Lets just say it: The 1% took all our fucking money! Deflation looms.

[Benvolio]

Btf. Wages are artifically low dems can win on that issue alone. Why is this not a cakewalk for dems? Because they are not running on wages they are being stupid and playing defense on obamacare and labor healtgcare education. You win on an issue first.

Wages are not artificially low. The are naturally at the market level, which is the generally the highest average and median in the world. Would be higher with a lower labor supply.

 

[opinterph]

Wrong. In our economy wages and prices are determined by market forces, i. e. The market for labor. - except when politicians meddle.

Welcome to America.

On Saturday, June 25, 1938, to avoid pocket vetoes 9 days after Congress had adjourned, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed 121 bills. Among these bills was a landmark law in the Nation's social and economic development -- Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Against a history of judicial opposition, the depression-born FLSA had survived, not unscathed, more than a year of Congressional altercation. In its final form, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented only about one-fifth of the labor force. In these industries, it banned oppressive child labor and set the minimum hourly wage at 25 cents, and the maximum workweek at 44 hours. [Link]

 

[Kulindahr]

Welcome to America.

I presume you're making the point that when politicians don't meddle, employers pay as little as they can get away with, provide only the working conditions they absolutely have to, and otherwise cut every corner possible.

Except there was Henry Ford, who showed how capitalism ought to run: paying the highest wage possible, good working conditions, and concern for his workers.

 

[frankfrank]

Wages are not artificially low. The are naturally at the market level, which is the generally the highest average and median in the world. Would be higher with a lower labor supply.

Does that mean that the average, and the median, are added together and themselves averaged?

What is the world median, and the world average? Surely not more than $1.35 or $2 or $2.68 or something??

I don't think that would be appropriate for the United States.

IF THE MINIMUM WAGE WAS SET BY THE GLOBAL AVERAGE FOR ALL INCOME, yes. But that will never happen, of course it is going to be based on labor only...which is in the corporate interest to suppress as much as possible.

Or so they think. If nobody can afford to buy stuff, the house of cards collapses.

 

[Benvolio]

Does that mean that the average, and the median, are added together and themselves averaged?

What is the world median, and the world average? Surely not more than $1.35 or $2 or $2.68 or something??

I don't think that would be appropriate for the United States.

IF THE MINIMUM WAGE WAS SET BY THE GLOBAL AVERAGE FOR ALL INCOME, yes. But that will never happen, of course it is going to be based on labor only...which is in the corporate interest to suppress as much as possible.

Or so they think. If nobody can afford to buy stuff, the house of cards collapses.

No, I mean the average annual wage and median wage. The average annual wage in the US is by far the highest in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
The median wage in the US has generally been the highest of any major country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

 

[evanrick]

end. of. discussion.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Wow.

I knew the government had rigged the system so the wealthy were sucking everything into their own coffers but that's obscene.

And people like benvolio want it to keep going!

 

[Benvolio]

I presume you're making the point that when politicians don't meddle, employers pay as little as they can get away with, provide only the working conditions they absolutely have to, and otherwise cut every corner possible.

Except there was Henry Ford, who showed how capitalism ought to run: paying the highest wage possible, good working conditions, and concern for his workers.

Again, American workers have the highest average and median salaries among large countries. Employers are not the Simon LeGree ogres of your stereotype.

 

[mightbe]

Take home pay is more relevant to an economy's success. In the US, devastingly large amounts of money are immediately spent on college and healthcare. This doesn't happen in most other countries. Even in countries where you pay for education, the costs are astronomically LOW. The end effect? Americans are more pressed for money in spite of "high" wages, which don't correspond at all to wealth or security.

 

[bankside]

end. of. discussion.

View attachment 1073835

Here's the question:

Are the rich allowed to get richer any faster than the middle class?

And the answer, in terms of what the law dictates in any morally defensible system of economics, must be YES.

But that leads to the next question:

Are the middle class allowed to demand higher wages for themselves and thinner profit margins for corporations so they can at least keep up with the rich?

And the answer to that is OH FUCK YES. For exactly the same reason. No law can dictate that people with careers in the middle-class, consumers in the middle-class should have to watch the wealthy zoom away with all the growth. So what we have here is a negotiation. And people in the middle class can legitimately say they're underpaid for their contribution to the success of the economy.

 

[Benvolio]

end. of. discussion.

View attachment 1073835

Bear in mind that the people who end up in the top 10% are constantly changing. Generally they are the builders, the creators. the innovators. The middle income group are mostly 8 to 5 people who receive jobs, salaries and benefits from the creations and efforts of the top 10%. The liberal stereotype that the top 10% are indolent trust fund babies is false. Sure, Marx thought we could do without the builders and creators--the dread bourgeoise--but he and you are wrong.If the top 10% cannot get rich for building, why should they bother.

