ever reason lack skills and education."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 July 25, 2011 Quote 1, 2 are all medium to long term to implement. you understand - option 3 is the preference of those too dumb to recognize (or just don't care) that their desire for instant gratification and personal gain causes more harm than it could ever help - we are growing an entire generation of terrible long term thinkers - or just lazy non-thinkers raising minimum wage has an instant boost to a very targeted demographic - which then disappears almost immediately as the economy and business adjust naturally (it's a fast response - except for very organized businesses - they actually can anticipate and adjust nearly instantly). Actually, it's a violent rebound that devastates those it's "advertised" (to the simple and the stupid) to help. The short term gain is Extremely short, the long term damage is nearly permanent. It has zero benefit except to generate votes for politicians that are slimy enough to play that card. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #98 July 25, 2011 Quote>i don't get your point. Dude, it was YOUR POINT! YOU said that it was usually good for the economy. Why did you say that if you don't get it? which is true. what is also true is that 'at this point in time' the benefit of productivity increases (an increase in real wages) are not being passed onto the worker. whereas you said productivity increases benefit 'everyone'. which is it to be?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #99 July 25, 2011 QuoteFour cashiers work at a store. They get automated checkouts. because the minimum wage has been increased. which is the point i made in the first place. increase in minimum wage (in this example) leads to a fourfold increase in productivity...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #100 July 25, 2011 QuoteFord was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers. Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($110 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression." The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs. Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. (Using the consumer price index, this was equivalent to $111.10 per day in 2008 dollars.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford#The_five-dollar_workdaystay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
