So go ahead and (incorrectly) take all the Libertarians..
go ahead and (incorrectly) assume you understand the libertarian movement.
libertarians are for the individual freedom of people. they are for less government in all situations. this includes less taxes, and less government spending.
Thanks, guys.. I was making my case that, regardless how you choose to pool the non-Democrat and non-Republican respondents, there are still a significantly greater number of Democrats.
I thought this was great......
Dear IRS,
I am sorry to inform you that I will not be able to pay taxes owed April 15 , but all is not lost.
I have paid these taxes: accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 3.3 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle license registration tax, capitol gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, Colorado property tax, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma and New Mexico sales tax, and many more that I can't recall but I have run out of space and money.
When you do not receive my check April 15, just know that it is an honest mistake.
Please treat me the same way you treated Congressmen Charles Rangel , Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and ex-Congressman Tom Daschle and, of course, your boss Timothy Geithner. No penalties and no interest.
P.S. I will make at least a partial payment as soon as I get my stimulus check.
Ed Barnett
Wichita Falls
So go ahead and (incorrectly) take all the Libertarians..
go ahead and (incorrectly) assume you understand the libertarian movement.
libertarians are for the individual freedom of people. they are for less government in all situations. this includes less taxes, and less government spending.
Thanks, guys.. I was making my case that, regardless how you choose to pool the non-Democrat and non-Republican respondents, there are still a significantly greater number of Democrats.
but, so far the markets have zero confidence in the Obama plan. since elected the market has dropped 30% and since hes taken office its dropped 20%. now, i know not all of that was caused by him, but the markets are run off of company futures. every time Obama comes out with a new part of his plan, the market goes down because they are scared of the taxes and regulation that could hurt business.
only time will tell. we, as a nation, elected him. now we have to live with it.
The markets aren't going down because they're scared taxes and regulation could hurt business. They're going down because the entire world is still in a financial crisis, the crisis is still getting worse (even the housing market hasn't bottomed yet), forecasts show that despite [largely phoney-baloney] conservative protestations the stimulus bill was actually too small to make up for the huge demand contraction, nearly all the nation's biggest banks and the world's largest insurance company are bankrupt, and everybody now realizes there is no way out of this mess that is painless.
Our economy -- the markets and financial sector in particular -- was incredibly bloated with phony wealth. There just wasn't as much wealth in America as everybody had convinced themselves there was. Reality finally caught up with us and the markets are now correcting for their mistakes: a large downward shift, in recognition of the fact that there isn't as much wealth in the economy as they all thought there was.
Are Wall Street types happy about the prospect of more regulation and higher taxes on the wealthy? They never are. But what's going on right now has nothing to do with any of that. Markets go down because of uncertainty, and right now, there is exponentially more uncertainty than any current trader has ever seen.
I also have to ask: why are we judging economic policy according to what Wall Street thinks of it? Surely they've demonstrated beyond all doubt that 90% of them know absolutely nothing about the economy, and couldn't pick a good investment out of a 2-man police lineup.
Surely they've demonstrated beyond all doubt that 90% of them know absolutely nothing about the economy, and couldn't pick a good investment out of a 2-man police lineup.
usually when i ask you deliver... so
could you please give more information to back up this statement? im not sure i am clear on your point. I mean, yeah there were big problems recently but i seem to remember Barny Frank telling McCain about three years ago that Freddie and Fanny were ok and had no issues. a few months later the problem comes out.
It wasnt just the guys on Wall st. that were taken in. Many MANY people were. you cant blame them for everything. that and it isnt their job to judge the economy. it is their job to make an investment and turn a profit. we are judging the economy by the profit they make. we are not making the policy off of what they think.
not only that but WS isnt EVERYTHING. its something but it is not the end all in the economy. it is one of many, many indicators that we tend to look at when assessing the economy
urbino:
Our economy -- the markets and financial sector in particular -- was incredibly bloated with phony wealth. There just wasn't as much wealth in America as everybody had convinced themselves there was. Reality finally caught up with us and the markets are now correcting for their mistakes: a large downward shift, in recognition of the fact that there isn't as much wealth in the economy as they all thought there was.
this i can get on board with. I will also add to this. the "false wealth" also enticed a ton of debt. Debt we cannot afford because the prices were artificially high. once the market corrects the people in it we will be ok. however, we do not need a government to force it on us. it can happen on its own. It wont be fun, and it wont be pretty, but we wont have more regulation and taxes on our hands. Building up even more debt is not the way to get out of debt.
could you please give more information to back up this statement? im not sure i am clear on your point. I mean, yeah there were big problems recently but i seem to remember Barny Frank telling McCain about three years ago that Freddie and Fanny were ok and had no issues. a few months later the problem comes out.
