Thoughts on the consequences of individual credit

[csbrown28]

They both are adjusted for inflation. Is it that America has become poorer?

I have a feeling there is a lot of space for interpreting the data. I think I know where you're going....

As the U.S. dollar goes down, the price of assets will rise with it (giving the illusion of increased wealth)—eventually, the net worth in terms of dollars will increase as well. But, the problem comes in when it’s actually time to use what you have collected over time for your retirement.

Is this where you're going?

 

[Mach]

Yes please, let's address this concept.
Do those at the top "earn" their wealth?
Looking at the definition of "earn" still leaves a lot of room for interpretation...
Earn: to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered.

Earnings. As in wages/salary, the financial definition, you know, the appropriate definition. If you want to be more generic leave it out entirely, just discuss their income. If you want to be biased, be my guest, but it makes your arguments appear to be the typical emotional, biased, nonsensical partisan liberal tripe. Surely you value these debates more than just rehashing propaganda?

I would settle for a system that made a reasonable effort to see that all products and services delivered made a reasonable attempt to return the value equal to the costs demanded of them.
I'd also settle for ethics and morals in business like we had 30+ years ago.

No idea what any of that means. A "system" making a "reasonable attempt", value equal to costs what?! How familiar are you with actual business? There's no mystery associated with business, you can look up margins and expenses, balance sheets, CEO salaries, of most any public company and typically extrapolate based on industry for those that are private. They are all operating with similar playbooks, in similar markets, with similar (based on industry and averages) margins.
And second, grass is greener 30 years ago? That's a reason to legislate change today, because you feel you liked your golden years? Come on, you can't be serious.

I'm really tired of this catch phrase about government "forcing" people against their will. There are cases where force is justified and others where it isn't and to make a blanket statement like that is totally meaningless and can't be judged without more information.

Pity the ****ing fool. You force people to hand over their money, and this TIRES you? Aw, poor baby. You want them to roll over and kiss the royal ring? Good grief. Try EARNING it yourself and see which one tires you more..forcing other to hand over their hard earned money or earning it yourself. Novel idea I realize.

Preserve your freedom to the detriment of the entire country? I'm sorry sir, I'm more than willing to undermine your definition of freedom and liberty to save my country from fiscal collapse and to reduce suffering and increase opportunity of those around me.

lol. At such time that government cannot preserve our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, it should be dissolved. Why do you think the founders mentioned that, because they were joking or because historically when governments stop ensuring our freedoms our preserved, things go you know, really bad? Scary!

 

[Mach]

People are resources and you have to invest in them if you want them to reach their potential. Your approach squanders potential resources on the idea that if people suffer enough they will better themselves.

It's his very short, mortal life energy to squander is the point. It's not yours. You have your life to live and die as you see fit, he has his. I have mine.

If you feel this strongly about investing in other people so they reach their potential, by all means, channel your resources and time into furthering this very personal goal of yours. Other people are not stopping you from doing this, people fought and died to grant you the freedom to pursue it, and a great many other things unseen before in human history for the average joe/jane. The only thing that I take issue with is that you want to do it with someone else's money. We do not live at the pleasure of a king, nor do we live at the pleasure of the mob, or the voters, or the average joe.

And don't try to make this about helping humanity. In a hospital emergency room, you do not invest most of your resource into the patient that will die despite your best efforts. That would be UNETHICAL to do, from the population perspective. Same with business. We all have some individuals who just do bare minimum, or lied on their resume and clearly aren't meeting expectations. You would have the business divert it's very limited resources away from customer satisfaction and better products, R&D or rewarding the employees who are sacrificing everything to make the company a success.....to the bottom performers? I don't think that business survives very long. Yes indeed, for a company that is designed to do just that, by all means, do so. Or if it's your company, sure. Or if they company is a hot company that makes earnings per person that is way out of sight..sure they may be able to do great work AND buy everyone new car (or whatever) and ever miss a beat. But most companies do not make such choices because they know better.

 

[csbrown28]

Earnings. As in wages/salary, the financial definition, you know, the appropriate definition. If you want to be more generic leave it out entirely, just discuss their income. If you want to be biased, be my guest, but it makes your arguments appear to be the typical emotional, biased, nonsensical partisan liberal tripe. Surely you value these debates more than just rehashing propaganda?

