The Jobs Crunch 1307
randall_burns writes "Neither major party is accurately describing or combatting the Jobs Crunch that Americans are facing. Bad immigration policy-and bad trade deals are combining to decimate the middle class in America."
All I know is... (Score:5, Interesting)
These are NOT good times...although Bush would have us believe otherwise.
Re:low unemployment compared to europe (Score:2, Interesting)
Or did the US unite with a state with rampant unemployment like West Germany did with East Germany? And if so, was our wall in Kansas?
Ooops. Guess you should apologize.
Re:low unemployment compared to europe (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, let's take a moment to look at those numbers. In the U.S., unemployment numbers are doctored so that they don't represent the actual cases. If you've been unemployed for more than 6 months, you drop off the charts because you're considered a lost cause.
In the (mostly socialist) European nations, the government has a responsibility towards you. Many of those unemployed are on state-sponsored education and self-improvements tracks so that they'll be ready to re-enter the job market better prepared for the future.
So, yeah, while other nations are experiencing the same job crunch that we are, most of them are actually doing something about it...
Re:All I know is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Being jobless is rough though, and very unfortunate if it hits both wage earners in a household.
Personally, I think Kerry needs to give out specifics on how he expects to fix things. It just seems to me that he's hedging, he still hasn't offered real solutions during his campaign. I do seriously want to vote Kerry, but it seems that the best argument for doing so is that he's "not Bush".
If someone does have a clear statement on Kerry's proposed economic policy, I'd like to read it. Seriously.
Indeed So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:low unemployment compared to europe (Score:2, Interesting)
Unemployment rates are calculated differently around the world, as the "defintion" of unemployed changes from country to country. In the US I gather "unemployed" means you are actively drawing unemployment insurance. If you weren't working long enough prior to losing your job, have been on unemployment insurance too long and have stopped receiving it (someone in this thread claimed that could be as little as 6 months, I don't know), or collect disability instead, then you don't count as unemployed.
I've seen the defintion game in action when New Zealand redefined "unemployed" and the unemployment rate shifted by several percentage points - so yes it can make a significant difference.
Which is not to say that you aren't perfectly correct. It could well be that unemployment is a far more serious problem in France and Germany. But it might in fact be less of a problem. The definitons, and resulting figures can vary sufficiently that without knowing how those numbers are derived its all rather meaningless.
You;re comparing a couple of fruit without telling whether they're both apples, or apples and oranges. As such, the comparison is meaningless.
Jedidiah.
Re:Ohio is a mess... (Score:5, Interesting)
The author thought that it was due to cultural issues. I guess if somebody is doing bad you can always blame the homosexuals and the fornicators.
Re:Simple: make your own job. (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who can do PC Repair work and is interested in finding out about a tech co-op that is forming to provide such work, please email me at veridium@linuxmail.org. Geography not important, as long as you're in the States.
Re:Outsourcing (Score:5, Interesting)
Believe it or not, he's actually got a plan for this. Unlike so many of his other proposals, this one doesn't revolve around ludicrously jacked revenue projections or unfunded mandates. Kerry's plan is to get Congress to pass a tax penalty on companies that send jobs overseas.
Might sound good to some, but the net result will be increased labor costs (or increased tax and tax-compliance costs) for business, which will have the net effect of putting the breaks on an economy which right now is growing at a nice, sustainable rate. Since Kerry's spending plan already calls for nothing less than a wildly unsustainable 12.5% GDP growth per year for 10 years, the additional labor and compliance costs will make little difference in terms of tax revenues and a balanced budget. But it will mean that those businesses are generating less overall economic activity, which will have a net negative effect on domestic job growth.
"Backfire," I think is the word I'm looking for here.
Re:All I know is... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can guarantee you if a Democrat gets in again you'll be sliding deeper and deeper.
You know, your post would be much more impressive if it showed a single policy of Clinton's which Bush changed in the name of fiscal responsibility. I have not heard about any, myself.
On that note, where were the Republican votes stopping Clinton's policies? Looking back, I remember the Republicans in congress being pretty quiet those 8 years, except when the whole Monica thing came out.
I'm not going to debate beliefs, just throwing in my 2 cents. I don't like either party. I especially don't like paying over $200 Billion dollars to invade Iraq and make everyone hate us at the same time.
Being hated globally is not condusive to future peace and prosperity at home.