It wasnt just the guys on Wall st. that were taken in. Many MANY people were. you cant blame them for everything. that and it isnt their job to judge the economy. it is their job to make an investment and turn a profit. we are judging the economy by the profit they make. we are not making the policy off of what they think.
This is getting to what my point was. You were criticizing Obama's economic policies because the markets are down. So you may not be making policy based on what Wall Street thinks, but clearly you are judging policy based on what they think.
And why should we judge the economy by the profits turned on Wall Street? That's a major contributor what got us in this mess. Wall Street profits are not the economy, nor are they particularly tied to the health of the economy. Wall Street profits are generated largely on speculation and highly abstract financial derivatives. They can be doing swimmingly while the rest of the country is going into the crapper. That's what's actually happened over the past several years. But [almost] nobody realized it was going into the crapper, because all anybody ever looked at to judge our economic health was Wall Street. They were going gangbusters, so everything must be great. Oops.
I'm not sure what Barney Frank's (or anybody else who missed this crash) relevance is. Nobody was supporting Obama's policies by citing Barney Frank. You were criticizing Obama's policies by citing Wall Street. My response was and is that Wall Street is not a particularly useful standard to judge either the economy or, therefore, economic policy against.
kuzi16:
Building up even more debt is not the way to get out of debt.
Actually, right now is the best time in modern history for the American gov't to take on some debt. Because it's still viewed all over the world as the most reliable borrower in the world -- the safest place to put your money in dangerous times -- people are eager to loan it money right now. That means we can borrow at ridiculously low interest. In fact, for a while there, the Treasury was doing a very brisk bond business at 0% interest. Zero. That's a no-interest loan. If you need money for something, that's the time to grab it up.
Actually, right now is the best time in modern history for the American gov't to take on some debt. Because it's still viewed all over the world as the most reliable borrower in the world -- the safest place to put your money in dangerous times -- people are eager to loan it money right now. That means we can borrow at ridiculously low interest. In fact, for a while there, the Treasury was doing a very brisk bond business at 0% interest. Zero. That's a no-interest loan. If you need money for something, that's the time to grab it up.
it wont last. at some point so many people/countries will want to take out loans ant the wealth wont be there. this will create competition and higher interest. thats where the problem could start
Actually, right now is the best time in modern history for the American gov't to take on some debt. Because it's still viewed all over the world as the most reliable borrower in the world -- the safest place to put your money in dangerous times -- people are eager to loan it money right now. That means we can borrow at ridiculously low interest. In fact, for a while there, the Treasury was doing a very brisk bond business at 0% interest. Zero. That's a no-interest loan. If you need money for something, that's the time to grab it up.
it wont last. at some point so many people/countries will want to take out loans ant the wealth wont be there. this will create competition and higher interest. thats where the problem could start
um, no.. if people/countries are lining up to give us money at 0% interest, the rate would go lower, not higher. Rates go up if people are lining up to BORROW money at 0% -- however, it is also a function of credit (the likelihood that it will be paid off) and the economy (the expected performance of competing investments)
Barack Obama says that he wants to discuss the idea of lowering corporate tax rates "over time" in exchange for "closing a lot of the loopholes that make the tax system so complex." "Over time?" What's this? Don't' we have an economic crisis? If it was so important that Obama and the Dems get their trillion-dollar stimulus bill by President's Day, why in the world can't they cut corporate taxes just as fast? There are people out there who need jobs ... and these jobs are oversees waiting to come back to America when and if the corporate tax rate comes down. Over time? Yeah, pal. You'll get a new job .... Over time. Besides ... lowering tax rates for the evil, filthy, wealthy corporations? Not a chance that the wealth-envy Democrats will bite on that one.
Barack Obama says that he wants to discuss the idea of lowering corporate tax rates "over time" in exchange for "closing a lot of the loopholes that make the tax system so complex." "Over time?" What's this? Don't' we have an economic crisis? If it was so important that Obama and the Dems get their trillion-dollar stimulus bill by President's Day, why in the world can't they cut corporate taxes just as fast? There are people out there who need jobs ... and these jobs are oversees waiting to come back to America when and if the corporate tax rate comes down. Over time? Yeah, pal. You'll get a new job .... Over time. Besides ... lowering tax rates for the evil, filthy, wealthy corporations? Not a chance that the wealth-envy Democrats will bite on that one.