You're the one that decided that you needed to correct my use of the term "extract", your retort was to act indignant at my use of the term and suggested the word "earnings", so I responded by exploring term "earning" and now you move the goalpost again by using the terms "wages and salary" conveniently failing to comment on what was the bulk of my response. You finish with predictable name calling and assigning labels.

Surely you value these debates more than just repeating conservative memes?

Why didn't you comment on any of the examples I gave of how money is (using imagep's term) transferred from those with less to those with more and what the effects on society are? To state whether you thought the examples I gave were ethical and in the best interest of society as a whole....

No idea what any of that means. A "system" making a "reasonable attempt", value equal to costs what?! How familiar are you with actual business? There's no mystery associated with business, you can look up margins and expenses, balance sheets, CEO salaries, of most any public company and typically extrapolate based on industry for those that are private. They are all operating with similar playbooks, in similar markets, with similar (based on industry and averages) margins.

Anytime something is sold that doesn't deliver the value that is asked for it, the individual and economy as a whole suffers. Many (not all, I love rainex) made for TV products fail to deliver the value they purport to offer, some intend to and fail, and others knowingly offer inferior products or services and use falsified testimony and dramatized (that's being nice as many just lie) advertizing to create a sense of false need. One of the best examples I think I've ever seen was "Kenoki foot pads". This product was a vehicle for transferring wealth from the gullible, the uneducated and desperate. The investors knew that eventually they would be sued (and were), but they had a scheme to set up an LLCompany that by the time the suit was settled, the money would be extracted from the company and the investors will have moved on, profits in hand.

These sorts of activities should not be allowed to go on. You can address any one of the dozen or so ways that I pointed out that money is transferred from the bottom to the top, take your pick.....

And second, grass is greener 30 years ago? That's a reason to legislate change today, because you feel you liked your golden years? Come on, you can't be serious.

Corporate ethics in the aggregate were superior to what they are today, we can argue the cause, but I feel confident saying that this is more than just perception.

Pity the ****ing fool. You force people to hand over their money, and this TIRES you?

Reading is fundamental.....

I'm tired of the Conservative/ Libertarian slogans repeated ad nauseum as if saying it over and over again will make them come true.

We can argue the merits of a system that incentivizes the wealthy to reinvest in the society they earned their wealth in and how it's accomplished, I'm not advocating a particular system, just that something needs to be done, but any attempt to cry "forcing" will be met with reminding you the limitless, unethical ways that the wealthy transfer money from the bottom to the top. Too much money is moving up and not enough of it is returning to the bottom. This is an unsustainable practice that threatens our freedom, liberty and society as we know it.

Aw, poor baby. You want them to roll over and kiss the royal ring? Good grief. Try EARNING it yourself and see which one tires you more..forcing other to hand over their hard earned money or earning it yourself. Novel idea I realize.

It's ok when it's taken dishonestly from bottom to top, that's "the free market", but when the system breaks down because society over the long term can't sustain the behavior and people like me point out the flaws, we "want something for nothing".

I don't need anything. I'm already in the top quintile, so my interest is in living in a better place, not trying to improve my own lot.

lol. At such time that government cannot preserve our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, it should be dissolved.

The issue is who gets to decide what "liberty" and "happiness" is.....Furthermore, I don't entirely blame Government....I think the problem has arisen as a result of the mind numbing resources that have shifted into the hands of relatively few people who use those resources to manipulate government. Elimination of government won't fix the problem, as the cause will still exist, the wealth that manipulated government in the first place.

 

[csbrown28]

The only thing that I take issue with is that you want to do it with someone else's money.

Going to work (assuming you work outside the home) requires that you benefit from the efforts of others. Since it would be impossible to calculate everyone who contributed to your ride to work, instead we insist that you give some of what you earned, thanks to the effort of others, to ensure that those that come behind you will have the same opportunity.

On a separate thought....

If I child finds a $100 bill, but doesn't understand it's true value and you ask the child for it and they give it to you, did you force them? Is it ethical?

