Nevermind the disappearing working class.

[thinkforyoursel]

Americans want 2 things.

1. Plentiful and cheap goods.
2. Plentiful and high paying unskilled manufacturing jobs.

The problem is that if you pay people a lot of money for producing goods, you don't have plentiful cheap goods. And if you outsource the production of cheap goods to another country, you don't have lots of unskilled manufacturing jobs, let alone high paying ones.

If we want to pay twice as much for everything, then unskilled labor can be more plentiful and pay more. But no one wants both sides of that equation. Go figure?

..what this argument does is exonerate the coorporations.

Do you ever stop to think that Walmart could pay higher wages, hold the line on prices and take less profits?

We had 400 years of slavery ...not because white hate black people .....but because coorporations saw this as a way to make money!!!

If you refuse to look at this angle of the problem ....then every worker in America ....everybody ...right now ....is over-paid!!

 

[trfjr]

There's a lot of talk about the middle class disappearing, but let's talk about the class that actually DID disappear. The working class. No one talks about the working class any more.

At one time, there was the upper class - the independently wealthy and the middle class - the doctors, lawyers, merchants and other professionals - and the working class, the bricklayers, carpenters, farmers, construction workers, etc. etc. etc.

How did the "working class" disappear from our political discussions?

they where replaced by illegals.

 

[GottaGo]

..what this argument does is exonerate the coorporations.

Do you ever stop to think that Walmart could pay higher wages, hold the line on prices and take less profits?

We had 400 years of slavery ...not because white hate black people .....but because coorporations saw this as a way to make money!!!

If you refuse to look at this angle of the problem ....then every worker in America ....everybody ...right now ....is over-paid!!

And do you ever think about what drives a corporation to fight for a higher profit? It's called shareholders...

And who are the shareholders? :wink:

 

[Papa bull]

..what this argument does is exonerate the coorporations.

Do you ever stop to think that Walmart could pay higher wages, hold the line on prices and take less profits?

We had 400 years of slavery ...not because white hate black people .....but because coorporations saw this as a way to make money!!!

If you refuse to look at this angle of the problem ....then every worker in America ....everybody ...right now ....is over-paid!!

And you make so much more than starving people in third world countries that you should divest yourself of whatever they consider your excess to be in order to accommodate what they feel their needs are.

Meanwhile, the stockholders of Wal-Mart want their share of the profits they've invested their hard-earned money to get. If you think people invest their money in business just so that they can support a corporation that pays lavish wages to employees and earns them diddly in return, you're sadly mistaken.

Wal-Mart, like every corporation has to make a certain level of profit that they have projected and promised to investors. I don't know where people might have gotten the notion that corporations were created to give people good jobs, but that's not what they're are in place for. They COULD be there purely for the sake of supplying goods to the people without profit being involved by going to a communist form of government but that never works out well. A free market is much better at meeting the needs of the people than a communist system where the government owns and manages the means of production.

 

[trfjr]

..what this argument does is exonerate the coorporations.

Do you ever stop to think that Walmart could pay higher wages, hold the line on prices and take less profits?

We had 400 years of slavery ...not because white hate black people .....but because coorporations saw this as a way to make money!!!

If you refuse to look at this angle of the problem ....then every worker in America ....everybody ...right now ....is over-paid!!

you just don't get it do you? Higher profits causes Walmart stocks to go up which creates more capitol for Walmart to expand which cause them to be able to hire more

so the question you need to ask your self what would you rather have? less people working but with a little higher wages? or more working with a little lower wages?

 

[Fisher]

Well,I actually support those agreements. Still,it is funny. Dems who cry about "losing our jobs"never try to slown down on all of the regulations,taxes and other issues which in some cases causes companies to leave. Or that BJ Clinton signed NAFTA,GATT and PNTR with China.

Manufacturing was all but completely destroyed in my area by NAFTA and GATT so I have seen it first hand, but hey, as long as the stock market was/is going up Bill Clinton and Obama are geniuses. The liberals say it is true so it must be.

 

[specklebang]

Well, of course. They conflict with each other. But making a product is only a small portion of the cost at retail. We will have fewer unskilled jobs no matter how much we manufacture. That's inevitable unless we make automation a crime.

More people want affordable products than they do unskilled labor jobs. So yes, we are going through an evolutionary change. Wanting and getting are 2 different things.