I believe he's speaking about a compromise that closes the loopholes that allow large corporations to pay very little in taxes. If these loopholes are closed, the corporate tax rate can be reduced. I don't believe he said anywhere that he intends to take less money, just take it more fairly.
Barack Obama says that he wants to discuss the idea of lowering corporate tax rates "over time" in exchange for "closing a lot of the loopholes that make the tax system so complex." "Over time?" What's this? Don't' we have an economic crisis? If it was so important that Obama and the Dems get their trillion-dollar stimulus bill by President's Day, why in the world can't they cut corporate taxes just as fast? There are people out there who need jobs ... and these jobs are oversees waiting to come back to America when and if the corporate tax rate comes down. Over time? Yeah, pal. You'll get a new job .... Over time. Besides ... lowering tax rates for the evil, filthy, wealthy corporations? Not a chance that the wealth-envy Democrats will bite on that one.
I believe he's speaking about a compromise that closes the loopholes that allow large corporations to pay very little in taxes. If these loopholes are closed, the corporate tax rate can be reduced. I don't believe he said anywhere that he intends to take less money, just take it more fairly.
that sounds reasonable....don't try to hide things with loopholes just pay what you are required to but not a penny more...Duty, as far as getting overseas jobs that left here and went there to come back what do you think Obama's strategy should be?
Barack Obama says that he wants to discuss the idea of lowering corporate tax rates "over time" in exchange for "closing a lot of the loopholes that make the tax system so complex." "Over time?" What's this? Don't' we have an economic crisis? If it was so important that Obama and the Dems get their trillion-dollar stimulus bill by President's Day, why in the world can't they cut corporate taxes just as fast? There are people out there who need jobs ... and these jobs are oversees waiting to come back to America when and if the corporate tax rate comes down. Over time? Yeah, pal. You'll get a new job .... Over time. Besides ... lowering tax rates for the evil, filthy, wealthy corporations? Not a chance that the wealth-envy Democrats will bite on that one.
I believe he's speaking about a compromise that closes the loopholes that allow large corporations to pay very little in taxes. If these loopholes are closed, the corporate tax rate can be reduced. I don't believe he said anywhere that he intends to take less money, just take it more fairly.
that sounds reasonable....don't try to hide things with loopholes just pay what you are required to but not a penny more...Duty, as far as getting overseas jobs that left here and went there to come back what do you think Obama's strategy should be?
Increase the quality of life here, such that there is a demand to live in this country.
I actually developed my opinion about offshoring 7 years ago while working as a contractor with Bank of America (I haven't always been here.. but I'm back). You are seeing, and will continue to see, a globalization of our economy. We try to do things to stop it (Buy American!! Rah! Rah!), but this only serves to postpone that globalization. The steel industry is a great example of how industry and the financial markets will globalize through the spread of capitalism.
In the short term (our lifetimes), this change will be painful for the wealthier nations. In the long run, it will help to create a more stable and healthy economy worldwide. It is my opinion that globalization is inevitably the future, and that the greatest profits to be made after that will be in innovation. We need to encourage innovation and education onshore, and allow the offshore economies to experience a great growth through industry/manufacturing. In the future, it is the ideas that will carry the most value, not their production.
why in the world can't they cut corporate taxes just as fast? There are people out there who need jobs ... and these jobs are oversees waiting to come back to America when and if the corporate tax rate comes down.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Krieg, but that's pretty much bullshit for at least 3 reasons.
First, there are not lots of jobs overseas just waiting to come back. Those jobs are going to stay overseas. That's just the nature of the new global economy. They can pay people a dime a day in Third World countries, plus they don't have to keep the workplaces safe. If those jobs do start coming back here, it will be because the standard of living in Third World countries has risen enough that the cost of labor there is about the same as the cost of labor here.
Second, job location has nothing to do with corporate taxes. Corporations chartered in the US pay the same corporate taxes to the US whether their employees are in Ohio or Manchuria. What matters to corporate taxes isn't where the workers are; it's where the profits land. You could lower corporate taxes to zero, and it wouldn't create an iota of incentive to bring a single job back to the US. We'd get a lot more corporations chartered here, but I don't see how that does us any good.