Giving people "choices" that result in keeping them in poverty (in ways that many don't even realize), is no better than government insisting that you give a portion of your earnings in taxes to be applied to society. Now we can argue the merits of how to spend that money, but you don't get to benefit from society without giving back to it.

And don't try to make this about helping humanity. In a hospital emergency room, you do not invest most of your resource into the patient that will die despite your best efforts.

First I can make this about whatever I want....Having said that....

All that I advocate is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. I understand that some people aren't cut out to be engineers and physicists, but everyone that want's to be should have the opportunity (ideally speaking), but again, the desire to be an engineer doesn't entitle you to a degree, that comes with hard work. Failure means choosing another path.

We all have some individuals who just do bare minimum, or lied on their resume and clearly aren't meeting expectations. You would have the business divert it's very limited resources away from customer satisfaction and better products, R&D or rewarding the employees who are sacrificing everything to make the company a success.....to the bottom performers?

I appreciate you asking that in the form of a question, giving me an opportunity to answer.....

No.

 

[Mach]

You're the one that decided that you needed to correct my use of the term "extract", your retort was to act indignant at my use of the term and suggested the word "earnings", so I responded by exploring term "earning" and now you move the goalpost again by using the terms "wages and salary" conveniently failing to comment on what was the bulk of my response. You finish with predictable name calling and assigning labels.

If you refuse to acknowledge the negative connotation of the use of "extracted" rather than the more neutral terms like income or earnings (specifically as used by the IRS for example, or accountants), so be it.

Surely you value these debates more than just repeating conservative memes?

Irrelevant, I am debating in my own words, and I am neither conservative, nor would I spend any significant amount of my time on this earth listening to conservative media.

Why didn't you comment on any of the examples I gave of how money is (using imagep's term) transferred from those with less to those with more and what the effects on society are? To state whether you thought the examples I gave were ethical and in the best interest of society as a whole....

Because it's irrelevant to your likely intentional use of "extracted" to promote your propaganda, rather than a neutral/financially accurate term. As if this really needs to be spelled out.

Anytime something is sold that doesn't deliver the value that is asked for it, the individual and economy as a whole suffers. Many (not all, I love rainex) made for TV products fail to deliver the value they purport to offer,

What possible data and associated reasoning can possibly back such a bizarre position? And how is this relevant to anything pertinent? Are you suggesting our GDP is largely composed of made for TV products? Even worse, if you knew business/psychology sufficient to comment on this, you'd already know that the placebo effect, for which impulse buying often ends up being, is real, and some people do indeed value the effect. Despite you're strenuous objection. And lastly, spending on nearly anything, is pushed by liberals, as being positive for the economy regardless the outcome.

These sorts of activities should not be allowed to go on.

You want to stop made for TV product purchases? This is your big agenda? ....

Corporate ethics in the aggregate were superior to what they are today, we can argue the cause, but I feel confident saying that this is more than just perception.

You're just all over the place. From extraction of wealth by the less ethical corporations, to ethics were better in the glory days, to banning made for TV products... sure people use to walk uphill in the snow to go to school, them's was the days.

Too much money is moving up and not enough of it is returning to the bottom. This is an unsustainable practice that threatens our freedom, liberty and society as we know it.

The people with the most to lose don't appear to be too worried about the threat. It appears to be those with the most to gain that are pushing that agenda. You believe that's what....coincidence?
Having economic freedom, according to you, threatens our freedom and liberty? What sense does that make? It's not a practice, it's people making voluntary choices in the marketplace. To change that Necessarily you are discussing having people make involuntary purchase/hiring/selling in the marketplace. You claim that's a "conservative meme", but in reality it's an appropriate characterization of what is logically different.
You can choose to sell, or not, your made for TV placebo vs you can NOT sell your made for TV placebo whether you want to or not.
Clearly that's the difference, despite you attempting to label it as a conservative meme.

 

[Mach]

Giving people "choices" that result in keeping them in poverty (in ways that many don't even realize), is no better than government insisting that you give a portion of your earnings in taxes to be applied to society. Now we can argue the merits of how to spend that money, but you don't get to benefit from society without giving back to it.

