Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[opinterph]

That one or one and a half dollar extra cost of the food hits hardest the poor and unemployed, and that difference runs through the economy making almost every thing more expensive as companies raise prices to compensate, …

Does your outrage, regarding the effect of higher consumer costs for the poor and unemployed, extend to include the exaggerated compensation levels enjoyed by many upper level management employees, such as CEOs?

 

[Benvolio]

Again we return to: this is an issue you are raising here but have not addressed for what happens to people in your magic solution where you cut off immigration and force wages up.

With fewer people competing for jobs, employers would compete to get and keep employees, raising wages and benefits, Fewer would be left unemployed, fewer would require welfare, fewer would choose having illegitimate children for welfare, fewer would turn to crime. The overal median income and the average standard of living would rise The slower population growth would benefit the environment. Pressure on the education system would be relieved. The portion of crime committed by immigrants would be reduced with fewer immigrants. Social divisiveness would be reduced with less poverty.

 

[xbuzzerx]

With fewer people competing for jobs, employers would compete to get and keep employees, raising wages and benefits, Fewer would be left unemployed, fewer would require welfare, fewer would choose having illegitimate children for welfare, fewer would turn to crime. The overal median income and the average standard of living would rise The slower population growth would benefit the nvironment. Pressure on the education system would be relieved. The portion of crime committed by immigrants would be reduced with fewer immigrants.

Cutting off immigration is not required for any of these benefits you cite. Improving the quality of living for the poorest end of the workforce would do that. But you seem to obtusely oppose *any* method that would accomplish this other than one that would keep brown people out.

 

[HenryReardon]

Does your outrage, regarding the effect of higher consumer costs for the poor and unemployed, extend to include the exaggerated compensation levels enjoyed by many upper level management employees, such as CEOs?

Exaggerated? According to whom? The boards of directors of corporations decided what the services of their CEOs are worth. Not you. Unless you are a stockholder (part owner) you have no say in the matter. In sum, it's none of your business.

 

[opinterph]

Again we return to: this is an issue you are raising here but have not addressed for what happens to people in your magic solution where you cut off immigration and force wages up.

With fewer people competing for jobs, employers would compete to get and keep employees, raising wages and benefits, [and we would all live happily ever after.]

In your estimation; what annual percentage increase in the US population, as a direct result of immigration to the country, is a tolerable or acceptable level that can be sustained without causing harm to the economy and/or its workers?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Exaggerated? According to whom? The boards of directors of corporations decided what the services of their CEOs are worth. Not you. Unless you are a stockholder (part owner) you have no say in the matter. In sum, it's none of your business.

You would have fit right in under a monarchy touting divine right.

When said corporation has personally paid for 100% of all assets and resources they use in any manner in order to conduct their business, then yes, you have a point. Since that is not and has never been the case, no, they are and should be compelled to some degree of compromise, whether that's by regulation to maintain reasonable standards of pay to employees or whether it's by collective bargaining.

 

[opinterph]

Unless you are a stockholder (part owner) you have no say in the matter. In sum, it's none of your business.

I am a consumer. I am also a citizen who is concerned about the effect of higher consumer costs for the poor and unemployed.

 

[chrisrobin]

Do you actually know any people from Japan, Sweden or Canada? Somehow none of them envy our healthcare system or our wage structure. Nor have their economies collapsed into this swirling vortex of domino effect wheelbarrow of bucks for a loaf of bread you're saying it would lead to.

Basically, nothing you're saying plays out in reality.

Also merely talking about the negative effects of some goods costing marginally more overlooks the benefit of people earning good wages and going out and being able to spend it, and not winding up needing assistance from the taxpayer.

Do you actually know any people from Japan, Sweden or Canada?

I can only speak for Japan. Japan seems to have recovered from WWII - like a phoenix rising from the ashes. Although their constitution is modeled after ours, certain aspects of Japan are socialistic. And...by the way - they have single-payer healthcare.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I can only speak for Japan. Japan seems to have recovered from WWII - like a phoenix rising from the ashes. Although their constitution is modeled after ours, certain aspects of Japan are socialistic. And...by the way - they have single-payer healthcare.

Sweden has the world's eighth-highest per capita income. In 2013, it ranked second in the world on the Democracy Index, seventh (tied with Ireland) on the 2013 United Nations' Human Development Index (third on the inequality-adjusted HDI), second on the 2013 OECD Better Life Index and fourth on the 2013 Legatum Prosperity Index. In 2012, the World Economic Forum ranked Sweden as the fourth-most competitive country in the world. According to the United Nations, it has the third-lowest infant mortality rate in the world. In 2010, Sweden also had one of the lowest Gini coefficients of all developed countries (0.25), making Sweden one of the world's most equal countries in terms of income.

