Job Growth Grinds Nearly to Halt in July, Labor Dept. Reports

[zimv20]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/06/business/06CND-ECON.html?hp)


Job growth ground nearly to a halt last month, the Labor Department reported today, in a clear sign that the economy has weakened in recent months.

Employers added just 32,000 jobs in July, a small fraction of what forecasters had expected and the smallest gain this year. The government also announced that job growth in May and June was less than initially estimated.

"It's clear that the economy is hitting a soft patch," said Richard J. DeKaser, chief economist at the National City Corporation, a bank based in Cleveland. "What we're seeing is the severe impact of high oil prices."

The unemployment rate fell slightly, to 5.5 percent, last month, but that figure is based on a smaller survey than the job growth numbers, which are widely considered the more reliable gauge of employment.

Stocks fell broadly after the release of the jobs report, with the Standard & Poor's 500 index and the Dow Jones Industrials both down almost 1 percent by late morning in New York. The dollar dropped against the euro, and interest rates declined too, although many economists continue to expect the Federal Reserve to raise its benchmark short-term rate next week.

After a surge of job growth this spring that had brought an end to a three-year hiring slump, the disappointing numbers of the last two months have raised new worries about the economy's health and created a potential political problem for President Bush. Mr. Bush pointed to the strong job gains earlier this year as a result of tax cuts he had championed, but Democrats said today that the new figures showed that most Americans were still not benefiting.


Last month's hiring slowdown occurred across most industries. Retail employment fell for the first time since December, according to the Labor Department, which adjusts its statistics to smooth over normal seasonal changes. Banks, hotels, movie studios and phone companies all reduced their workforces too. Government employment remained flat, as it essentially has for the last few months.

For the first time this year, more industries cut jobs than added them, the government reported.

Joshua Shapiro, an economist at MFR Incorporated, a consulting firm in New York, called the report "terribly disappointing" in a letter to clients. Goldman Sachs said, "Obviously, these numbers are extremely weak and represent a big surprise."

Helping to make up for the losses, manufacturers added 10,000 jobs, just the fifth positive month for the sector since the summer of 2000. Hospitals and other health-care companies continued their long rise in employment, meanwhile, and construction companies added jobs as well.


Over the last 12 months, though, weekly pay has risen only 2.4 percent — considerably less than inflation, which has been running above 3 percent.

As part of its regular revisions, the Labor Department said that the economy added 283,000 jobs in May and June. The previous estimate was a gain was 347,000 jobs.

[Sayhey]

zim, haven't you heard our economy has turned the corner. Given the revision of the past two months figures downward, will we see these figures go into negative territory two months from now?

[Leo Hubbard]

One opinion piece I heard on Fox, stated that the increase cost in fuel prices, which Bush can't control, make them less likely to hire new employees. That they are waiting for fuel prices to stabilize or go back down before the employment numbers can go back down.


For the first time this year, more industries cut jobs than added them, the government reported.

First time this year, hopefully the last too.

Don't like fox

Those fears about gas prices may have slowed the return of economic confidence, but people in another recent poll were evenly divided on whether Bush or Democrat John Kerry would do a better job of handling fuel prices.

"If you have rising gas prices and a stagnant economy like Jimmy Carter had in the late 1970s, you'd be in trouble," said Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker. "But with the improving economy, it cushions the impact. I certainly don't think they blame the president for it."

Democrats have tried to tie the high gas prices to Bush -- criticizing the oil industry ties of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and encouraging Bush to tap domestic oil reserves to lower the price.

"The high price of gasoline is affecting how people see the economy," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion specialist at the American Enterprise Institute. "But the public may catch up with the generally good economic news by Election Day."
Will Lester covers polling and politics for The Associated Press.
http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2004/06/27/opinion/forum/b332de29cc8e40b186256ebc001c97e3.txt

Yes I know this article is from before the July job data but is still relevant. Rising fuel prices which is currently out of our control is causing problems accross the board including stifling job growth.




I'm confused. Job growth is down in July but so is unemployment. It went down 0.1% not up, to 5.5%.

[mischief]

Couldn't find a link through them but searched and found this. Sorry for the site I found it on... the numbers are more compelling than the spin of the site.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/072202a.html

essentially: Dubyaw's record on jobs is the worst since the depression of the 30's.