This is just absurd. Are you suggesting every choice many people have necessarily KEEPs them in poverty? Are you suggesting people should NOT have choices?

All that I advocate is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. I understand that some people aren't cut out to be engineers and physicists, but everyone that want's to be should have the opportunity (ideally speaking), but again, the desire to be an engineer doesn't entitle you to a degree, that comes with hard work. Failure means choosing another path.

Sure, but everyone has a reasonable opportunity to pursue an engineering degree. Look, if it's about early opportunity, where is the vast majority of our socially paid for training supposed to come from? Public education. We fund it, such a staggering amount that even Bill Gates and the wealthiest philanthropic organization in human history was shocked at the sheer magnitude of the size (this is not a bad thing, its just that many people...not saying we have the highest spending/pupil, just that it's a staggering government created market).

If that's you're cause du jour, you're looking in all the wrong places. What happens when a real do-gooder, I mean someone who knows their ****, and actually puts it into practice rather than posting on forums, tries to do precisely what you desire?
Jaime Escalante - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He promised them that the jobs would be in engineering, electronics and computers but they would have to learn math to succeed. He said to his students "I'll teach you math and that's your language. With that you're going to make it.

He had already earned the criticism of an administrator who disapproved of his requiring the students to answer a homework question before being allowed into the classroom
The school administration opposed Escalante frequently during his first few years. He was threatened with dismissal by an assistant principal because he was coming in too early, leaving too late, and failing to get administrative permission to raise funds to pay for his students' Advanced Placement tests.

Tensions that surfaced when his career began at Garfield escalated. In his final years at Garfield, Escalante received threats and hate mail from various individuals.[6] By 1990, he had lost the math department chairmanship. At this point Escalante's math enrichment program had grown to 400+ students. His class sizes had increased to over 50 students in some cases. This was far beyond the 35 student limit set by the teachers' union, which in turn increased criticism of Escalante's work.

At the height of Escalante's influence, Garfield graduates were entering the University of Southern California in such great numbers that they outnumbered all the other high schools in the working-class East Los Angeles region combined.[7] Even students who failed the AP went on to become star students at California State-Los Angeles in large numbers.[6]

We spend more than enough on this problem in the form of public education combined with private education (I pay both, you're welcome). We spend so much on this that no other organization, including government, can control it, because you have teachers unions whose entire fortunes and retirement depend in their opinion on maintaining the status quo. And when you earnestly try to chnnage that status quo, you're the enemy, and change is resisted at every step.

If you want people to be prepared with opportunities in engineering, try teaching them I don't know, how to be a ****ing engineer. You can come here and blame the 1%, meanwhile we all know who is "educating" the vast majority of our supposedly struggling population. This is not some secret, it's not some evil conservative meme that is ruining the world, it's not made-for TV products that are hindering those opportunities. It's education, and everyone who doesn't understand that should figure it out.

 

[imagep]

Now look what inflation has done. 50 weeks of my savings effort gained me $1000 a year. How long could I live on $1000 now? Since I still have that original $1000, I can get about $9 a year in interest at current rates. So, inflation has totally ****ed me over without so much as a kiss. So how can I share your glee at inflation? Yes, inflation is bad, bad, bad. I'd rather step in dog poop than be inflated out of my stash.

Thats assuming that you "invested" your savings in a tin can, or some other non-productive investment which didn't earn interest or any sort of profits. I know quite well that you are way to smart for that, so your original $1,000, is likely something more like $10,000, and since you have recently wisely invested your savings into rental property bought after property values plummeted in your area, that $1,000 in savings is likely giving you something like $1,200 a year in return ($10,000 = 10% of a $100,000 bargain price rental house which likely yields $1,000 a month in income x 12 mths = $1,200) - and of course if you leveraged that savings, by financing your rentals at todays super low i-rates, you are likely doing much better than $1,200 a year ROI on that $1,000 in way-back-then savings.

Generally, to some extent or another, inflation is built into the returns that we get from investments.

 

[imagep]

I have no doubt we can produce enough for everyone but will the production be imported and automated eliminating work positions for the increased population? And if the increasing masses can't find employment how will they sustain themselves without income? It appears as if the US will have to become a 3rd world country before we can start being paid low enough wages to draw production back to our country from Asia, India, Mexico, South America and other places.