Re:All I know is... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can absolutely relate. My dad lost his job, and so did I and a few of my friends. Of course, those friends worked at the same place I did... *cough* f'ing Interplay *cough*
OK, perhaps Bush isn't responsible for mismanagement of a floundering game company, but it stings nonetheless.
Baby boomers and out of demand jobs (Score:2, Interesting)
With the huge numbers of people in their 50s and 60s hitting retirement age, we can't blame the decreased labor force on the recent recession or outsourcing. I do believe that may contribute to the issue, but I don't think it is the sole factor. On the other side, many baby boomers are working past retirement. The dot coms didn't end up to be the best place to stick retirement money.
The unemployment numbers are deceiving, as percentages can be swayed in many directions as to exactly who is unemployed. The labor force participation rate is the percentage of those who are willing and able to obtain a job. Willing and able aren't exactly purely quantitative variables.
Anyone here know someone who majored in CS and can't find a job? Guess what, the tech bubble didn't really burst, it just sunk to the other side of the planet. Of course US CS majors aren't employed, the demand for their profession has dropped severely. It may be harsh, but the simple truth is that the US needs to reorient its workforce in a new direction.
Re:All I know is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Forgive me if I don't believe the government unbiased.
Max
Re:poor choice of story for slashdot frontpage (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, the topic of jobs is on the mind of a very large number of people among the
The article is pretty iffy though. To start, while it is true that the unemployment rate does underestimate the severity of the problem in times like these when a lot of people give up aggressively looking for work tactically or out of desperation, it is not simply based on who draws unemployment checks, but rather on an ongoing survey process [ri.gov]. Not getting this fact straight was one of the first indications that this article was not going to be completely accurate.
As you go through the article, and consider each of the points, you can see that the author is indeed excercising signifigant bias -- not as a partisan, just to support his own premise. It's like a badly researched college essay. Which is too bad because the case he was trying to make is correct -- he just stretches the facts too far.
It's also a pity because, given the way the campaign has been "anti-intellectualized" by the whole non-issue of flip-flopping [wikipedia.org] the article is a letdown for those of us wanting a breath of fresh air.
As a fallback, if you want to look at the quality of the job market, ask yourself how your employers, or if jobless, your potential employers, are treating you... do you feel expendible or treasured? In a bad job market employers will try to get away with things that inconvenience or annoy their workforce. In a good job market, employers will be attentive to the needs of their employees, sometimes to the point of pampering, for fear that a competitor will steal them.
In my personal opinion, you really don't have to know the national rate to decide who to vote for. Factor your own *personal* satisfaction level in with the other issues that concern you. If everyone does so, justice is delivered at the ballot box. Unfortunately most people obsess on a single "sticking point" wedge issue and ignore their own welfare. While social conscience in voting is good, only you can vote for your own needs and you should allow your own self interests at least 75% of your vote.
(I'm finding it hard to moderate in political threads as well -- there are whole entire threads that go way off topic and with only five points it is impossible to cut them down. The only solution would be if everyone who cannot resist responding to an off topic comment would please try to follow their response up with some sort of comment that brings the topic back into the thread.)
(I do think main page articles should appear in the Meta Moderating section so
Re:low unemployment compared to europe (Score:5, Interesting)
And this is a good thing.
Restructuring, as the current neo-con governments in Europe call it, is nothing more than:
Are you starting to see a pattern here? The so-called restructuring is nothing but a naked grab for power by the corporations and their toadies. The proof is in the pudding: all European politicians who participated in such 'restructurings' end up with cushy jobs at their friends' megacorps (do you hear me, Wim Kok?).
MartRe:I'm a micro-view of the job situation (Score:3, Interesting)
I will graduate college in Ohio in May with an International Business degree, and I have no intention of looking locally for a job. Why? Because when I entered the program, I understood that the markets that have demand for the positions I qualify for are elsewhere. At the job fairs I've attended, teachers are in great demand in Florida and Nevada, but not here in Ohio. I don't know your specialties, but perhaps you are limiting your job search to only jobs you want to work and not all the jobs you qualify for. Perhaps you are also limiting your location as well, saying that you will only work for the Cypress-Fairbanks district in NW Houston versus moving to where you can find work.
Personally, I think we need to drastically increase funding for the whole education system, not by raising taxes, but cutting other governmental programs which have little effect on society as a whole. And I don't think that extra money should go straight to the teachers' and administrators' pockets. The salaries should be determined by supply/demand with a significant qualitative factor. Excellent teachers should make more than poor teachers. The extra money should be used to build, update, and maintain facilities. I also favor a general, liberal education program in public schools (K-12) versus trade/technical programs at the high school level; leave the job training for post-secondary programs, i.e. trade school, college, university, etc.