[Leo Hubbard]

Employment growth was much stronger in the household survey, which in earlier months had fallen behind the establishment survey, the widely preferred source for gauging employment growth. The labor force continued to grow more quickly, however, as formerly discouraged job seekers returned to the labor market. Over the past three months, the labor force has expanded by 629,000, compared to a decline of 228,000 over the prior three months. This trend means that more jobs must be created simply to keep the unemployment rate from going up.

In fact, there is some evidence that the ranks of the unemployed are increasingly dominated by those entering the workforce. The share of the jobless who are new entrants or re-entrants to the labor force was 38% last month, compared to 34% when the recovery began in November 2001.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20040702


"In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product [GDP], will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year — the fastest in two decades," Mr. Crutsinger added.
To put this number into sharper perspective, the economy was turning in 4½ percent growth rates between 1997 and 1999 in President Clinton's second term, when businesses and employers were running at full throttle.
But if GDP forecasts of 4.6 percent or better turn out to be true, it will be the fastest growth rate since the economy came roaring back in 1984. That was the year the economy grew by a spectacular 7.2 percent expansion rate and Ronald Reagan won re-election with a 49-state landslide.

OK, but what about the jobs picture? Last month's preliminary payroll data reported only 112,000 jobs were created in June — half what was expected. That triggered gloomy news media talk of a possible economic slowdown that had the Kerry campaign cheering.
Well, let's put the latest jobs numbers into a more sensible, longer-term context.
• First, the unemployment rate has remained steady at 5.6 percent, far from its 6.3 percent peak a year ago.
• Second, almost 1.2 million new payroll jobs have been created so far this year — more than 1.5 million net new jobs since August 2003.
• Third, while factory payroll jobs dropped 11,000 last month, overall manufacturing employment has risen by 54,000 jobs this year. Last week's rising export numbers and falling trade deficit suggest manufacturing employment will continue growing in the months to come.
Many economists have long criticized the government's payroll numbers (which come from a nationwide poll of businesses) as less than accurate because they miss self-employed people who operate their own businesses but are not incorporated and often work out of their homes.
That's why the Labor Department's separate household survey can be a far better barometer of the jobs picture, even though it's largely ignored in news reports.
This survey reported a record 139 million Americans were working last month — up from 137.6 million since the end of 2000.
In other words, the labor force is not contracting, it is expanding, with new workers pouring into the jobs markets at ever-higher rates, another sign of increased confidence in a growing economy. More than 305,000 new workers entered the labor market last month — nearly 2.5 million in the last two years.
Despite the heavier flow of new job seekers, "the unemployment rate remains impressively low at 5.6 percent," writes economist Tim Kane of the Heritage Foundation.
"By way of comparison, the average unemployment rate of the 1990s was 5.8 percent," Mr. Kane notes. "That the economy continues to accept so many new workers with such ease is remarkable."
Some Democratic officials grudgingly acknowledge more jobs are being created, but say they are mostly poor-paying jobs without health care and other benefits. These were the same silly arguments they used in 1984 when Democrats maintained most of the jobs created in the '80s were "hamburger flippers."
The Labor Department, which surveys employment numbers as well as income levels, reports jobs are being created across the entire pay-scale spectrum and in every income category, just as they have in every previous recovery.
This is why economic forecasters predict the jobs picture will continue to improve, projecting the unemployment rate will be pushed down to 5.3 percent by December.
None of this is good news for the Kerry-Edwards ticket, which thinks it can only win if the American economy stalls, businesses close and people are thrown out of work.

That's not much of a campaign strategy, but it's all they have right now.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040718-091122-2919r.htm

[mischief]

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/empsit.txt

Looks pretty stagnant to me. Once you take into account the growth of the US population we're actually a bit screwed.

[IJ Reilly]

essentially: Dubyaw's record on jobs is the worst since the depression of the 30's.

That's a pretty old article. The current news is that if the economy doesn't add about a million jobs between now and November (which seems increasingly unlikely), Bush will be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net job loss. But just keep repeating, "we're turning the corner..."

Yeah, right -- from calamity to disaster.

[mischief]

That's a pretty old article. The current news is that if the economy doesn't add about a million jobs between now and November (which seems increasingly unlikely), Bush will be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net job loss. But just keep repeating, "we're turning the corner..."

Yeah, right -- from calamity to disaster.

Best I could find. The NPR piece was current but I couldn't find it. The fact that Google is blocked from here really impedes my ability to research effectively.