Thats my biggest concern long term. I believe the best answer to be shorter working hours. So instead of one day having fewer jobs that we have families, but each worker having to work 40hrs/week, we could have ample jobs for each family to have just one, but the workers might only work ten or twenty hours a week, or maybe they get longer paid vacations, or more personal leave days. We could also look into keeping young people out of the work force a little longer, maybe by having a 13th grade (like much of Europe already has), or by encouraging college and even grad school.

Most people would like shorter working hours, assuming that they would get full time pay. It's a good deal as one of the things that most people "demand" is leisure time. Of course there are the work-a-holics of this world, who want to work crazy long hours, and thus who would "consume" more than their "fair share" of work hours, but that can be reduced somewhat by having a more progressive income tax (a disincentive to the individual for working excess hours), and by requiring time and a half pay for an amount of workweek hours less than we currently do (which would de-incentivise businesses from working people long hours).

We will probably need to do a little of all of these things, implemented a little as we go along. If most conservatives are correct, we should soon be seeing the average workweek reduced anyway, as employers start limiting workweeks to less than 30 hours to avoid having to comply with Obamacare - I've wondered all along if that wasn't an intentional "unintended" conseqence of Obamacare.

Of course at this particular point, just cutting taxes for the 99%, so that they have more money to consume with, would likely increase demand enough to create ample jobs even at 40 hrs a week to bring our unemployment rate down to the normal 5% or so. The need for shorter working hours isn't immediate, but I suspect that it will gradually continue to occur, just as it has for the past hundred years (with the average manufacturing workweek dropping from 70 hrs in 1913, to 43 hr during the last few decades of the 20th century, and then to 35hrs during the Great Recession).

 

[grip]

Thats my biggest concern long term. I believe the best answer to be shorter working hours. So instead of one day having fewer jobs that we have families, but each worker having to work 40hrs/week, we could have ample jobs for each family to have just one, but the workers might only work ten or twenty hours a week, or maybe they get longer paid vacations, or more personal leave days. We could also look into keeping young people out of the work force a little longer, maybe by having a 13th grade (like much of Europe already has), or by encouraging college and even grad school.

Most people would like shorter working hours, assuming that they would get full time pay. It's a good deal as one of the things that most people "demand" is leisure time. Of course there are the work-a-holics of this world, who want to work crazy long hours, and thus who would "consume" more than their "fair share" of work hours, but that can be reduced somewhat by having a more progressive income tax (a disincentive to the individual for working excess hours), and by requiring time and a half pay for an amount of workweek hours less than we currently do (which would de-incentivise businesses from working people long hours).

We will probably need to do a little of all of these things, implemented a little as we go along. If most conservatives are correct, we should soon be seeing the average workweek reduced anyway, as employers start limiting workweeks to less than 30 hours to avoid having to comply with Obamacare - I've wondered all along if that wasn't an intentional "unintended" conseqence of Obamacare.

Of course at this particular point, just cutting taxes for the 99%, so that they have more money to consume with, would likely increase demand enough to create ample jobs even at 40 hrs a week to bring our unemployment rate down to the normal 5% or so. The need for shorter working hours isn't immediate, but I suspect that it will gradually continue to occur, just as it has for the past hundred years (with the average manufacturing workweek dropping from 70 hrs in 1913, to 43 hr during the last few decades of the 20th century, and then to 35hrs during the Great Recession).

The Aussies work 10am till 3pm a day without lunch and are more productive than the average American workers during an 8 hr shift. So there is precedence for a shorter work day with equal pay.

 

[specklebang]

So? You like inflation. You get what you like. Smiley faces all around.

Do you know that without inflation, I would have retired at least 20 years earlier than I did, thus opening a new opportunity for someone else. Instead, I had to work. So, yeah, thanks a bunch.