That's enough ranting for this thread from me, but to reiterate my rebutal 1)Bushism has little to do with jobs, 2)There are NOT too many teachers, 3)The education system needs a major overhaul, and 4)Don't limit yourself.--Amigori
Re:I hope this crisis gets the middle class to ... (Score:2, Interesting)
You "conservatives" must hate people like me: I want the government to stop helping AND stop hindering me. You just want the government to stop helping. I guess that makes you half smart.
By the way, your people who kicked Nazi ass did so after a large period of isolationalism and ignoring that particular problem until it blew up in their faces. We kicked Soviet ass by having a larger credit balance than they did. I'll give Reagan credit for figuring that out, but we're still paying it off and thanks W for making it worse. Also, the moon landing was possible in large part because we didn't have accountants and finance people pouring over every expenditure looking for ROI like we do these days. Further moon landings and other space projects were killed by budget officers, not by lack of vision. Please note I'm not trying to insult any of these accomplishments--I'm just pointing out that there's a bit of harsh reality to go along with the romantic nostalgia.
People are capable of some pretty amazing things when you leave them alone and let them do stuff. We have a system of artificially-created hoops that stifle creativity, innovation, and benefit no one except of course for government and multinational corporations.
Tentacles of Rage & Treason (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason our leaders have been able to do all of this is because some ultra-rich people and the multinational corporations spent billions of dollars over the last 30 years or so to convince all of America that liberalized trade and immigration policies would benefit Americans. In a way, they obtained our consent to do this, but they actually "manufactured" our consent.
For a more detailed explanation of this 30-year propaganda blitz, See this September 2004 article in Harpers magazine about these "Tentacles of Rage." [mindfully.org]
The massive propaganda machine was built around think tanks and foundations that literally from the ground up built a vocabulary and worldview favoring free trade (and liberal immigration, which just one part of "free trade"), all designed to drive down wages and taxes for corporations and the rich, and increase corporate profits and increase unemployment and underemployment, and in general disempower the average worker.
It worked! Corporate profits are way up, and they pay less in taxes, while the average worker is scrambling.
What do you call politicians and bureaucrats who willingly go along with such a scheme?
I call them traitors, guilty of treason. I think our leaders, including our Presidents, present and past, should be held accountable in a court of law for this treason.
Re:Indeed So... (Score:1, Interesting)
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "c95d481b725dcea276128bb9c6695a6d" and "4967cedef3c158bd36bf54b0ff3a1218" and (optionally, but preferably) your IP number "XXXXXX" and your username "MMMDI".
Anywho...
then the problem lies with you
I wouldn't mind some explaining on this one. As I mentioned in my original post, there's nothing against me which would prevent anyone from wanting to hire me, and it's not exactly rocket-science to fill out an application, turn it in, and call back every few days. The problem isn't me or anything that I am or am not doing, the problem is that places simply aren't hiring, and when a few jobs do open up, there's more than just a couple of people eyeing those jobs.
I live in CA
That explains a lot right there. Check around on google and find some statistics for California as opposed to Delaware; the population difference will blow your mind. Here [census.gov], I'll even do the work for you. Check out your town as opposed to mine (Sussex County, Delaware). More people = more places of employment = easier to land a job.
so stop blaming other people for your problems...
There's a very large number of things I could blame Bush for, and all of them would be true. Check out the news some night, you may see what I mean.
See my first point up above.
who has not tolerance for woe is me bullshit
That would make two of us. I was merely contributing to the conversation; if you take that as "woe is me bullshit", then I apologize.
America is not allowed to control its immigration? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All I know is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, you are reading this online because of people such as myself, who was on the development team of the original markup languages (written in Assembler and ported to C) of which HTML, XML, etc., are subsets of.....
Re:Free Trade (Score:1, Interesting)
The simple fact is that there are no jobs for unskilled workers in the west any more.
So true. One major problem here is the great influx of unskilled labor to western Europe and the USA from the third world.
Slashdot becoming fascist? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ahh...circular logic! (Score:1, Interesting)
you wrote:
The computer you typed that post with -
were all of the circuit boards domestically made?
Own a cell phone? Pull the battery cover off and see where it was made.
Oo-h! My coffee cup! Made in Mexico!! Do you have an American made coffee cup? I've got about a dozen that aren't. Watch? Japanese.
There could be more great examples, but that's what I see in front of me right now.