Americans want 2 things.

1. Plentiful and cheap goods.
2. Plentiful and high paying unskilled manufacturing jobs.

The problem is that if you pay people a lot of money for producing goods, you don't have plentiful cheap goods. And if you outsource the production of cheap goods to another country, you don't have lots of unskilled manufacturing jobs, let alone high paying ones.

If we want to pay twice as much for everything, then unskilled labor can be more plentiful and pay more. But no one wants both sides of that equation. Go figure?

 

[Paschendale]

Americans want 2 things.

1. Plentiful and cheap goods.
2. Plentiful and high paying unskilled manufacturing jobs.

The problem is that if you pay people a lot of money for producing goods, you don't have plentiful cheap goods. And if you outsource the production of cheap goods to another country, you don't have lots of unskilled manufacturing jobs, let alone high paying ones.

If we want to pay twice as much for everything, then unskilled labor can be more plentiful and pay more. But no one wants both sides of that equation. Go figure?

Or we could teach people how to do the skilled labor. Let the third world workers do the cheap jobs, but actually pay Americans a decent wage to do the expensive ones, instead of constantly downsizing and expecting the remaining workers to pick up the duties of their fired coworkers for the same pay. Skilled American workers are some of the most productive in the world, but we are also increasingly unhealthy from overwork. We need to stop our obsession with profit, stop expecting everyone to be superhuman, invest in training our people to do these complex jobs, and pay our skilled workers as befitting their skill. And stop with all this unpaid internship nonsense.

And do you ever think about what drives a corporation to fight for a higher profit? It's called shareholders...

And who are the shareholders? :wink:

A small group of extremely wealthy families that own enough of the shares to ensure that their agenda is what the company pushes. Selling you a tiny part of it that they can always outvote does not give you control. It just rips you off again.

 

[specklebang]

The answer is to find balance between the two. Personally, I'd rather see fewer jobs and higher pay. I doubt Walmart bases their employee population on their cash flow but more on their actual needs.

I've always given Walmart a bit of a pass because they do hire some really low-end people.

Employers have certainly become more selfish in the last 12 years than in the past. Employer/employee relations are adversarial rather than cooperative. I suppose thats some sort of progress but it ain't pretty.

you just don't get it do you? Higher profits causes Walmart stocks to go up which creates more capitol for Walmart to expand which cause them to be able to hire more

so the question you need to ask your self what would you rather have? less people working but with a little higher wages? or more working with a little lower wages?

 

[trfjr]

The answer is to find balance between the two. Personally, I'd rather see fewer jobs and higher pay. I doubt Walmart bases their employee population on their cash flow but more on their actual needs.

I've always given Walmart a bit of a pass because they do hire some really low-end people.

Employers have certainly become more selfish in the last 12 years than in the past. Employer/employee relations are adversarial rather than cooperative. I suppose thats some sort of progress but it ain't pretty.

with less working with higher pay will cause higher taxes to support then ones who are not working

you get a 50 dollar a week raise but we need to take 30 of that away to support the ones who are not working caused by your higher pay

 

[specklebang]

Sure, if it was that simple, you'd be right. But right now there are plenty of people not working and my tax is what it is. Surely you don't expect a balanced budget

Also, if you offer me a $50 raise and take $30 away - I still have $20 I didn't have before.

with less working with higher pay will cause higher taxes to support then ones who are not working

you get a 50 dollar a week raise but we need to take 30 of that away to support the ones who are not working caused by your higher pay

 

[GottaGo]

A small group of extremely wealthy families that own enough of the shares to ensure that their agenda is what the company pushes. Selling you a tiny part of it that they can always outvote does not give you control. It just rips you off again.

So the increased value of the stock hasn't rounded out a few 'middle class' portfolios over the last 15 years? The stock market, currently touted as 'we're in recovery with unprecendented highs!" isn't helping ANYBODY other than the extremely wealthy families?

 

[Paschendale]

So the increased value of the stock hasn't rounded out a few 'middle class' portfolios over the last 15 years? The stock market, currently touted as 'we're in recovery with unprecendented highs!" isn't helping ANYBODY other than the extremely wealthy families?

A few. Still nowhere close to the majority. And certainly no one in the lower 50% of income in this country.

 

[GottaGo]

A few. Still nowhere close to the majority. And certainly no one in the lower 50% of income in this country.