Third, if you were right that corporate tax cuts would bring a lot of jobs back here, why didn't it happen during the Bush administration? Surely the GOP cut corporate tax rates during their 6 years of control over the entire federal gov't.
why in the world can't they cut corporate taxes just as fast? There are people out there who need jobs ... and these jobs are oversees waiting to come back to America when and if the corporate tax rate comes down.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Krieg, but that's pretty much bullshit for at least 3 reasons.
First, there are not lots of jobs overseas just waiting to come back. Those jobs are going to stay overseas. That's just the nature of the new global economy. They can pay people a dime a day in Third World countries, plus they don't have to keep the workplaces safe. If those jobs do start coming back here, it will be because the standard of living in Third World countries has risen enough that the cost of labor there is about the same as the cost of labor here.
Second, job location has nothing to do with corporate taxes. Corporations chartered in the US pay the same corporate taxes to the US whether their employees are in Ohio or Manchuria. What matters to corporate taxes isn't where the workers are; it's where the profits land. You could lower corporate taxes to zero, and it wouldn't create an iota of incentive to bring a single job back to the US. We'd get a lot more corporations chartered here, but I don't see how that does us any good.
Third, if you were right that corporate tax cuts would bring a lot of jobs back here, why didn't it happen during the Bush administration? Surely the GOP cut corporate tax rates during their 6 years of control over the entire federal gov't.
as you said "you may get new corporations chartered here but that doesnt do us any good".... of course you prefaced that with:" you could cut corporate tax rates to zero.."
if you cut them to Zero, of course it wouldnt bring in more tax money. jsut cut them to make them more competitive with the world. the profit will land here as you said. THAT will bring in more money.
there are good thoughts in your post. one of them is: "They can pay people a dime a day in Third World countries, plus they don't have to keep the workplaces safe." wouldnt this be a good argument against raising minimum wage?
as you said "you may get new corporations chartered here but that doesnt do us any good".... of course you prefaced that with:" you could cut corporate tax rates to zero.."
if you cut them to Zero, of course it wouldnt bring in more tax money. jsut cut them to make them more competitive with the world. the profit will land here as you said. THAT will bring in more money.
How much do you propose we cut the corporate tax rate? 50 percent?
kuzi16:
"They can pay people a dime a day in Third World countries, plus they don't have to keep the workplaces safe." wouldnt this be a good argument against raising minimum wage?
No.. I don't want my country to be like their country. If I did, I would just move there and live like a billionaire.
as you said "you may get new corporations chartered here but that doesnt do us any good".... of course you prefaced that with:" you could cut corporate tax rates to zero.."
if you cut them to Zero, of course it wouldnt bring in more tax money. jsut cut them to make them more competitive with the world.
More competitive with the world? Our tax rates are already among the lowest in the developed world. Who's got the upper hand on us because of our tax rates? Somalia? Uzbekistan?
kuzi16:
there are good thoughts in your post. one of them is: "They can pay people a dime a day in Third World countries, plus they don't have to keep the workplaces safe." wouldnt this be a good argument against raising minimum wage?
I agree with doody. Why would I want my country or my life to look more like theirs? They're freaking miserable. Instead of lowering our standard of living to theirs, wouldn't a better goal be raising their standard of living to ours?
I mean, our economy did used to work like theirs, from roughly the end of Reconstruction to roughly the beginning of WWI. It wasn't pretty, and it didn't work very well. In fact, it worked so badly that we made an intentional decision to change it. We intentionally and on the basis of experience rejected that kind of capitalism, and life got much, much better for 90% of us. Why would we want to go back?
as you said "you may get new corporations chartered here but that doesnt do us any good".... of course you prefaced that with:" you could cut corporate tax rates to zero.."
if you cut them to Zero, of course it wouldnt bring in more tax money. jsut cut them to make them more competitive with the world.
More competitive with the world? Our tax rates are already among the lowest in the developed world. Who's got the upper hand on us because of our tax rates? Somalia? Uzbekistan?
kuzi16:
there are good thoughts in your post. one of them is: "They can pay people a dime a day in Third World countries, plus they don't have to keep the workplaces safe." wouldnt this be a good argument against raising minimum wage?
I agree with doody. Why would I want my country or my life to look more like theirs? They're freaking miserable. Instead of lowering our standard of living to theirs, wouldn't a better goal be raising their standard of living to ours?