THe reason that I have foreign goods is that the foreign goods are cheaper and better. They are cheaper and better because of low labor costs.
If I deliberately buy AMerican-made goods, then I pay more and get less. The reason I pay more and get less is that labor costs more.
Now, if I deliberately buy AMerican-made goods, then I pay more and get less, which means I have less money to use for rent, mortgage, food, transportation, etc. That means I am less able to survive.
I am in essence being FORCED to buy foreign goods, and my own government is doing it by not using tariffs.
Also, I am killing my own livelihood by buying foreign products.
THis is all brought on by my own government, which I pay to support. THey have sold us out by forcing us TO MAKE COMSUMPTION CHOICES AGAINST OUR OWN BEST INTERESTS.
If they would enact trade barriers and tariffs, then I would not be forced to make these destructive choices.
When you posed your question, you used circular logic.
And, BTW, I read Rand years ago. Pure crap...
Re:All I know is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Look, the rate of unemployment is 5.4%. It was 5.5% when Bill Clinton ran for reelection in 96. Amazingly, 5.4% for Bush is considered bad, 5.5% for Clinton is considered good. Go figure. Now if you're going to rant about job losses, you must remember the average rate for unemployment is roughly 6%. The mid-4s when Bush entered office were downright unusually low rates.
The way the rate is calculated was changed after Bush took office, so 5.4 is not comparable to 5.5 12 years ago. You're probably missing a whole 2 or 3 percent.
Re:We WANT high labor costs! It's a Good Thing! (Score:3, Interesting)
Economic historians often point out that throughout the latter 1800s the US had very high labor costs (and strong tariffs) compared to most European countries. Those high labor costs were a key to attracting immigrants from Europe, and those high labor costs also played a key role in automating American industry.
Fortunately, over 90% of Americans are WORKERS. Your problem is that you have been tricked by investor/corporate propaganda into thinking that YOU are an INVESTOR.
This is quite true. See www.inequality.org [inequality.org] for some illuminating stats about what percentage of the stock market is owned by the ultra-rich.
What always amazes me is how the corporate mass media report "productivity" increases. Productivity increases, like the gains in productivity by using computers, are great. But the mass media never talks about who benefits from those productivity increases. Look at the percentages of corporate profits over the past 20 years -- the gap between the rich and poor or the gap between the rich and middle-income workers is not increasing for nothing!
If those productivity increases are so great, how come I'm working over 40 hours a week?!
Immigration in and of itself is NOT the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me ask you this? Why must we have immigration?
The answer is that you want you society to resemble a pyramid with the youngest at the base of the pyramid, the middle aged in the middle, and the eldest at the top of the pyramid. If your society is not shaped like a pyramid, social programs and the system of collecting taxes completely fall apart.
In order for society to maintain a balance, every woman needs to have on average about three kids. How many kids did your parents have?
How many kids are you going to have?
Because citizens don't have enough kids to fill in the bottom of the pyramid we must have immigration or, we have to re-engineer our social systems and methods of tax collection. Take your pick.
This is why France has the largest muslim population in Europe. Native France citizens didn't have enough kids to support the country. SOo to supplement they had to allow immigration.
This is why Japan is doomed without immigration. Women there are now refusing to marry and having kids later and later (post 35). Pretty soon the population pyramid of Japan will be inverted with the oldest at the top. I predict they will allow immigration soon.
Africa's population has no middle. Only the very young and very old. The middle was wiped out by AIDS.
So that's the long and short of immigration. If you want something different, you have three choices:
1. Have more kids.
2. Change your system of collecting taxes (shift the tax burden higher up the pyramid).
3. Change your system of social programs. Maybe public education is no longer free. Maybe social security vanishes. Lot's of cuts will have to be made since there are fewer older people to pay taxes and usually they pay less.
The sad thing is that our politicians don't explain the social engineering of our country and let everyone jump to their own conclusions. The Repulicans know that if they do not capture the Hispanic/Latino/Mexican vote that they will NEVER win an election again. That is why Bush speaks spanish and was going to open the immigration flood gates to Mexio prior to 9-11. Right now, it's a giant mess and we really need some good social planners to figure out how best to manage our society in the direction that we want it to go.
Re:We WANT high labor costs! It's a Good Thing! (Score:2, Interesting)
That's nothing less than the labor theory of value . Their labor costs are so high not for *profits of the worker* but so that when the government takes their "rightful" huge bite in order to pay for that high standard of living there will still be something left over. Inflationary systems let you bring home more, it's only more 0s on the check, not more buying power.
