How would it be beneficial to the well being of the nation? You keep saying this, but you never explain how that will happen.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
White again? No.
My politics have nothing to do with race, nor do your post have anything to do with intelligence.
Pretty clear to Transy and I both that we can jab at each other over differences and be smart enough to see this is a message board and not to be taken seriously.
Some people are more logical thinkers and other linguistic.
On another note, they have stopped teaching cursive handwriting. So 3rd thru 5th grade English was a waste.......and clearly I was way out in front of not paying attention to that!
My politics have nothing to do with race, nor do your post have anything to do with intelligence.
Pretty clear to Transy and I both that we can jab at each other over differences and be smart enough to see this is a message board and not to be taken seriously.
Some people are more logical thinkers and other linguistic.
On another note, they have stopped teaching cursive handwriting. So 3rd thru 5th grade English was a waste.......and clearly I was way out in front of not paying attention to that!
There is no 1 specific answer to this question. Now it's too late, but if we could go back in time and companies make offers like Ford did when they downsized from '09 to '11 then we as a people would have been a lot better off. But a lot of companies couldn't and wouldn't have done that.
Everybody can't be an indian chief, chief.
Without labor, nothing can be built. What has changed, and what needs to be reversed is the value placed on labor.
Just because someone will do something for less doesn't always mean that the cheaper source of labor must be used. Business has to think about who is going to purchase its product. I like to use the Henry Ford example...at a time that other manufacturers were paying less than $2.50/day for wages Ford made the bold move to raise wages to $5/week over doubling their pay. He was widely criticized for doing so by the other business tycoons of his day. They even called him a "socialist". But by paying his workers more, his workers were then able to purchase the products that they were making. Profits doubled because those workers were able to pump twice as much into the economy which helped others earn and spend more...and buy more Fords which allowed Henry to earn more than if he had continued to pay lesser wages.
Business today is too worried about making as much this quarter as possible and worrying about the next quarter when it arrives. Wages paid don't disappear. They get spent over and over again helping make all businesses and communities stronger. It also benefits the business through improved employee moral, lowering turnover, retraining costs and the inefficiencies that go with it.
When the top 1% own 35% of the wealth...the top 5% own 65% and the bottom 60% have less than 5% of the nation's wealth there isn't a whole lot out there to go get. The Forbes 400 alone own more wealth than the bottom half combined.
The Walton kids didn't "go get it", it was handed to them as it was with about half of the 400.
I know they paid it back, but they should have never been bailed out in the first place.
I understand economics pretty well. I also understand that economics are shaped by the rules by which it has to play. Thus why there is so much debate around economic policy.
Or do you think you know everything there is to know about the subject?
I promise you, you do not.
I have no idea about what you're claiming I was so wrong about.
No, you said taking executive pay and giving it to employees was the real problem while you were quoting my post about how expensive American labor is. Your argument, if taken seriously/logically, was that paying employees more will drive down labor cost. That's idiotic. Or were you making another argument? Best case scenario you just can't formulate an argument coherently. Worst case is you are functionally economically illiterate. Based on your 100% inheritance tax idea, I'll take the latter.
You said Sweden was as socialist today as it was in the 1970s. I have been calling you out for the last 3 or so pages about how factually incorrect this is and you refuse to either admit you are wrong and love to talk about things you've never even heard of outside of passing mentions on HuffPo OR support your claim with anything substantive
I think you are answering a different question than I am asking. I'm not asking if individuals who worked at companies who closed plants in the united states would be better off. I'm asking about the united states. There is a definitive answer to that question. Does protectionist policies create more wealth than a free market system. That is the ultimate question being debated. My view is that the higher cost of products that consumers would pay is more than the additional wages we would get. Therefore, it is a net loss for the economy. It has nothing to do with individual situations. It has to do with the economy as a whole.
Look around, you don't think more people having a decent job, or at least the prospect for a meaningful job would be beneficial to the nation?
It's going to get worse, the more people dependent on the Govt gives the Govt more power over them.
Sooner or later change will come, the longer we wait to act the worse it's going to hurt.
Ok fine, for our nations economy it had a negative effect. That negative effect had more components too, but it was negative.
Once again that is just anecdotal. You can't compare where we are now to where we were before. You have to compare where we are now to where we would have been with protectionist policies. Your explanation in no way explains how protectionist policies will build more wealth than free trade.
Where are we now? Do you think the nation is healthier? Did we not just have the worst recession since the Great Depression, that 8 years later we still haven't recovered from?
Are there more people receiving aid from the govt, more people in debt with less personal savings?
Why do you think so many college kids are supporting Bernie? They have been promised their entire life that college was the key to a successful future, yet when they graduate there isn't a job, and they have mountains of debt.
That's the shape of the nation now, it isn't getting any better on the path we're on now.
So in your mind the prime mortgage problem and real estate collapse was the result of free market trading with other countries? You are describing some of the problems we are having, but you haven't explained how we would not have had them if we had protectionist policies. How does protectionist policies make college less expensive to attend? Describing the current problems in no way proves, or even suggests, that they would not exist if we had protectionist policies. It certainly does not draw a comparison to our economy with and without protectionist policies.