[Colirio]

I really don't want to get into a huge economics debate, but, interesting to me is the theory that the President or even the federal government has absolute control over the economy and job growth. Silly me, I thought it was the citizens at large that controled how much they spend... :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

I really don't want to get into a huge economics debate, but, interesting to me is the theory that the President or even the federal government has absolute control over the economy and job growth.
no one is saying the fed has "absolute control." but are we expected to believe that running a huge budget deficit and paying massive amounts of interest of the trade deficit has no effect on the economy?

[blackfox]

colirio, even if I were to concede your point about the Fed. Government/President having little control over the Economy (which I don't completely, in part for the reasons mentioned by zim), I ask you is it appropriate that the President should be going around taking credit for affecting the Economy?

The obvious irony of that aside, you cannot have it both ways...

[zimv20]

abcnews reported tonight that the stock market closed at its lowest level in all of 2004.

also of interest was the clip of bush saying today's report shows the economy is improving.

[Colirio]

Of course the economy is improving. Didn't it say that 32,000 new jobs had been created? While it might not have been what was hoped for, it's still an increase rather than a decrease.


but are we expected to believe that running a huge budget deficit and paying massive amounts of interest of the trade deficit has no effect on the economy?
Of course it has an effect. However, the only two points that democrats have accused Bush of using to cause this deficit were tax cuts and the War in Iraq. (The War on Terror we had no choice in so it could hardly be blamed upon the President.)

May I remind you that when the President entered into office there was a surplus of 4.6 trillion dollars? (I believe that is the correct figure as I recall.) That means that the government over the next 10 years would take 4.6 trillion dollars MORE than it needed in taxes from the citizens of this nation. That means that after ALL government programs had been paid for, they would have that much in excess.

The War in Iraq has now cost how many billions of dollars? 100 billion? 200 billion? The tax cuts ended up being how much in total? 2 trillion at the most over the next ten years? So, how can you even claim a Bush imposed deficit based upon these figures when it hasn't even exceeded the 4.6 trillion dollar surplus?


I ask you is it appropriate that the President should be going around taking credit for affecting the Economy?
You know, this is a point I agree that you make. This is one area where I have been critical of Presidents in the past as well as President Bush. A booming economy should be credited to the people who have contributed to its growth. It is not the effects of one man. And if any single person DOES have power over the economy, it would be the man who is able to raise and lower interest rates.

HOWEVER... The President DOES have power to lower taxes to create a confidence in consumer spending. So, while I agree that the President and Congress hold this power that can have an effect, the vast majority of it really does come down to the people themselves in order for tax cuts or anything else to have a lasting effect on the economy.

[Sayhey]

Of course the economy is improving. Didn't it say that 32,000 new jobs had been created? While it might not have been what was hoped for, it's still an increase rather than a decrease.

Hmmm.... the economy has to create something in the neighborhood of 130,000 to 150,000 jobs just to break even with the amount of new people entering into the work force. So while there is a slight increase in the number of jobs, it does not reflect an economy that is improving.


Of course it has an effect. However, the only two points that democrats have accused Bush of using to cause this deficit were tax cuts and the War in Iraq. (The War on Terror we had no choice in so it could hardly be blamed upon the President.)

May I remind you that when the President entered into office there was a surplus of 4.6 trillion dollars? (I believe that is the correct figure as I recall.) That means that the government over the next 10 years would take 4.6 trillion dollars MORE than it needed in taxes from the citizens of this nation. That means that after ALL government programs had been paid for, they would have that much in excess.

The War in Iraq has now cost how many billions of dollars? 100 billion? 200 billion? The tax cuts ended up being how much in total? 2 trillion at the most over the next ten years? So, how can you even claim a Bush imposed deficit based upon these figures when it hasn't even exceeded the 4.6 trillion dollar surplus?

This isn't your area is it, Colirio? We have gone through a massive shortfall in tax revenue because of Bush's tax cuts and the shrinking economy of the recession while spending increases have continued to go up (not just on the war in Iraq - and in a situation in which the GOP controls all the branches of government.) All of this has led to record deficits. Go look it up; don't take my word for it.

[Colirio]

This isn't your area is it, Colirio?

Why is it that so many people here have to constantly insult other people? Because somebody doesn;t agree with yout point of view on the issues I guess they are just stupid, huh? Don't you realize that this weakens your argument when you have to resort to small ribs like this? :confused: Anyhow, moving on...


the economy has to create something in the neighborhood of 130,000 to 150,000 jobs just to break even with the amount of new people entering into the work force. So while there is a slight increase in the number of jobs, it does not reflect an economy that is improving.
You know, I totally agree that job growth isn't necessarily reflective of the economy as jobs have always been the last thing affected in a good or poor economy. However, it is obvious that the economy has been increasing. Yes, it has small declines, but, compared to when Bush first took office, it has increased VERY well especially considering all that has happened. (September 11th, War on Terror, War in Iraq, etc.)