Thats assuming that you "invested" your savings in a tin can, or some other non-productive investment which didn't earn interest or any sort of profits. I know quite well that you are way to smart for that, so your original $1,000, is likely something more like $10,000, and since you have recently wisely invested your savings into rental property bought after property values plummeted in your area, that $1,000 in savings is likely giving you something like $1,200 a year in return ($10,000 = 10% of a $100,000 bargain price rental house which likely yields $1,000 a month in income x 12 mths = $1,200) - and of course if you leveraged that savings, by financing your rentals at todays super low i-rates, you are likely doing much better than $1,200 a year ROI on that $1,000 in way-back-then savings.

Generally, to some extent or another, inflation is built into the returns that we get from investments.

 

[imagep]

The Aussies work 10am till 3pm a day without lunch and are more productive than the average American workers during an 8 hr shift. So there is precedence for a shorter work day with equal pay.

They also have a minimum wage that is about double ours (not that minimum wage has anything to do with it).

 

[csbrown28]

This is just absurd. Are you suggesting every choice many people have necessarily KEEPs them in poverty? Are you suggesting people should NOT have choices?

Sure, but everyone has a reasonable opportunity to pursue an engineering degree. Look, if it's about early opportunity, where is the vast majority of our socially paid for training supposed to come from? Public education. We fund it, such a staggering amount that even Bill Gates and the wealthiest philanthropic organization in human history was shocked at the sheer magnitude of the size (this is not a bad thing, its just that many people...not saying we have the highest spending/pupil, just that it's a staggering government created market).

If that's you're cause du jour, you're looking in all the wrong places. What happens when a real do-gooder, I mean someone who knows their ****, and actually puts it into practice rather than posting on forums, tries to do precisely what you desire?
Jaime Escalante - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








We spend more than enough on this problem in the form of public education combined with private education (I pay both, you're welcome). We spend so much on this that no other organization, including government, can control it, because you have teachers unions whose entire fortunes and retirement depend in their opinion on maintaining the status quo. And when you earnestly try to chnnage that status quo, you're the enemy, and change is resisted at every step.

If you want people to be prepared with opportunities in engineering, try teaching them I don't know, how to be a ****ing engineer. You can come here and blame the 1%, meanwhile we all know who is "educating" the vast majority of our supposedly struggling population. This is not some secret, it's not some evil conservative meme that is ruining the world, it's not made-for TV products that are hindering those opportunities. It's education, and everyone who doesn't understand that should figure it out.

As much as I'd like to reply to the mistakes and misrepresentations, I'll concede to you the last word. You and I are talking past one another and I don't see how are dialogue is constructive at this point. Hopefully others will comment on our conversations and give us an opportunity to weigh in.

-Cheers

 

[imagep]

So? You like inflation. You get what you like. Smiley faces all around.

Do you know that without inflation, I would have retired at least 20 years earlier than I did, thus opening a new opportunity for someone else. Instead, I had to work. So, yeah, thanks a bunch.

Without inflation, you likely wouldn't have had such a high ROI, and your paycheck wouldn't have risen as quickly, thus it is highly unlikely that you would have been able to retire 20 years earlier.

Inflation is nothing but an inconvenience, as long as wages and ROI keeps up with inflation.

 

[imagep]

They also have a minimum wage that is about double ours (not that minimum wage has anything to do with it).

And a lower unemployment rate - which goes to indicate that a high minimum wage doesn't necessarily result in high unemployment. And prices that are similar to ours (in dollar terms, a hamburger costs about the same in Australia as it does here, yet it takes lower end employees fewer minutes of work to be able to afford a hamburger) - which indicates that a higher minimum wage doesn't necessarily result in higher prices.

 

[specklebang]

but...but...but...what if wages and ROI don't keep up with inflation? Be a lot easier not to inflate in the first place. Would you rather have a force field or a medical kit?

Without inflation, you likely wouldn't have had such a high ROI, and your paycheck wouldn't have risen as quickly, thus it is highly unlikely that you would have been able to retire 20 years earlier.

Inflation is nothing but an inconvenience, as long as wages and ROI keeps up with inflation.

 

[Kushinator]

I have a feeling there is a lot of space for interpreting the data. I think I know where you're going....

As the U.S. dollar goes down, the price of assets will rise with it (giving the illusion of increased wealth)—eventually, the net worth in terms of dollars will increase as well. But, the problem comes in when it’s actually time to use what you have collected over time for your retirement.