As much as you may disagree with 'trickle down' theories, if even the upper 50% (and my opinion is it expands to a lot more people than you may think via mutual funds, IRAs and 401ks) reaped the benefits of the increase in stock values, then they have it to spend, which means movement in the economy. And any positive movement in the economy, means everyone benefits according to some.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

I hope you guys realize .....the dearth in quality jobs will not end any time soon. Employers are spooked going back to the mid 90's when jobs were plentiful. If you have options ...its harder to exploit you.
I can tell you right now ....the republicans are there to ensure the employment situation does not get any better or even worsen...because if it does ....you can always blame Obama.

Now lets suppose a republican take the WH next election ....expect the first their term to be all about how bad the last administration was ...hence no need to create job.

But the bottom line is ...America will see a bad employment market for at least anotherdecade.

Congress right now is ensuring this by infusing tens of millions of immigrant with the new bill they have circulating....attached to that bill will be a flood of HB-1 visas for educated foreigners. Trust me it will not get much better ...and employers will have to stick to keep depressing wages as we all fight for the crumbs at the bottom!!

 

[Paschendale]

As much as you may disagree with 'trickle down' theories, if even the upper 50% (and my opinion is it expands to a lot more people than you may think via mutual funds, IRAs and 401ks) reaped the benefits of the increase in stock values, then they have it to spend, which means movement in the economy. And any positive movement in the economy, means everyone benefits according to some.

First, often the upper echelons of our economic strata DON'T spend their enormous wealth. They just hide it in offshore bank accounts and let it stagnate. American corporations are sitting on trillions dollars, effectively taking them out of circulation. Apple alone is sitting on more than $100 billion that it is not spending on anything. Once a person or household has an income past a certain limit (generally around 100k a year), spending tapers off substantially. Simply moving more money into the hands of the wealthy does not spur increased spending. It does the opposite and stagnates it. Second, when that small wealthy class does spend money, quite often it is spent directly back into that upper class. It does not go to fund the salaries or wages of the lower half. (Let's be honest, lower 80%. It is mainly the top 20% who is getting all these benefits from stock ownership. The 50/50 split acknowledges that the bottom 50% owns no stock at all, while the next 30% owns a little.) The money is removed from general circulation and does not go back into it. That is the result of subsidizing the rich, slashing marginal tax rates, and only pretending to tax capital gains. That top 20% may have lots of money to spend, but it does not actually get spent on anything that benefits the other 80% of the nation, including salaries and wages.

 

[apdst]

Republicans demonized them as lazy and stupid. Further, they didn't fit into conservative plans for capital flight to sweatshop nations. They specifically crafted to the treaties to globalize capital but not worker protection, and conservatives blocked any attempt to restrict outsourcing. Further, Republicans have made it harder and harder to unionize (and vilified unions), and unions were the means by which working people obtain some modicum of negotiating strength against business. Finally, the GOP cut taxes on the rich and blocked any attempt to raise taxes, which is the only way to make trade with sweatshop nations a good deal for working people here -- comparative advantage benefits trading nations in the aggregate, but not classes within each nation. Specifically the rich have gotten richer with trade, while workers income has dropped. The way to handle that is to increase taxes on the upper brackets and use that revenue to retrain and educate workers. But of course conservatives blocked that.

You act surprised.

The Democrats want to import the cheap labor and destroy the country from within.

 

[apdst]

First, often the upper echelons of our economic strata DON'T spend their enormous wealth. They just hide it in offshore bank accounts and let it stagnate. American corporations are sitting on trillions dollars, effectively taking them out of circulation. Apple alone is sitting on more than $100 billion that it is not spending on anything. Once a person or household has an income past a certain limit (generally around 100k a year), spending tapers off substantially. Simply moving more money into the hands of the wealthy does not spur increased spending. It does the opposite and stagnates it. Second, when that small wealthy class does spend money, quite often it is spent directly back into that upper class. It does not go to fund the salaries or wages of the lower half. (Let's be honest, lower 80%. It is mainly the top 20% who is getting all these benefits from stock ownership. The 50/50 split acknowledges that the bottom 50% owns no stock at all, while the next 30% owns a little.) The money is removed from general circulation and does not go back into it. That is the result of subsidizing the rich, slashing marginal tax rates, and only pretending to tax capital gains. That top 20% may have lots of money to spend, but it does not actually get spent on anything that benefits the other 80% of the nation, including salaries and wages.