I mean, our economy did used to work like theirs, from roughly the end of Reconstruction to roughly the beginning of WWI. It wasn't pretty, and it didn't work very well. In fact, it worked so badly that we made an intentional decision to change it. We intentionally and on the basis of experience rejected that kind of capitalism, and life got much, much better for 90% of us. Why would we want to go back?
our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. thats the only tax i was talking about. i agree that the income taxes are lower than most. I like it that way.
do you think, though, a minimum wage could theoretically put a false value on some unskilled jobs? If today the minimum wage was raised to $30 (intentionally high just for a point) wouldnt that make many jobs higher paying than they are actually worth ?
I know they arent doing that but where is the line?
and just another thought... if i am making minimum wage and i work very hard and get a raise then a few weeks later they raise the minimum wage to what my current pay is, relative to the rest of the workforce i did not get a raise.
i know we arent arguing minimum wage laws and what not right now but its just a passing thought.
do you think, though, a minimum wage could theoretically put a false value on some unskilled jobs?
Sure. By definition, minimum wage laws set the price of some labor higher than the market would otherwise pay; if they didn't, they wouldn't be needed. But accurately valuing skills has never been the point of minimum wage laws.
Minimum wage laws are about setting a floor on the value of human labor itself. They say human labor has inherent value, regardless of the fluctuations of the labor markets, and that any human being working at a full-time job should be assured some minimum amount of economic dignity in their life. They're also a recognition of the lessons of history: societies in which there are substantial numbers of people who work hard but still can't get out of poverty are unstable, revolution-prone societies.
Minimum wage laws aren't economic policy; they're social policy. So saying they put a "false value" on some skills is beside the point.
Minimum wage laws are about setting a floor on the value of human labor itself. They say human labor has inherent value, regardless of the fluctuations of the labor markets, and that any human being working at a full-time job should be assured some minimum amount of economic dignity in their life.
This is the most intelligent thing I read all day.. Well stated Urbi.
do you think, though, a minimum wage could theoretically put a false value on some unskilled jobs?
Sure. By definition, minimum wage laws set the price of some labor higher than the market would otherwise pay; if they didn't, they wouldn't be needed. But accurately valuing skills has never been the point of minimum wage laws.
Minimum wage laws are about setting a floor on the value of human labor itself. They say human labor has inherent value, regardless of the fluctuations of the labor markets, and that any human being working at a full-time job should be assured some minimum amount of economic dignity in their life. They're also a recognition of the lessons of history: societies in which there are substantial numbers of people who work hard but still can't get out of poverty are unstable, revolution-prone societies.
Minimum wage laws aren't economic policy; they're social policy. So saying they put a "false value" on some skills is beside the point.
right. i know what you are saying.
on that note, however, isnt that driving more business to out-source every time that it is raised?
and though accurately valuing skills has never been the point of minimum wage laws wouldnt that be a more logical goal? then it would be based more in logic and reason rather than feeling.
on that note, however, isnt that driving more business to out-source every time that it is raised?
To some degree, yes. The leveling up of standards of living across a broader spectrum of countries -- i.e., globalization -- that just got rolling during the '90s isn't going to be painless for those of us in the wealthier countries. Working class people are going to feel it one way or another (and already do), regardless of what we do. The only question is: will owning class people feel it, too? So far, the answer has been no.
kuzi16:
and though accurately valuing skills has never been the point of minimum wage laws wouldnt that be a more logical goal? then it would be based more in logic and reason rather than feeling.
Actually, I think that would be less based in logic and reason than what we have now. That approach assumes that the only thing that matters -- to a society, a country, or any individual person -- is economic value; that there are no values outside of or other than economic value; that the only arbiter of value is the abstraction we call the "free market," and if it says you are of no value, you really are of no value. Period.
For all but a small minority of people, however, that assumption is false. Very false. We do have non-economic values; that is, we do set values on things that have nothing to do with those things' economic utility. As human beings, for instance, we think our fellow human beings are intrinsically valuable -- even the ones who have no skill that the "free market" wants. Since that's true even of those whose dollar value to the market is zero, it's also true of those whose dollar value to the market is very low. We set minimum wage laws to account for that non-economic value.
We also value stability. In order to keep our society stable, we know that it's important not to allow a large underclass to develop. People who do the work but don't get paid enough to get by have a tendency to get pissed off, eventually, and start killing people and blowing *** up. Minimum wage laws are one way to help prevent that, and they therefore reflect the value we place on a stable society -- value that isn't accounted for by the "free markets."
So, to make a long story even longer: no, I think having minimum wage laws is actually a good deal more rational than what you propose.
on that note, however, isnt that driving more business to out-source every time that it is raised?