Do you not have the ability to think for yourself? Do you always need everything completely spelled out for you?
I do think for myself. I have spelled out the rational for why I disagree with protectionist policies. Those in favor have done nothing but talk about what is wrong with the country and told anecdotal stories about individual situations. I'm not going to think for you and try and make your case that protectionist policies solve the problems you have mentioned. That is your job. If you think they are related and protectionism creates wealth in an economy, then explain it. If you can't, then you are just basing your opinion on emotion and frustration with the things you see happening in our economy. That doesn't make a case for anything.
I didn't say anything about making college less expensive.
Do I really need to explain how most people pay for a mortgage?
I don't think it was the only reason, but I do believe it played a very large part in it.
No one that ever shows up for a 9-5 is ever going to "earn" wealth. They were earning a living though that bought houses, cars and all the family shit that makes up the middle class.
Again, directly protecting those jobs is not as important as protecting those people who worked those jobs. They were simple minded people that just wanted to go to worked, do their job, and go home. They weren't paying attention to know their companies were bribing politicians to send their jobs to a 3rd world country to save money. So basically they were blindsided.
It's that simple! And at the rate it happens you had 100's and thousands of people in small and big cities out of a job.
About the same time that it really started to hit the fan for this group we hit a housing crisis which made everything even worse. Some of that had to do with pulling jobs out too, but certainly not 100% of that problem.
Add to that you then started seeing a lot of people 35-45 going back to school to further their education and that boom also helped colleges everywhere increase tuition because their numbers on enrollment were up, way up. Therefore causing more debts on everyone.
See how one thing that individually could have been handled just really added to other problems making those problems even worse? It happens that way.
My point is those companies could have offered up jobs to move to 3rd world. They also could have set up some tuition assistance for cutting ties without notice. But they didn't do a damn thing except leave thousands uneducated and experience at work that was gone from this country.
So what happened was politicians who signed for corporations to ship jobs out of here then signed to extend unemployment and caused more mess financially and killed the will to work of a lot of people.
Things began to balance out for a lot of people over the years but the lack of growth from 08-11 really hurt. Now it's a lot better and services have really picked up.
Those companies could have really stepped up their efforts to not destroy middle America.
The worst thing it did for people today was make Americans debt managers. Majorities literally live in bi weekly financial worlds. That is sad but it is true.
Now all that said, Trump will never tax these companies back to America. But what Americans don't realize is companies like Coke are hated by India for all their pollution. Apple had to build a net outside of their housing complex for employee's because so many were jumping to suicide after work. Things with these companies are not sunshine a and rainbows, and they didn't all leave to save on labor. A lot of them enjoy terrible work conditions and severely damaging pollution that isn't allowed in the states. So that lack of regulation is also hurting the planet too.
Again, directly protecting those jobs is not as important as protecting those people who worked those jobs. They were simple minded people that just wanted to go to worked, do their job, and go home. They weren't paying attention to know their companies were bribing politicians to send their jobs to a 3rd world country to save money. So basically they were blindsided.
It's that simple! And at the rate it happens you had 100's and thousands of people in small and big cities out of a job.
About the same time that it really started to hit the fan for this group we hit a housing crisis which made everything even worse. Some of that had to do with pulling jobs out too, but certainly not 100% of that problem.
Add to that you then started seeing a lot of people 35-45 going back to school to further their education and that boom also helped colleges everywhere increase tuition because their numbers on enrollment were up, way up. Therefore causing more debts on everyone.
See how one thing that individually could have been handled just really added to other problems making those problems even worse? It happens that way.
My point is those companies could have offered up jobs to move to 3rd world. They also could have set up some tuition assistance for cutting ties without notice. But they didn't do a damn thing except leave thousands uneducated and experience at work that was gone from this country.
So what happened was politicians who signed for corporations to ship jobs out of here then signed to extend unemployment and caused more mess financially and killed the will to work of a lot of people.
Things began to balance out for a lot of people over the years but the lack of growth from 08-11 really hurt. Now it's a lot better and services have really picked up.
Those companies could have really stepped up their efforts to not destroy middle America.
The worst thing it did for people today was make Americans debt managers. Majorities literally live in bi weekly financial worlds. That is sad but it is true.
Now all that said, Trump will never tax these companies back to America. But what Americans don't realize is companies like Coke are hated by India for all their pollution. Apple had to build a net outside of their housing complex for employee's because so many were jumping to suicide after work. Things with these companies are not sunshine a and rainbows, and they didn't all leave to save on labor. A lot of them enjoy terrible work conditions and severely damaging pollution that isn't allowed in the states. So that lack of regulation is also hurting the planet too.
Not everyones meant to be a chief. Society needs tons of worker bees. Worker bees can still have a good life. Noones entitled to anything. For every Walton child, theres a Lebron, a Jay-Z, or Zuckerberg that made it from nothing.