We have gone through a massive shortfall in tax revenue because of Bush's tax cuts
That's not true. His tax cuts came from the 4.6 trillion dollar surplus. A surplus which actually took into account increased government spending.

We have gone through a massive shortfall in tax revenue because of ... the shrinking economy of the recession while spending increases have continued to go up
I agree with you that the spending needs to stop. This is the one area in which I have been very critical of President Bush. He is not appeasing his base at all in this respect.


On a side note, the problem with government that I personally see daily though is that they don't spend their budgets. They take in all these tax dollars and then sit on them. For instance, look how many billions of dollars that are tied up in Homeland Security that aren't being spent and that have no future plans of being spent. (They plan to "reorganize" the agency eventually they said.) That is money that has basically been removed from our economy and not put back into it. Compound that with SEVERAL of the large government agencies and it adds up pretty fast.

[Leo Hubbard]

I agree with you that the spending needs to stop. This is the one area in which I have been very critical of President Bush. He is not appeasing his base at all in this respect.


On a side note, the problem with government that I personally see daily though is that they don't spend their budgets. They take in all these tax dollars and then sit on them. For instance, look how many billions of dollars that are tied up in Homeland Security that aren't being spent and that have no future plans of being spent. (They plan to "reorganize" the agency eventually they said.) That is money that has basically been removed from our economy and not put back into it. Compound that with SEVERAL of the large government agencies and it adds up pretty fast.
I completly agree with this, the Republicans aren't perfect and Bush has spent too much money. Tax and Spend isn't quite as bad as cut and spend. Both needs to be stopped, government needs to work within a budget and quit borrowing from the future to pay for it even if it means cutting wellfare or other things that the National government shouldn't be involved in the first place.

FYI When I see something that I can't defend that you are talking about Bush or the republicans I don't post. Not because I'm hiding from the truth, but because I don't defend the undefensable, and I don't join in the bashing either. There is no point in simply agreeing with what everyone is saying. So when I do agree I don't post. Thus the only time you see me post is when I disagree, normally. Nothing is 100%, maybe I should put that on my signature.

[Neserk]

When I post in ALL CAPS that I have a teaching job with benefits THEN we will know the economy is improving. In the meantime, the economy sucks.

Why am I the defining factor? Because my first year of teaching I will be paid at the highest rate a teacher can get in the first year of teaching. Which means the economy will have recovered enough for them to pay a teacher with a Master's degree +30 units.

[Leo Hubbard]

When I post in ALL CAPS that I have a teaching job with benefits THEN we will know the economy is improving. In the meantime, the economy sucks.

Why am I the defining factor? Because my first year of teaching I will be paid at the highest rate a teacher can get in the first year of teaching. Which means the economy will have recovered enough for them to pay a teacher with a Master's degree +30 units.
That is like a garbage man saying the economy isn't improving unless the city starts paying garbage men more money.

The economy isn't just one job or field.

If everyone said that, it would require everyone to have a pay raise before they can say the economy is improving. If everyone got a pay raise then the cost of goods would raise to compensate and we could end up with run away inflation. That would most deffinitely [edit] not be good for our economy.

[zimv20]

His tax cuts came from the 4.6 trillion dollar surplus. A surplus which actually took into account increased government spending.
this surplus was a projected surplus, based on projected budget surpluses. the reality is that we've been running budget deficits. the projected surplus is "gone," what's being projected now are deficits.

try this:
you have a decent job, you make $300 more per month than you spend. you figure if you save carefully, in 5 years you'll have enough for the first year of college for your kid.

you're told you're getting a $10,000/yr raise. the first thing you do is raise your 13 y.o. kid's allowance. next you put down $2k on a car and take out a $20,000 5-year loan, then buy $5k worth of clothes, stereo equipment and computers.

you've spent $7k, plus made 5-year promises to pay what will amount to, say, $30,000.

the raise doesn't come through. you've spent money you never had, and now you've got to pay back what you've spent, plus interest. your $300 "extra" a month isn't enough to cover your new expenses.

who's to blame? you, or your boss?

[Neserk]

That is like a garbage man saying the economy isn't improving unless the city starts paying garbage men more money.

The economy isn't just one job or field.