So, all those houses and cars and boats and trips and golf clubs and high dollar clothes are free?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The Democrats want to import the cheap labor and destroy the country from within.

It is a must to keep the gov't dependent class in place for demorats to remain in power.

 

[Fisher]

First, often the upper echelons of our economic strata DON'T spend their enormous wealth. They just hide it in offshore bank accounts and let it stagnate. American corporations are sitting on trillions dollars, effectively taking them out of circulation. Apple alone is sitting on more than $100 billion that it is not spending on anything. Once a person or household has an income past a certain limit (generally around 100k a year), spending tapers off substantially. Simply moving more money into the hands of the wealthy does not spur increased spending. It does the opposite and stagnates it. Second, when that small wealthy class does spend money, quite often it is spent directly back into that upper class. It does not go to fund the salaries or wages of the lower half. (Let's be honest, lower 80%. It is mainly the top 20% who is getting all these benefits from stock ownership. The 50/50 split acknowledges that the bottom 50% owns no stock at all, while the next 30% owns a little.) The money is removed from general circulation and does not go back into it. That is the result of subsidizing the rich, slashing marginal tax rates, and only pretending to tax capital gains. That top 20% may have lots of money to spend, but it does not actually get spent on anything that benefits the other 80% of the nation, including salaries and wages.

So it acknowledges a lie as truth?

 

[Papa bull]

First, often the upper echelons of our economic strata DON'T spend their enormous wealth. They just hide it in offshore bank accounts and let it stagnate. American corporations are sitting on trillions dollars, effectively taking them out of circulation. Apple alone is sitting on more than $100 billion that it is not spending on anything. Once a person or household has an income past a certain limit (generally around 100k a year), spending tapers off substantially. Simply moving more money into the hands of the wealthy does not spur increased spending. It does the opposite and stagnates it. Second, when that small wealthy class does spend money, quite often it is spent directly back into that upper class. It does not go to fund the salaries or wages of the lower half. (Let's be honest, lower 80%. It is mainly the top 20% who is getting all these benefits from stock ownership. The 50/50 split acknowledges that the bottom 50% owns no stock at all, while the next 30% owns a little.) The money is removed from general circulation and does not go back into it. That is the result of subsidizing the rich, slashing marginal tax rates, and only pretending to tax capital gains. That top 20% may have lots of money to spend, but it does not actually get spent on anything that benefits the other 80% of the nation, including salaries and wages.

The rich don't get richer by stashing money under the mattress or just loading up offshore accounts. They're smart enough to know that cached money loses value. Instead, they invest in bonds, equities, real estate, precious metals, etc. And all those investments are good for the economy.

As for the wealthy typically only spending money with other wealthy people..... do you really think their hair dressers and barbers and chauffers and caterers and tailors and maids and security guards and landscapers are "the wealthy"?

 

[apdst]

It is a must to keep the gov't dependent class in place for demorats to remain in power.

It's a must to grow the dependent class for the Democrats to stay in power.

Look at the 2010 midterms; the Dems figured out, right quick, that they have no hope without the votes that the dependent class brings to the table.

 

[Carjosse]

So, all those houses and cars and boats and trips and golf clubs and high dollar clothes are free?

No buy those things, it's that they have much mor money that just sits in accounts usually off-shore that is not benefiting the economy in any way. Foreign yacht sales also do not help the U.S. economy in any way either.

 

[apdst]

The rich don't get richer by stashing money under the mattress or just loading up offshore accounts. They're smart enough to know that cached money loses value. Instead, they invest in bonds, equities, real estate, precious metals, etc. And all those investments are good for the economy.

As for the wealthy typically only spending money with other wealthy people..... do you really think their hair dressers and barbers and chauffers and caterers and tailors and maids and security guards and landscapers are "the wealthy"?

Libbos don't have a clue how things work: you have to spend money to make money.

 

[apdst]

No buy those things, it's that they have much mor money that just sits in accounts usually off-shore that is not benefiting the economy in any way. Foreign yacht sales also do not help the U.S. economy in any way either.

1) Rich folks spend more money than poor folks. Why try and create more poor folks? That's stupid.

2) Not all yachts/boats are purchased overseas.

Google