Is this where you're going?

Nope!

GDP has been growing faster than net worth.

 

[imagep]

but...but...but...what if wages and ROI don't keep up with inflation? Be a lot easier not to inflate in the first place. Would you rather have a force field or a medical kit?

What if and astroid hit the earth and destroyed all life?

I don't based economics on "what if's", I base it on historical reality, and the historical reality is that wages have always more or less kept up with inflation. Up until the mid 1970's, when demand started to wain a little because most everyone had running water/electricity/hvac/adedquate means of communications and transportation, wages rose significantly faster than inflation.

 

[Ahlevah]

People are resources and you have to invest in them if you want them to reach their potential.

I agree. No doubt you and I benefited from people who invested in us, and I think the country would be a better place if more people did this. Some people just have to work harder because life isn't fair. My point, however, is that the primary responsibility rests with the individual. Regardless of whatever hand we're dealt in life, every person has a duty to take personal responsibility for himself. If he's unwilling to do that, then why should anyone else? No one is entitled to purchase a new car. So if he let's his desires get the better of him and he takes out an eight-year loan in order to satisfy those desires, is that his parents' or society's fault? I don't think so.

 

[specklebang]

Oh, OK. My bad. I thought you were advocating increasing the minimum wage and joining me in bitching about how the Corporations, profit-fat, don't pay their workers very well. Now I understand that you feel that wages and ROI have indeed kept up and we don't need to tamper with these things. Good, I'm delighted.

If you base everything on "historical reality", then an asteroid will hit the earth and wipe out life. Or is your "historical reality" selective and bent to fit your theories?

What if and astroid hit the earth and destroyed all life?

I don't based economics on "what if's", I base it on historical reality, and the historical reality is that wages have always more or less kept up with inflation. Up until the mid 1970's, when demand started to wain a little because most everyone had running water/electricity/hvac/adedquate means of communications and transportation, wages rose significantly faster than inflation.

 

[csbrown28]

I agree. No doubt you and I benefited from people who invested in us, and I think the country would be a better place if more people did this. Some people just have to work harder because life isn't fair. My point, however, is that the primary responsibility rests with the individual. Regardless of whatever hand we're dealt in life, every person has a duty to take personal responsibility for himself. If he's unwilling to do that, then why should anyone else? No one is entitled to purchase a new car. So if he let's his desires get the better of him and he takes out an eight-year loan in order to satisfy those desires, is that his parents' or society's fault? I don't think so.

Then you and I just disagree.

:ranton:

I realize that life isn't fair which is why I advance the idea of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Fairness is an issue, not because anyone deserves anything, but because in this nation we have the capability to provide that fairness in a way that only a few places on earth can. Standing on the shoulders of all the great people that helped make this country what it is, we can, as we advance, make it even better.

The Constitution says that all men are created equal that our rights are endowed by our creator. Is this true? No it's not true, not in the sense that 1+1=2 is true. It's true in the sense that we all believe it and that we are willing to fight for it because we understand through experience what these ideals result in. The founders didn't include provisions about "equal opportunity", because 250 years ago that was impossible. Today we could make equal opportunity just as true as being created equal. All that needs to happen is we need to believe it. I can't for the life of me understand how selfishness and narcissism can be paraded as a fight for freedom and liberty.

Imagine if the cells in your body behaved the way that you're suggesting we should behave as a society. If enough don't contribute or are just inefficient, just because they don't want to and no one can make them, the body they all inhabit dies, bad for everyone.

If you're born into wealth with very little effort you can succeed and if your born into poverty, you can work 1000 times harder and never achieve a fraction of the same success. I don't take issue with the lack of work of the wealthy child, I take issue with the child who may have the potential to cure cancer, find the key to fusion power or revolutionize agriculture and feed the world, but we'll never unlock his potential because he was born to a crack addicted mom who doesn't want him, his potential squandered because we, as a nation, haven't figured out how to create an environment any better than that of a litter of 9 puppy's competing for 8 teets.