And NW Europe may have the highest "quality of life" (HIGHLY debatable) but only in a system where the definition of "quality of life" revolves around central state control. I'll keep my liberty over the "high standard" of letting the government decide what I support with my capital. But then, I guess I'm not being a good wage-slave, huh?
Seig Heil, I guess.
Re:America is not allowed to control its immigrati (Score:3, Interesting)
So it's not so much that you're white, it's that you don't have a moral leg to stand on in light of what this country is supposed to be based on. If you're worried about maintaining any sort of social demographic by way of law (be that immigration law or otherwise), you're in the wrong country.
Taking Self-Employed Into Account? and my thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I have read from the federal government's figures, once you take the self-employed into account, Bush is creating jobs, not losing them. Since the self-employed are not being taken into account by the "left", I can not trust anything they have to say about avarage salary since they are not taking millions of workers into account.
Now don't take this to mean that I support Bush either. The whole Homeland Security continues to rub me the wrong way. And the federalizing of the airport screeners?!?
As far as outsourcing goes, every company I have personally been involved with that has outsourced to India (5 in the IT arena) have all seen it as a huge failure and pulled it back in-house. 2 where development and 3 were tech support.
I do agree with their take on worker visas. If you want to work and live in America, become a citizen.
The lowering "disposible income" figure is very misleading. This has been torn apart by the "Right" because you look at what is considered "essential" today as compared to 30 years ago. Who doesn't have a washer, a dryer, a television, and a telephone today? Today they count as essential. Decades ago they didn't. Thus, the "cost of living" goes up and the "disposible income" goes down.
Economics is the easiest thing to understand at a systemic level and the hardest thing to actually implement at the individual level. "Economies" do not change, the earning, spending and investing of individuals changes.
But when you get right down to it, you need the American people to keep more of their own money and for them to spend that money buying products from American companies that employ American workers. Those workers need to invest in those American companies and thus increase their personal wealth while giving the companies more capital to expand.
Oh, and those of you blaming the President for the economy need to remember that it is CONGRESS, not the President, who rules the country's taxes and spending. While the President provides the leadership, CONGRESS is to blame. Vote accordingly.
In my opinion (and, since I am not an economist, it is just my opinion), we need to:
- reduce federal spending (make Congress personally responsible for any deficit?).
- lower taxes for those who pay taxes (the lower 50% of the earners in America pay no taxes!).
- streamline the tax system with the Fair Tax. Once you get rid of most of the IRS, you lower federal costs, you lower the costs of businesses and individuals doing their taxes, you make your tax burden directly linked to your spending, you remove ALL tax burden from those living in poverty, and you lower the cost of American goods, thus making them more competitive in the world economy.
- as individuals, buy products from American companies (preferrably made entirely in America if you can still find one).
- phase out social security (the third rail of politics!). This will never happen, but it should. Over 12% of every worker's paycheck goes to retired people. Imagine if half that money went into your personal IRA account that would actually be worth something when you retired! (Also, as a side note, black men have the lowest life expectancy in America. White women have the highest. Statistically, social security takes money from young black men and gives it to old white women!)
- get the government out of the charity business. Let groups like the Red Cross, the United Way, religious charities, etc. do this work and treat people as individuals instead of numbers.
- put the government back on focus to what it MUST do, not what people WANT it to do. The government should not be a wealth redistribution plan. Government should provide the Common Good Required For Existence.
- Without breathable air, drinkable water, and land that can support farming and ranching,
Re: Rich Vs. Poor (Score:2, Interesting)
I work in Stowe, Vermont, which has one the highest concentrations of "truely rich" residents in the US, with perhaps the exception of Beverly Hills.
Stowe has about 5000 full-time residents, and housing that will support about 10,000. about 50% of the homes in Stowe are occupied by thier owners less than THREE WEEKS A YEAR (though they are often rented for a large portion of the year). The inflated property values caused by the vaction homes owned by the (super) rich make it not mearly difficult but IMPOSSIBLE for the service industry workers who keep Stowe alive to live IN the town.
Just for laughs, how about this number: the AVERAGE cost of a new construction home in Stowe (not including land value) is now in excess of $1.6 million. Thats the SIMPLE AVERAGE mind you, so we're looking at homes that cost more than I'll probably make in my entire working life. How many of these (new homes)are owned by full time residents, read: workers? Arround 2%.