[edit] If everyone said that, it would require everyone to have a pay raise before they can say the economy is improving. If everyone got a pay raise then the cost of goods would raise to compensate and we could end up with run away inflation. That would most deffinitely be good for our economy.


Nope. When you understand how they hire teachers youl understand what I'm saying. They won't hire me until they flush again. That is when the economy has recovered.

[IJ Reilly]

Why is it that so many people here have to constantly insult other people? Because somebody doesn;t agree with yout point of view on the issues I guess they are just stupid, huh? Don't you realize that this weakens your argument when you have to resort to small ribs like this? :confused: Anyhow, moving on...

You are speaking about things you know nothing about. Is that an insult, too?

[SuperChuck]

That's not true. His tax cuts came from the 4.6 trillion dollar surplus. A surplus which actually took into account increased government spending.


Just FYI: Your surplus figure is off by about 4.5 trillion. Clinton left office with a record surplus of $230 billion. That is definitely impressive - the highest surplus in the history of our government - but you should get the number right.

Actual surplus figure here... (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/)

[Sayhey]

Why is it that so many people here have to constantly insult other people? Because somebody doesn;t agree with yout point of view on the issues I guess they are just stupid, huh? Don't you realize that this weakens your argument when you have to resort to small ribs like this? :confused: Anyhow, moving on...

I never called you stupid, Colirio. You are just obviously uninformed on this subject. Read SuperChuck's figures (in his link) or any other informed source on the deficit and we can have a discussion. Please, don't be so touchy when you are called on your mistakes.

[pseudobrit]

FWIW, Bush could have formed the Dept of Homeland Security, run the War in Iraq and weathered the post-9/11 economy without running deficits.

If 9/11 never happened, the DoHS was never formed and the Conquest of Iraq never took place, we'd still be running record deficits; that's how poorly planned (?) his tax scheme was.

I hate it when people try to give Bush a pass on the debt/deficit because of 9/11. :mad:

[zimv20]

link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0408070107aug07,1,2885569.story?coll=chi-business-hed)


The disconnect between growth in gross domestic product and hiring has been so pronounced over the past couple of months that it has inevitably rekindled the debate about the quality of the government's data.

The Labor Department has two employment surveys. One, called the establishment survey, collects data from companies. Another, called the household survey, interviews a sampling of individuals.

Because the establishment survey is bigger and less volatile, it is widely thought to be more accurate. But it has also shown much less employment growth since the most recent recession officially ended in November 2001.

Over that period, the establishment survey has tallied just 401,000 net new jobs. The household survey has counted more than 3.4 million jobs in that timeframe--629,000 of them in July alone.

Economists like Brian Wesbury of Chicago's Griffin, Kubik, Stephens and Thompson Inc. simply don't believe the establishment survey--and Bush administration officials hungry for more indications of job growth tend to side with them.

"We've had 11 quarters of 3.4 percent annualized GDP growth," Wesbury said. "We've had 4.8 percent annual growth in retail sales and record upon record in housing sales."

Wesbury speaks for others who question the data when he says that the payroll survey doesn't count self-employed workers or very small businesses--groups that have expanded in recent years.

But the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiles both surveys, says the payroll data are by far the more accurate of the two. And that lends weight to the argument that the economy has undergone profound structural changes that continue to limit new job creation and threaten to curtail the recovery.


While companies may be increasing their output and profits, restructuring means they can get by with far fewer workers.

Global competition from low-wage countries continues and there are other incentives to hire as few people as possible.

Tax incentives, for instance, still favor buying machines and other capital equipment over hiring new workers. And Wachovia Corp. chief economist John Silvia said that the cost of hiring people has become more and more prohibitive.

While the pace of wage growth has slowed over the past four years, he explained, the cost of benefits has increased rapidly.


so if that "less volative" and "more accurate" establishment survey is correct, all those jobs numbers for the past year or two have been incredibly inflated. on top of that, we're to find out that the high cost of benefits (which i'll bet are mostly health insurance) keep firms from hiring in large amounts.

then we have this quote:

Given the economy's growth over the last several years and the massive amount of stimulus thrown at it in the form of tax cuts and easy monetary policy, "it's shocking we're still having this difficult a time," said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Economy.com, an independent provider of economic research.


so:
1. bush blew the wad on an ineffective recovery
2. the job numbers are nowhere near what was thought
3. bush's poor health insurance policies (9 million lost health insurance since 2001) (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P91042.asp) keep people uninsured and businesses unable to provide it

nice.

[Neserk]

See... told you the economy wasn't in recovery. I kid you not, when I get hired, we'll be in recovery!