To some degree, yes. The leveling up of standards of living across a broader spectrum of countries -- i.e., globalization -- that just got rolling during the '90s isn't going to be painless for those of us in the wealthier countries. Working class people are going to feel it one way or another (and already do), regardless of what we do. The only question is: will owning class people feel it, too? So far, the answer has been no.
kuzi16:
and though accurately valuing skills has never been the point of minimum wage laws wouldnt that be a more logical goal? then it would be based more in logic and reason rather than feeling.
Actually, I think that would be less based in logic and reason than what we have now. That approach assumes that the only thing that matters -- to a society, a country, or any individual person -- is economic value; that there are no values outside of or other than economic value; that the only arbiter of value is the abstraction we call the "free market," and if it says you are of no value, you really are of no value. Period.
For all but a small minority of people, however, that assumption is false. Very false. We do have non-economic values; that is, we do set values on things that have nothing to do with those things' economic utility. As human beings, for instance, we think our fellow human beings are intrinsically valuable -- even the ones who have no skill that the "free market" wants. Since that's true even of those whose dollar value to the market is zero, it's also true of those whose dollar value to the market is very low. We set minimum wage laws to account for that non-economic value.
We also value stability. In order to keep our society stable, we know that it's important not to allow a large underclass to develop. People who do the work but don't get paid enough to get by have a tendency to get pissed off, eventually, and start killing people and blowing *** up. Minimum wage laws are one way to help prevent that, and they therefore reflect the value we place on a stable society -- value that isn't accounted for by the "free markets."
So, to make a long story even longer: no, I think having minimum wage laws is actually a good deal more rational than what you propose.
urbs, reading what you have written makes me think you have a lot of knowledge on this sort of stuff. I really enjoy reading it.
The only question is: will owning class people feel it, too? So far, the answer has been no.
As a general manager in the restaurant business, I can say that this statement is very false. Franchise owners are dropping like flies, going bankrupt everday of the week. I doubt my owners will be able to keep their stores open much longer, espcially past July when the final mininium wage increase goes into effect. I dont see how raising the minimum so much so fast they way the did has helped anybody, it rasies the prices of everything, becuase most of the the goods you get are at some point in time handled by min wage employees, therefore decreasing the spending value of the min wage earners new found dollars, as Kuzi atated it devaules the percived worth of the above min wage earner. and besides all that what good is the min wage if there are no jobs out there to pay it? I am not that old but i surely remember having to work my ass off to earn what min wage is giving away now. and considering it a dam decent wage as well. From my own personal expeirences what ive seen go in the restaurant business in the last two years, I blame much of our current economic atate of affiars on the new minimum wage laws. socialist values are corrupting the free market everyday.
I doubt my owners will be able to keep their stores open much longer, espcially past July when the final mininium wage increase goes into effect. I dont see how raising the minimum so much so fast they way the did has helped anybody
It would be better if minimum wage increases were slow and steady, instead of having long periods of stagnation followed by abrupt rises. Unfortunately, fairly abrupt rises are necessary because of those long periods of stagnation. Inflation doesn't stagnate (except during financial crises as severe as the current one), but GOP willingness to raise the minimum wage is permanently stagnated. Since they have been unwilling to raise it for the past 8 years, an abrupt increase is now necessary to catch it up with inflation.
mustluvcigars:
I am not that old but i surely remember having to work my ass off to earn what min wage is giving away now. and considering it a dam decent wage as well.
There are 3 problems with that statement.
First, do you also remember how much more that wage would buy, back then? Because I do. If you're as young as it sounds, you don't even want to know what the minimum wage was that I started out at when I was 14. But tiny as it seems to us today, it was worth more. Inflation happens. So while today's minimum wage looks like a princely sum compared to back then, that's only because you're comparing nominal dollars instead of real dollars. I don't know when you were earning minimum wage, but there's a high probability that if you compared it to today's minimum wage, in real dollars, your wage back then was actually higher than today's.
Second, how much more of your ass do you suppose you would've had to work off if there had been no minimum wage back then, or if politicians then had listened to people who were complaining the way you are now and kept it lower than it was?
Third, let's not pretend there's any such thing as "what min wage is giving away now." Minimum wage is exactly that: a wage. It's not a giveaway. Minimum wage workers today work for that money, just like you did.
mustluvcigars:
socialist values are corrupting the free market everyday.
Sometimes I think people who throw the word "socialist" around that loosely should be deported for a year to a country with actual socialism. It would have a very salutary effect on their understanding and vocabulary.