I realize that being a "resort town" Stowe is an extreme example, but the gap isn't simply big, it's FRIGHTENINGLY HUGE. My boss is a reasonably succeful small business owner, does he live in Stowe? No, he can't afford to compete for realestate with the super-rich vaction home builders. We're talking somone who has been running a profitable business, employing 7-14 people for more than 20 years. My boss seems rich to me, but the people who are really rich are even richer than him in comparison to me. I live safely above the poverty line, but I'm definately not "upper middle class"...
The problem as I see it that "upper middle class", though it may be "comfortable" is no where NEAR the level of the rich.
The gap is growing, and It's not just a question of the rich paying more taxes than me, it's a question of the rich skewing property values and consumer goods prices to the point that somone who used to be "doing ok" can't afford to live or shop in the city in which he/she works.
In this part of my state theres a dagerous trend to slums surrounding the rich towns and we aren't talking inner city here, we're talking a rural state that rates smack in the middle of the US standard of living by state.
Re:It's straight up xenophobia (Score:1, Interesting)
But the reason why we see stuff writen that sounds like it came from 1931 is that there is a lot in common with our economy right now and 1931.
Bad immigration policy?!?! Screw you! (Score:2, Interesting)
Your "Bad Immigration Policy" is the reason I hightailed myself and my business back to Canada.
It's much, much easier to get skilled people here (citizen or immigrant) and we can afford pay our staff a wage which provides a significantly higher standard of living than would be possible in your imaginary land of milk-and-honey.
I guess our tax dollars weren't 'merican enough for you. Good enough -- we'll give those dollars to another government and the jobs to another nation's citizens.
You have an immigration problem all right: You're driving away the skilled and resourceful people which previously MADE your nation. Take a close look at your schools to see what you're getting instead.
Re:Taking Self-Employed Into Account? and my thoug (Score:2, Interesting)
The numbers "No Doubt Cooked up by the Liberal Media" are stating we're losing jobs, and the jobs that we do manage to create don't provide a livable wage. How long before the nation realizes that with a Republican President, a Republican Appointed Supreme Court, a Republican Congress that there is no other place for the blame to fall than on the republican party.
As John Stewart wisely stated on the daily show, if I may paraphrase it poorly: The Republicans are sick and tired of being in control.
The left isn't a group of skeptical quitters, unfortunately they have the thankless job of promoting things that are ruthlessly attacked which with the hindsight of many years become taken for granted: Unemployment Insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, FDIC, SEC. The list goes on.
Read something by someone other than Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the world is different. Might I suggest a book by another decorated Veteran Liberal such as George McGovern, a shameless and proud liberal -- who I happen to agree with.
The only people quitting are the right wing nut jobs who don't think and proceed to blame the left for everything bad in the world, or proceed to say the left is distorting everything. My eyes tell me the trust of the reality. I know a lot more unemployed people now than in the 90's under a democratic president and the strongest economy in the world. How we could reach record deficits in the span of four years comes as no surprise when you start a war and reduce taxes -- BTW: A fiscal conservative probably wouldn't recommend tax breaks as you begin a war. What happened to the concept of a nation that sacrifices in a time of war for the betterment of the country. i.e. fuel conservation in fuel effecient vehicles (not SUV's and increased reliance on terrorist country's -- Saudi Arabian -- oil), increased taxation to pay for a stronger country, better care for veteran's who bear the burden of fighting,
Neocon's suck, because they are ignorant. Neocons are ignorant, because they buy the line that the left wing controls the media. Wake up!
Black Protectionism (Score:3, Interesting)
September 21, 2004
BY MARISOL BELLO
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
A majority of the Detroit City Council wants to implement an economic development plan it commissioned for $112,000 that preaches racial isolation and rails against immigration in its bid to gain economic success for poor blacks.
The crux of the plan is the creation of a business district -- dubbed African Town -- that would be funded in part with city money and made up of black-owned businesses catering to a black clientele.
The report also complains that immigrants from Mexico, Asia and the Middle East are stealing resources, jobs and other opportunities from blacks and calls on city leaders to stop the economic shift.
...
Re:FDR was our GREATEST President (Score:2, Interesting)
Income Tax as implemented by FDR was not the mess it is today (it still may or may not have been a good idea). The tax brackets were such that most people were below the level where they were even required to file or have taxes witheld. Those who did have to file likely had accountants anyway.
Unfortunatly, the tax brackets are defined by specific numbers rather than being indexed to inflation, so over the years just by having income (almost) keep pace with inflation, more and more people were sucked into the morass until we get to the situation today where only the poorest people don't have to file at all.