Also despite its relatively high tax rate and high wages:

Sweden is the fourth-most competitive economy in the world, according to the World Economic Forum in its Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013. Sweden is ranked fourth in the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2013. According to the book The Flight of the Creative Class by the U.S. economist Professor Richard Florida of the University of Toronto, Sweden is ranked as having the best creativity in Europe for business and is predicted to become a talent magnet for the world's most purposeful workers. The book compiled an index to measure the kind of creativity it claims is most useful to business—talent, technology and tolerance.

Note of course, that the above is the opposite of what Benvolio and HenryReardon tell us would happen in an economy with much regulation, higher wages, or much government or social say of any sort in terms of quality of life or minimum standards.

Also, interestingly:

according to Statistics Sweden around 1,921,000 (20.1%) inhabitants of Sweden were of a foreign background in 2012, defined as being born abroad or born in Sweden to two parents born abroad.

Since the early 1970s, immigration to Sweden has been mostly due to refugee migration and family reunification from countries in the Middle East and Latin America.

HMM. It appears letting in "those people" hasn't hurt Sweden much.

Sweden ranks in the top five countries with respect to low infant mortality. It also ranks high in life expectancy and in safe drinking water. A person seeking care first contacts a clinic for a doctor's appointment, and may then be referred to a specialist by the clinic physician, who may in turn recommend either in-patient or out-patient treatment, or an elective care option. The health care is governed by the 21 landsting of Sweden and is mainly funded by taxes, with nominal fees for patients.

Fancy that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

So yeah guys, while you continue to drone on reciting out of a Trickle Down Economics primer despite all evidence of how well that's worked out over the last 3 decades for working Americans, Sweden is saying "Meanwhile.."

 

[Benvolio]

Does your outrage, regarding the effect of higher consumer costs for the poor and unemployed, extend to include the exaggerated compensation levels enjoyed by many upper level management employees, such as CEOs?

I agree that some executve compensation is excessive. I am inalterably opposed to government intervention. But perhaps the law should require that the shareholders not in managment or directly influenced by management be given a larger voice on compensation. But in the end, it is stockholders money and the government should let the market do its job.
Workers compensation would be higher if the govenment did not direct so much of the labor cost to democrat projects. Discrimination lawsuits, for instance benefit the trial lawyers who are big democrat contributors, and sometimes afford a windfall for an indivdual. But they reduce the overal amount available for worker compensation. They are a part of what the company pays for labor. Historically, immigration and discrimination have and still are part of the same act. Democrats flood the country with people competing with our minorities for jobs then encourage lawsuits against companies on the pretence of discouraging discrimination.
I have previously given lists of the ways worker compensation is drained away to other causes.

 

[HenryReardon]

I am a consumer. I am also a citizen who is concerned about the effect of higher consumer costs for the poor and unemployed.

If you were truly concerned about higher consumer costs, you'd be praising Walmart to the skies.

 

[HenryReardon]

You would have fit right in under a monarchy touting divine right.

When said corporation has personally paid for 100% of all assets and resources they use in any manner in order to conduct their business, then yes, you have a point. Since that is not and has never been the case, no.

Obviously you've been indoctrinated by attending government schools, because you have zero understanding of either economics of capitalism.

Have you ever owned or run a business? Created even one job for anyone? Had to meet a payroll?
Bottom line: you know nothing, and seem to be proud of it.

 

[CowboyBob]

If you were truly concerned about higher consumer costs, you'd be praising Walmart to the skies.

LOL

Yeah Henry.... a $4 lamp made in China destined to wear out in a year so you have to buy another is really low consumer cost.

Obviously you've been indoctrinated by attending government schools, because you have zero understanding of either economics of capitalism.

Have you ever owned or run a business? Created even one job for anyone? Had to meet a payroll?
Bottom line: you know nothing, and seem to be proud of it.

Why are right wingers so nasty? Become a Democrat and enjoy life Henry.

Consumers all are "job creators". If didn't buy things there would be no one to make, sell, insure and dispose of them. It's people like the Koch brothers, the Walton heirs are the true parasites of the world.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I agree that some executve compensation is excessive. I am inalterably opposed to government intervention. But perhaps the law should require that the shareholders not in managment or directly influenced by management be given a larger voice on compensation. But in the end, it is stockholders money and the government should let the market do its job.
Workers compensation would be higher if the govenment did not direct so much of the labor cost to democrat projects. Discrimination lawsuits, for instance benefit the trial lawyers who are big democrat contributors, and sometimes afford a windfall for an indivdual. But they reduce the overal amount available for worker compensation. They are a part of what the company pays for labor. Historically, immigration and discrimination have and still are part of the same act. Democrats flood the country with people competing with our minorities for jobs then encourage lawsuits against companies on the pretence of discouraging discrimination.
I have previously given lists of the ways worker compensation is drained away to other causes.