Comments
Check out the results of the survey here
If you want, scroll down to the Summary of Key Findings, on Page 90.
i also posted it in the other thread
"Long ashes my friends."
wrong thread
Our economy -- the markets and financial sector in particular -- was incredibly bloated with phony wealth. There just wasn't as much wealth in America as everybody had convinced themselves there was. Reality finally caught up with us and the markets are now correcting for their mistakes: a large downward shift, in recognition of the fact that there isn't as much wealth in the economy as they all thought there was.
Are Wall Street types happy about the prospect of more regulation and higher taxes on the wealthy? They never are. But what's going on right now has nothing to do with any of that. Markets go down because of uncertainty, and right now, there is exponentially more uncertainty than any current trader has ever seen.
I also have to ask: why are we judging economic policy according to what Wall Street thinks of it? Surely they've demonstrated beyond all doubt that 90% of them know absolutely nothing about the economy, and couldn't pick a good investment out of a 2-man police lineup.
could you please give more information to back up this statement? im not sure i am clear on your point. I mean, yeah there were big problems recently but i seem to remember Barny Frank telling McCain about three years ago that Freddie and Fanny were ok and had no issues. a few months later the problem comes out. It wasnt just the guys on Wall st. that were taken in. Many MANY people were. you cant blame them for everything.
that and it isnt their job to judge the economy. it is their job to make an investment and turn a profit. we are judging the economy by the profit they make. we are not making the policy off of what they think.
not only that but WS isnt EVERYTHING. its something but it is not the end all in the economy. it is one of many, many indicators that we tend to look at when assessing the economy
this i can get on board with. I will also add to this. the "false wealth" also enticed a ton of debt. Debt we cannot afford because the prices were artificially high.
once the market corrects the people in it we will be ok. however, we do not need a government to force it on us. it can happen on its own. It wont be fun, and it wont be pretty, but we wont have more regulation and taxes on our hands. Building up even more debt is not the way to get out of debt.
And why should we judge the economy by the profits turned on Wall Street? That's a major contributor what got us in this mess. Wall Street profits are not the economy, nor are they particularly tied to the health of the economy. Wall Street profits are generated largely on speculation and highly abstract financial derivatives. They can be doing swimmingly while the rest of the country is going into the crapper. That's what's actually happened over the past several years. But [almost] nobody realized it was going into the crapper, because all anybody ever looked at to judge our economic health was Wall Street. They were going gangbusters, so everything must be great. Oops.
I'm not sure what Barney Frank's (or anybody else who missed this crash) relevance is. Nobody was supporting Obama's policies by citing Barney Frank. You were criticizing Obama's policies by citing Wall Street. My response was and is that Wall Street is not a particularly useful standard to judge either the economy or, therefore, economic policy against. Actually, right now is the best time in modern history for the American gov't to take on some debt. Because it's still viewed all over the world as the most reliable borrower in the world -- the safest place to put your money in dangerous times -- people are eager to loan it money right now. That means we can borrow at ridiculously low interest. In fact, for a while there, the Treasury was doing a very brisk bond business at 0% interest. Zero. That's a no-interest loan. If you need money for something, that's the time to grab it up.
"Long ashes my friends."
that sounds reasonable....don't try to hide things with loopholes just pay what you are required to but not a penny more...Duty, as far as getting overseas jobs that left here and went there to come back what do you think Obama's strategy should be?
I actually developed my opinion about offshoring 7 years ago while working as a contractor with Bank of America (I haven't always been here.. but I'm back). You are seeing, and will continue to see, a globalization of our economy. We try to do things to stop it (Buy American!! Rah! Rah!), but this only serves to postpone that globalization. The steel industry is a great example of how industry and the financial markets will globalize through the spread of capitalism.
In the short term (our lifetimes), this change will be painful for the wealthier nations. In the long run, it will help to create a more stable and healthy economy worldwide. It is my opinion that globalization is inevitably the future, and that the greatest profits to be made after that will be in innovation. We need to encourage innovation and education onshore, and allow the offshore economies to experience a great growth through industry/manufacturing. In the future, it is the ideas that will carry the most value, not their production.
First, there are not lots of jobs overseas just waiting to come back. Those jobs are going to stay overseas. That's just the nature of the new global economy. They can pay people a dime a day in Third World countries, plus they don't have to keep the workplaces safe. If those jobs do start coming back here, it will be because the standard of living in Third World countries has risen enough that the cost of labor there is about the same as the cost of labor here.