It seems to me that a more reasonable strategy for shifting to consumption taxes would be to phase them in while simultaniously pushing the brackets UP one at a time. A good idea at the same time would be to index the current brackets to inflation to make sure they don't creep down faster than they are pushed up. Eventually it will return to FDR's original plan. Soon after, it will be gone.
Well at least FDR made Marijuana illegal (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:All I know is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is another view point. Suppose a corporation wants to lay off workers and cut pay. What is a good time to do it? A union friendly government, or a corporate friendly government? May be, and it's just a wild idea, that corporations feel more powerful under Bush administration, so we see more layoffs.
S
Re:Nice flamebait re: GWB (Score:4, Interesting)
They did find a few old warheads, some filled with sarin that was from their war with Iran. They also found a bunch of pesticide or herbicide, which for whatever reason was believed to be WMD related.
Certainly not the "stockpile" or hundreds of tons worth that we were promised [state.gov].
some useful data--middle class "size" is falling (Score:2, Interesting)
The truth is that poor and middle class households alike became better off, which increased the ranks of the "rich" (those making over $49,999 in 2003 dollars in the (as some media records it)) as a share of the population. In 1967, those with such an income constituted 24.9 percent of households. By 2003 this had increased to 44.1 percent. The inescapable conclusion is that the declining ranks of the middle class result from one thing only-more of them are now "rich."
Census Data [census.gov]
Yes, Then Tell John Kerry... (Score:1, Interesting)
You've left out Litigation (Score:2, Interesting)
Self-serving lawyers are having a field day inventing class action suits against manufacturers, and it isn't just about the things that they manufacture. Distributors are on the list, also. Any company that makes or sells or promotes a product is in the line of fire for class action suits based upon the flimsiest of data. The litigators don't even have a need to make a good case; the majority of these cases are settled out of court because of the incredible costs of any possible defense.
In the absense of statutory protection, no manufacturer in their right mind would establish a new plant in the United States. Doing so is just posting a target at which überrich law firms can take aim. Most of my consulting work in the last decade has been with companies from Mexico and Brazil, because their principals - U.S. Citizens - told me they could not take a chance on building soda machines in the US, because they might well be involved in a class action suit claiming that their machines facilitated obesity among their many clients.
Re:All I know is... (Score:1, Interesting)
And, out of curiosity, how many retired, became too ill to work, or died?
Re:All I know is... (Score:3, Interesting)
As for earning on earnings; generally systems that have lower taxes on earnings on wealth than on earned income are regressive and designed to shift wealth up the economic ladder. The idea that "they got taxed on it the first time" doesn't make any difference. All taxes are unfair and destructive to economic activity the question is where to have this damage take place. The US has recently choosen to have it happen to the middle class, and Bush has been a huge advancer of this cause.
I BTW agree that dividends should be the same level as capital gains. Where I disagree is I think that both of them should be at the same level as earned income (and the earned income tax should count Social security taxes), and further that capital gains should be realized annually through estimation.
Now a genuinely progressive system would have much lower taxes on earned income (espeically below certain levels) than on cap gains and dividends but I'll settle for less regressive.
Earnings that the idea that earnings on already existing
Immigration DOES work - I.T. does too..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Freeing people from drudge work!
Note that I don't think that mass unemployment is a good thing. But corporations are in the business to make money, not spend it unnecessarily.
They are not welfare programs...
Re:Kerry's Official Policy ..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the problem is that there are all kinds of "invisible" transfer programs. That large a movement of population would involve need to substantially expand US infrastructure-and it isn't obvious the businesses that employ these people really pay enough taxes to create that infrastructure.
Even if you could adjust the tax rates accordingly, there would _still_ be the effect of using immigration rights as partial compensation of private employees.
Re:Where is American Society going (Score:3, Interesting)
Using a single and comparable measure of poverty [syr.edu], the United States ranks behind every single European nation. The only traditionally industrialized nation with a higher poverty rate than the United States is Russia [syr.edu].
Now, do you think poverty--as a condition of living--impacts national productivity? Do you think someone who can't pay their current bills, let alone afford skills training, while working diligently 80 hours per week, and never seeing their children, impact the economy positively or negatively?
If you're proud of the national results of the American economy, that's great. I encourage you to be proud of it. The economic figures are wonderful, and for that very large majority that can afford the benefits, we may offer one of the best standards of living.