You can repeat this myth all you like and it continues to be an unsupported conspiracy theory. The benefits of immigration are mixed and widespread, and, if anything, the financial benefit leans towards the wealthy and business owners in industries that overwhelmingly contribute to the Republican party. The push for legal change to bring more equity to immigrants is from Democrats, but the push for regulatory loosening or effective non-enforcement of legal working status is virtually entirely from Republicans. As well as the opposition to improvements in the wage or compensation structure that might attract Americans to jobs that immigrants largely fill at the moment.

So long as you insist on this myth that Democrats have a Marxist scheme to intentionally bring in immigrants for "??? illicit reasons" I don't see why anyone should take you seriously.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Obviously you've been indoctrinated by attending government schools, because you have zero understanding of either economics of capitalism.

I'll go with what works in the real world over listening to some diehard right-wing ideologue lambasting my refusal to acknowledge his interpretation of an economics philosophy that has failed to bring any of the benefits it is supposed to.

In the REAL WORLD, many far more "socialist" countries are our rivals for international business competitiveness and equal or exceed us in quality of life considerations, public education, infrastructure and healthcare while maintaining a more equal standard of living for its citizens, having less crime and not banning immigration in order to accomplish any of it.

Equally in the real world the countries which best fit the sort of systems you and Benvolio claim would bring so much improvement while respecting the divine right of capitalists look more like Saudi Arabia.

 

[Benvolio]

You can repeat this myth all you like and it continues to be an unsupported conspiracy theory. The benefits of immigration are mixed and widespread, and, if anything, the financial benefit leans towards the wealthy and business owners in industries that overwhelmingly contribute to the Republican party. The push for legal change to bring more equity to immigrants is from Democrats, but the push for regulatory loosening or effective non-enforcement of legal working status is virtually entirely from Republicans. As well as the opposition to improvements in the wage or compensation structure that might attract Americans to jobs that immigrants largely fill at the moment.

So long as you insist on this myth that Democrats have a Marxist scheme to intentionally bring in immigrants for "??? illicit reasons" I don't see why anyone should take you seriously.

What benefit? Any benefit from additional bodies purchasing is far outweighed by the additional burdens and expenses they impose.
If you have forgotten, the Hispanics were widely considered to have provided most of the swing vote in the last election. Now amnesty is the number one priority for democrats.

 

[Benvolio]

Here is an article refuting the myth of Sweden's alleged success. http://www.paoracle.com/SocialismWORKS!/?sw=Sweden
Here is one paragraph:[The claim that Sweden] ranks far higher than the United States in most measurements:
The Swedish Institute of Trade reported in 2002 that "the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households". If Sweden were introduced to the U.S. as a new state, it would rank as the poorest according to these standards. This is in light of the fact that these numbers are gross values - before taxes - and Sweden has the highest taxes in the world. The same report also shows that Swedes fare lower than the lowest American socio-economic class, working-class black males

 

[HenryReardon]

LOL


Why are right wingers so nasty? Become a Democrat and enjoy life Henry.

Consumers all are "job creators". If didn't buy things there would be no one to make, sell, insure and dispose of them. It's people like the Koch brothers, the Walton heirs are the true parasites of the world.

Become a Democrat and enjoy life on the dole? No man with an ounce of self-respect would ever do that.

The only parasites in this world are the fools and ideologues who think the world owes them a living, and are content to suckle at the government teat for everything.

 

[CowboyBob]

Become a Democrat and enjoy life on the dole? No man with an ounce of self-respect would ever do that.

The only parasites in this world are the fools and ideologues who think the world owes them a living, and are content to suckle at the government teat for everything.

You mean like the Oil companies who suck out millions of taxpayer's dollars? Farm subsidies too. Michele Bachmann enjoyed those and last time I looked she was a wacko right wing republican.

It's obvious you don't know much about politics. Your fears and prejudices dictate your thoughts.

 

[xbuzzerx]

What benefit? Any benefit from additional bodies purchasing is far outweighed by the additional burdens and expenses they impose.

This is a claim for which you have offered no substantiation. And they are not merely consumers. They are also producers.