There is the false idea that the tougher the situation you put people in the harder they will work to get out of it . In the aggregate this is wrong. As soon as people lose sight of the light at the end of the tunnel most stop trying. As soon as hope of a better life can't be seen then they ask themselves, why bother trying? Desperation is a culture that people can become trapped in and infect each other with it. Even if you cite examples of people emerging from the underclass, I'd point out of every success, there are 10 failures. The underclass will grow until the system brakes.

Do people that come from poor countries and succeed here in the US have a better work ethic? Are they smarter? Nope, they come to America and they see the light, and have a feeling of hope because many have seen or experienced poverty and suffering on a scale that most people can't imagine.

Feelings of fairness have behavioral benefits that are hard to quantify, but one only has to look at rates of teenage pregnancy, drug use, alcoholism, incarceration, murder, rape and a litany of financial crimes, generally all lower in societies of greater equality.

Does that mean that giving opportunity will turn every person around? No, but it's a pretty good litmus test. If you show a person "the light" and they turn away, they probably don't have the desire to be productive anyway, but what you have done is remove the excuse.

Having said all of this, it shouldn't surprise me that, after having grown up in a good nuclear family. One that invested in you, both in love any money, that you should be emotionally disconnected from others. Perhaps if you had to walk a mile in some of the shoes you would so easily let fail, you'd have a different perspective.

:rantoff:

 

[imagep]

Oh, OK. My bad. I thought you were advocating increasing the minimum wage and joining me in bitching about how the Corporations, profit-fat, don't pay their workers very well. Now I understand that you feel that wages and ROI have indeed kept up and we don't need to tamper with these things. Good, I'm delighted.

If you base everything on "historical reality", then an asteroid will hit the earth and wipe out life. Or is your "historical reality" selective and bent to fit your theories?

Trapped me didn't ya?

While wages in general (as in mean average wages) have kept up, they have been skewed towards the higher paid worker. I'm sure you have seen all the comments about how the average CEO pay is now something like 300 to 500 times the median wage, while 30 years ago it was only 40 times the median wage. That's not an inflation issue, that a disparity of income issue.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Trapped me didn't ya?

While wages in general (as in mean average wages) have kept up, they have been skewed towards the higher paid worker. I'm sure you have seen all the comments about how the average CEO pay is now something like 300 to 500 times the median wage, while 30 years ago it was only 40 times the median wage. That's not an inflation issue, that a disparity of income issue.

When the pool of available labor skews disproportionately towards the unskilled end of the spectrum, what would you expect to occur?

 

[imagep]

When the pool of available labor skews disproportionately towards the unskilled end of the spectrum, what would you expect to occur?

I seriously doubt that we have a larger percent of unskilled workers today than we had 50 years ago.

I attribute this more to a decline in negotiating power and a decline in the percent of jobs that don't require higher skill levels, and an increase in technology (which is all sort of related). I'm sure that there is a large pack of other reasons why this has happened also.

It's not so much the particular point that we are at now that concerns me, it's the trend. What if the trend continues for another 50 years? Are we just going to standby and allow 3rd world poverty, or are we going to progress further into a welfare state? Neither of those options appeal to me.

I believe that we can create whatever world around us that we chose to create, we just have to figure out the solutions. Just standing around and saying "it's perfectly natural for low skilled workers who are willing to work to work for below poverty level wages and starve" isn't an option in my book, any more than increasing welfare is.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

I seriously doubt that we have a larger percent of unskilled workers today than we had 50 years ago.

I attribute this more to a decline in negotiating power and a decline in the percent of jobs that don't require higher skill levels, and an increase in technology (which is all sort of related). I'm sure that there is a large pack of other reasons why this has happened also.

It's not so much the particular point that we are at now that concerns me, it's the trend. What if the trend continues for another 50 years? Are we just going to standby and allow 3rd world poverty, or are we going to progress further into a welfare state? Neither of those options appeal to me.

I believe that we can create whatever world around us that we chose to create, we just have to figure out the solutions. Just standing around and saying "it's perfectly natural for low skilled workers who are willing to work to work for below poverty level wages and starve" isn't an option in my book, any more than increasing welfare is.

We could always encourage industries to locate here to absorb the excess through tax policy, energy policy, etc..., but it doesn't appear anyone is interested in leading that charge...