But just imagine how much better it would be if we could drop the poverty rate by 10% more Americans, so that they can concentrate on their jobs and be more productive?
Reducing poverty is about equality of opportunity. Poverty is something that often strikes people by chance and circumstance, not personal decision, but once you've fallen into it, it's incredibly difficult to pull yourself out. Poverty is not the same thing as not having enough money for all the things you want, or all the things other people have. Poverty is when you don't have sufficient access to the very minimal resources you and your family need to survive--food, housing, health care, child care.
Imagine being impoverished. The first thing you're probably going to imagine is living in some trailer with a car up on block, eating cheap fatty ground beef. But you'd be wrong. That's not poverty. That's just not doing as well as a lot of people.
If you really want to understand it, think about being a married 40-something, with a few kids, while the industry you were trained for evaporates and goes overseas. Your bills don't stop just because you got laid off, and you know that because this episode of outsourcing is industry-wide, you can't get another job in your field of skill/expertise.
In the interest of paying the bills, you get a couple part-time jobs doing unskilled work. Your partner, who used to be able to stay at home with the kids, does the same. You start paying out-of-pocket for day-care while you and your partner are each working 60 or more hours per week in dumb jobs that your far over-qualified for. You start paying out-of-pocket for health-care, because not a single one of the employers between you and your wife offers benefits to part-timers.
You and your partner think about taking a skills-training class, to prepare you for a new industry, but realize that there's just no way to fit it into your schedule let alone pay for it.
So in the course of a year, you've now gone from:
*being a successful, but not rich, skilled-worker living contendly in a single-income family, whose family was taken care of.
to:
*being someone who works 60 hours per week in embarrassing jobs; who never sees your partner, who also works 60 hours per week; who barely gets to see, let alone supervise your kids; who has neither the free time or needed capital to change direction;
At the same time your monthly bills went up, and you and your partner combined still can't seem to cover them all. So you constantly face decisions between day-care and leaving the kids home alone, getting medical treatment and waiting out some undiagnosed symptom, buying food and paying rent, losing the car and buying your kid a single birthday gift, moving your whole family in with your parents and maintaining your dignity.
That's poverty. That's the economic and psychological burden that
Damn, whatever happened to just being humane? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't believe I'm reading posts about flat taxes and people saying that they are fair. Does $6,000 mean more to a person making $30,000 a year versus $60,000 for someone making $300,000? OF COURSE. There's nothing "FAIR" (whatever that means) about a rich guy paying the same percentage as a poor guy. Whoever said that FAIR means that everything is equal all the time? That is totally moronic. Being humane and caring for the downtrodden isn't some magic EQUATION. It is a state of mind. An attitude. A principle.
I simply can't believe that people in the USA, my own country, are still fighting to see how we can take care of these issues without sacrificing anything out of our own lives.
I don't care how it gets done. Taxes. Charity. Donations. Faith-based organizations.
Get over your pocketbook and your ego and take care of your country for once.
Re:Ohio is a mess... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dusty past? Right. No, what bothers me is that the city, as you pointed out, taxed the people to get the thing built to the tune of $191 million dollars and George and Co. had it negotiated so they could then buy it back for $60 million. If that isn't welfare for the rich I don't know what is. It may be privately owned, which I'm all for, but it just so happens that it's not really owned by the people who paid for it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All I know is... (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, the unemployment rates in France include measurement of discouraged workers. The number that gets flashed on TV in the US does not include such persons. If you compare fairly, our current unemployment rate is 9.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics [bls.gov].
So, doesn't look like such a good comparison after all, does it?
Enough with Flat Tax ideas already! (Score:4, Interesting)
A poor person may need to spend 100% of salary on consumption just to cover basic needs. A middle class person -- 80%. As you get richer, your propensity to save increases and consumption expenses do not grow as fast (in percentage of income terms), so you may spend 50%. After all, there is so much shit you really *need*.
Enable consumption tax of 10%. The poor pays 10% of salary on taxes. Middle class guy -- 8%. Rich -- 5%. This is worse that flat tax, this is *regressive* taxation.
Repeat after me -- keeping progressive income tax and taxing capital gains is the only way to give poor a chance, middle-class protection from getting squeezed, rich from "take over the world" schemes all while turning budget surplus. And yes, a strong middle class is the #1 reason why US enjoyed economic prosperity and democratic society in 20th century.
The models works. Please stop f*cking it up, please! Wish I could make Economics 101 a mandatory course in high school. Maybe then people would vote with their heads instead of emotions.