Just picked up the book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" at a flea market and wish I'd read it 40 years ago. I fell into the trap of thinking of getting a degree/degrees, secure job with a retirement plan was the recipe for financial success. Taught my kids the same thing. Didn't realize the truth of your comment at the time.
It's even more true today. The recipe never really worked relative to becoming wealthy and independent but it's less likely to work today for my kids' generation.
To some extent, I agree with the complaints of that generation. They were sold a bill of goods, but apparently, the entire middle class has been sold that same bill of goods for centuries. Not only that, but IMO, more importantly we deprived them of stable, mom/dad families.
Still, we can't quit trying.
Surprised this Henry Ford guy fuzz talks about has flown under the radar like he has. Seems like someone should mention him to the execs of Google, Facebook, Walmart, Apple, etc.
Think, if Walmart had just paid its employees above market wages, it probably could have been a decent retail company.
Think, if Walmart had just paid its employees above market wages, it probably could have been a decent retail company.
Of course good jobs are beneficial to a nation. That's why it's important to forego protectionism and remove several of the government limitations that hold back our innovation and economy.
Correct. Had the unions and protectionist policies not distorted the market info, they would've been able to see it coming.
Did Hillary really win? I just can't believe she would win KY, and I have to assume Lexington and Louisville really cane out for Bernie.
I saw where we officially declared her the unofficial winner. What the shit does that mean?
I saw where we officially declared her the unofficial winner. What the shit does that mean?
Ky was a closed primary, only registered Dems could vote yesterday. still, a northeast vermont socialist gaining a virtual tie is astounding....Bill won the state TWICE in general elections! HillDawg's drop in voting numbers from 8 years ago VS Obama is jaw dropping.
"we" officially declared nothing. Ally Lundergren Grimes is a filthy Dem politician who went on cable news and crowned Hillary the winner when she had no authority to do so in any way.
"we" officially declared nothing. Ally Lundergren Grimes is a filthy Dem politician who went on cable news and crowned Hillary the winner when she had no authority to do so in any way.
WTF you get "paying employees more will drive down labor cost" out of "What is really expensive is our executive compensation. Too few take too big a piece of the pie. By returning compensation levels to 1960s-1970s norms would go a long way in rebuilding the middle class.
Until we reverse the flow of money to the top, nothing will change."...I'll never know.
Those compensation levels of the 60's and 70's had the pie split differently. The top layers of management weren't taking 400-500 times what was being paid to the production worker, it was more like 40-50 times that amount. Together, an executive board of 10-12 people can easily be paid the equivalent of several thousand workers. Simply cutting executive compensation in half could have the same cost savings effect of reducing the workforce by 1000 without sacrificing the production losses and that executive staff would still find itself in the top 1% of earners.
Want a less draconian approach? Freeze all compensation x times or greater than the median income. Allow wages and income to rise at the bottom until some balance is restored. The bottom and middle have seen their wages essentially frozen for the past 30+ years...if it was ok for it to happen to them then why is it not ok for it to happen to the top?
FYI, I've never looked at HuffPo.
As for Sweden, what is your premise as to how I am wrong? Are you saying that they are more socialist or less so? I want to make sure I address your concerns.
Fuzz probably has the worst ideas I've ever seen. Consistently, on every topic.
Were any of those numbers not pulled straight from his ass?
Were any of those numbers not pulled straight from his ass?
Last time. I said, our labor is too expensive to manufacture cheap goods en masse in this country and compared it to a commodity. In DIRECT RESPONSE to that, you made your comment about executive salary. So you clearly thought those two things were connected in some way or you just quote entire posts then make a wholly different point. Either way, it's on you.
Here's what you said about Sweden
I asked you to provide evidence of this, since I know for a fact this is not true. Please, go ahead
Here's what you said about Sweden
I asked you to provide evidence of this, since I know for a fact this is not true. Please, go ahead
They didn't distort it bigblue, its been distorted now. The market is the US, you're comparing a third world worker to an American, it's insanity.
Free trade as we know it was to be between the STATES, not foreign nations.
Are you honestly going to sit there and say American workers are better off since NAFTA?
Here is my post and your response, fuzzqarnold. So you think executive pay causes our high labor cost, returning money to the middle class will ameliorate that, or you just don't know how to form coherent thoughts. Which is it? O, and Sweden
The free market doesn't stop at the US border. It's the agreed upon price between a willing buyer and willing seller. No borders.
Of course US manufacturing workers aren't better off. Their entire way of life was jersey out from beneath them like a rug. This was actually a slow moving process many saw coming, but unions and protectionalism gave those same workers a false sense of security; when they should've been preparing for this all along.
Now, to make my position more clear: I'm in favor of tariffs and protecting our economy IF the current government intrusions remain. That appears to almost certainly be the case for the foreseeable future.
Wouldn't trade between rich states and poor states hurt the poor states? Why does protectionism magically stop working within a nation? Artificial borders change the laws of economics?
Dead people and animals came out in record numbers. She knows how to win and keep the rest of us down.