Second, job location has nothing to do with corporate taxes. Corporations chartered in the US pay the same corporate taxes to the US whether their employees are in Ohio or Manchuria. What matters to corporate taxes isn't where the workers are; it's where the profits land. You could lower corporate taxes to zero, and it wouldn't create an iota of incentive to bring a single job back to the US. We'd get a lot more corporations chartered here, but I don't see how that does us any good.
Third, if you were right that corporate tax cuts would bring a lot of jobs back here, why didn't it happen during the Bush administration? Surely the GOP cut corporate tax rates during their 6 years of control over the entire federal gov't.
if you cut them to Zero, of course it wouldnt bring in more tax money. jsut cut them to make them more competitive with the world. the profit will land here as you said. THAT will bring in more money.
there are good thoughts in your post. one of them is: "They can pay people a dime a day in Third World countries, plus they don't have to keep the workplaces safe."
wouldnt this be a good argument against raising minimum wage?
No.. I don't want my country to be like their country. If I did, I would just move there and live like a billionaire.
I mean, our economy did used to work like theirs, from roughly the end of Reconstruction to roughly the beginning of WWI. It wasn't pretty, and it didn't work very well. In fact, it worked so badly that we made an intentional decision to change it. We intentionally and on the basis of experience rejected that kind of capitalism, and life got much, much better for 90% of us. Why would we want to go back?
do you think, though, a minimum wage could theoretically put a false value on some unskilled jobs? If today the minimum wage was raised to $30 (intentionally high just for a point) wouldnt that make many jobs higher paying than they are actually worth ?
I know they arent doing that but where is the line?
and just another thought...
if i am making minimum wage and i work very hard and get a raise then a few weeks later they raise the minimum wage to what my current pay is, relative to the rest of the workforce i did not get a raise.
i know we arent arguing minimum wage laws and what not right now but its just a passing thought.
Minimum wage laws are about setting a floor on the value of human labor itself. They say human labor has inherent value, regardless of the fluctuations of the labor markets, and that any human being working at a full-time job should be assured some minimum amount of economic dignity in their life. They're also a recognition of the lessons of history: societies in which there are substantial numbers of people who work hard but still can't get out of poverty are unstable, revolution-prone societies.
Minimum wage laws aren't economic policy; they're social policy. So saying they put a "false value" on some skills is beside the point.
on that note, however, isnt that driving more business to out-source every time that it is raised?
and though accurately valuing skills has never been the point of minimum wage laws wouldnt that be a more logical goal? then it would be based more in logic and reason rather than feeling.
For all but a small minority of people, however, that assumption is false. Very false. We do have non-economic values; that is, we do set values on things that have nothing to do with those things' economic utility. As human beings, for instance, we think our fellow human beings are intrinsically valuable -- even the ones who have no skill that the "free market" wants. Since that's true even of those whose dollar value to the market is zero, it's also true of those whose dollar value to the market is very low. We set minimum wage laws to account for that non-economic value.
We also value stability. In order to keep our society stable, we know that it's important not to allow a large underclass to develop. People who do the work but don't get paid enough to get by have a tendency to get pissed off, eventually, and start killing people and blowing *** up. Minimum wage laws are one way to help prevent that, and they therefore reflect the value we place on a stable society -- value that isn't accounted for by the "free markets."
So, to make a long story even longer: no, I think having minimum wage laws is actually a good deal more rational than what you propose.
First, do you also remember how much more that wage would buy, back then? Because I do. If you're as young as it sounds, you don't even want to know what the minimum wage was that I started out at when I was 14. But tiny as it seems to us today, it was worth more. Inflation happens. So while today's minimum wage looks like a princely sum compared to back then, that's only because you're comparing nominal dollars instead of real dollars. I don't know when you were earning minimum wage, but there's a high probability that if you compared it to today's minimum wage, in real dollars, your wage back then was actually higher than today's.
Second, how much more of your ass do you suppose you would've had to work off if there had been no minimum wage back then, or if politicians then had listened to people who were complaining the way you are now and kept it lower than it was?
Third, let's not pretend there's any such thing as "what min wage is giving away now." Minimum wage is exactly that: a wage. It's not a giveaway. Minimum wage workers today work for that money, just like you did. Sometimes I think people who throw the word "socialist" around that loosely should be deported for a year to a country with actual socialism. It would have a very salutary effect on their understanding and vocabulary.