 

[Kulindahr]

Take home pay is more relevant to an economy's success. In the US, devastingly large amounts of money are immediately spent on college and healthcare. This doesn't happen in most other countries. Even in countries where you pay for education, the costs are astronomically LOW. The end effect? Americans are more pressed for money in spite of "high" wages, which don't correspond at all to wealth or security.

That in turn means that the middle class is no longer nearly as able to create new businesses, which is the real job driver in a healthy economy. This is one big reason our recovery is so anemic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Here's the question:

Are the rich allowed to get richer any faster than the middle class?

And the answer, in terms of what the law dictates in any morally defensible system of economics, must be YES.

"Allowed" isn't the correct word: given the progression on that chart, it's clear the system has been rigged -- it's biased toward shoving wealth up the economic ladder. The result is worse job creation, both because it becomes ever harder to start new businesses and because a smaller portion of the money in the economy is actually available to be spent. Both of those decrease the velocity of money, and even more so decrease the velocity of goods

We need a new measurement for the health of an economy: the ratio between money actually spent purchasing actual goods and the money just hopping around trying to grow more money. The smaller the fraction, the less healthy the economy.

But that leads to the next question:

Are the middle class allowed to demand higher wages for themselves and thinner profit margins for corporations so they can at least keep up with the rich?

And the answer to that is OH FUCK YES. For exactly the same reason. No law can dictate that people with careers in the middle-class, consumers in the middle-class should have to watch the wealthy zoom away with all the growth. So what we have here is a negotiation. And people in the middle class can legitimately say they're underpaid for their contribution to the success of the economy.

But it hasn't been a negotiation. Obama has made it plainer than day that we have only one political party in the US, the corporate party, and the only real negotiations pursued are between the elites of that party.

 

[Benvolio]

That in turn means that the middle class is no longer nearly as able to create new businesses, which is the real job driver in a healthy economy. This is one big reason our recovery is so anemic.

Nonsense. The biggest factor impeding new business is the increasing regulatory http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/impact-regulatory-costs-small-firms. Here is a study by the US Small Business Administrationhttp://www.sba.gov/advocacy/impact-regulatory-costs-small-firms

Here is part of the summary; "The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008. Had every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008. By comparison, the federal regulatory burden exceeds by 50 percent private spending on health care, which equaled $10,500 per household in 2008. While all citizens and businesses pay some portion of these costs, the distribution of the burden of regulations is quite uneven. The portion of regulatory costs that falls initially on businesses was $8,086 per employee in 2008. Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the largest burden of federal regulations. As of 2008, small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees)."

Remember this the next time you wonder why jobs are being out sourced, and this is just one reason among many. The US government is anti business.

 

[T-Rexx]

Nonsense. The biggest factor impeding new business is the increasing regulatory http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/impact-regulatory-costs-small-firms. Here is a study by the US Small Business Administrationhttp://www.sba.gov/advocacy/impact-regulatory-costs-small-firms

Here is part of the summary; "The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008. Had every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008. By comparison, the federal regulatory burden exceeds by 50 percent private spending on health care, which equaled $10,500 per household in 2008. While all citizens and businesses pay some portion of these costs, the distribution of the burden of regulations is quite uneven. The portion of regulatory costs that falls initially on businesses was $8,086 per employee in 2008. Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the largest burden of federal regulations. As of 2008, small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees)."

Remember this the next time you wonder why jobs are being out sourced, and this is just one reason among many. The US government is anti business.

Did you actually read the study you cite?

"The data for this study only goes through 2008."

What you are citing is the regulatory environment for small business in the USA under president George W. Bush.

 

[opinterph]

Setting the Record Straight: The Crain and Crain Report on Regulatory Costs (Center for Progressive Reform White Paper #1103; February 2011)

Fox's Attack On Regulations Relies On Widely Discredited Cost Estimate (Media Matters; September 2011)

Here is a study by the US Small Business Administration http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/impact-regulatory-costs-small-firms

It is appropriate that you provided a link to the disclaimer statement by SBA, rather than a direct link to the Crain and Crain report itself.

Regulations May Not Really Cost $1.75 Trillion a Year, SBA Office Concedes (Government Executive; October 2014)

 

[Benvolio]

Don't get lost picking nits. The point is that business and job and job creation in America are being stifled by regulation.

 

[mightbe]

Which is being stifled by the ludicrous rates the majority of the workforce are paid.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

Don't get lost picking nits. The point is that business and job and job creation in America are being stifled by regulation.

I suppose "picking nits" is the new code word for "I'm not going to let petty things like facts and reality get in the way of my talking points."

 

[Benvolio]

I suppose "picking nits" is the new code word for "I'm not going to let petty things like facts and reality get in the way of my talking points."

The quibble over the precise dollar estimate of the cost of regulations is nit picking, as is the quibble over the date ov the estimate. No honest person would claim that regulation or the cost has diminished under Obama. Entirely to the contrary, regulation has increased.