Hey, I was right about Bush screwing up the country wasn't I?

[IJ Reilly]

so if that "less volative" and "more accurate" establishment survey is correct, all those jobs numbers for the past year or two have been incredibly inflated. on top of that, we're to find out that the high cost of benefits (which i'll bet are mostly health insurance) keep firms from hiring in large amounts.

To repeat a prediction I make with tiresome regularity: We'll get universal health care when the corporations demand it, and not a day sooner.

[Neserk]

To repeat a prediction I make with tiresome regularity: We'll get universal health care when the corporations demand it, and not a day sooner.

I think you may well be right. It certainly makes sense.

[Colirio]

this surplus was a projected surplus, based on projected budget surpluses.
Of course the 4.6 trillion dollars was a projected surplus. I already stated it was a projected surplus over the next ten years. The majority of Bush's tax cuts would be pulled from the projected surplus over the next 10 years as well.

The reason that we haven't been running the projected surplus so far is because the economy WAS heading into a recession. That has past now and the economy is on the upswing. It is a little slower currently, but, it always has small dips and gains. The important part is that it keeps moving upwards over a period of time. (The economy that Bush inherited had already been in a downward slope during the last two years of Clinton's Presidency so to even blame a recession on Bush is preposterous.)

Zim, I understand what your example was saying. The difference between that and what Bush has done is that the tax cuts that were given spurred a failing economy. That creates more jobs, higher wages, and better benefits for people who are employed by those businesses who benefited from those tax cuts. That in turn boosts the economy which in turn means that more taxes can be collected since a higher dollar amount will be taxed the next time. It's called trickle down economics and it has worked every single time it has been tried. We can debate about it endlessly, but, the proof is in the pudding and has proven itself time and again.



You are speaking about things you know nothing about. Is that an insult, too?
Well, one thing I DO know is that your post is called TROLLING as it did nothing to further the topic at hand and was nothing more than an attempt to insult me. Last time I checked, trolling is contrary to the rules of this board. :)



Just FYI: Your surplus figure is off by about 4.5 trillion. Clinton left office with a record surplus of $230 billion. That is definitely impressive - the highest surplus in the history of our government - but you should get the number right.
I already stated that 4.6 trillion dollars was the projected 10 year surplus the same as the majority of Bush's tax cuts were projected figures as well. But, if you want to REALLY get into how the economy looked during the Clinton administration, you can go back and look at how the economy was already improving during the last 10 month's of Bush Senior's administration and also see how the economy was taking a dive the last two years of Clinton's presidency.

Also, how is government surplus considered to be a good thing? That means that we have paid too much to our government in taxes. Isn't that the basis upon which socialism is built is that government should collect more in order to redistribute it the way it sees fit? No thanks... I prefer freedom instead. :)



I hate it when people try to give Bush a pass on the debt/deficit because of 9/11.
Hey, I know what you mean! I hate it when people try to give a pass to Clinton for the economy during the last two years of his presidency by blaming it on Bush.



EDIT: On a side note, I have a question for you guys about this:
To repeat a prediction I make with tiresome regularity: We'll get universal health care when the corporations demand it, and not a day sooner.
I do recall one of John Kerry's campaign promises to be universal healthcare. Do you think it possible that he could deliver such a thing?

[zimv20]

It's called trickle down economics and it has worked every single time it has been tried. We can debate about it endlessly, but, the proof is in the pudding and has proven itself time and again.

you and i are done discussing macroeconomics. have a nice day.

[IJ Reilly]

I do recall one of John Kerry's campaign promises to be universal healthcare. Do you think it possible that he could deliver such a thing?

I don't know if it's possible in the current political environment, but it is necessary.

[Colirio]

you and i are done discussing macroeconomics. have a nice day.
Am I to assume that you are trying to make a statement in that you do not agree that trickle-down economics works? Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)


I don't know if it's possible in the current political environment, but it is necessary.
I was just curious as to how he could even go about it. While I do not agree in its necessity, I was mostly concerned over whether or not it was possible.

[IJ Reilly]

I was just curious as to how he could even go about it. While I do not agree in its necessity, I was mostly concerned over whether or not it was possible.

Well, since every other industrialized nation on the face of the planet has figured out how to do it, I should think we Americans might just be clever and resourceful enough to find a way.

I don't know how Kerry plans on building a coalition to make it happen. The way the political deck is stacked now, I believe it's virtually impossible.

[Thanatoast]

I was just curious as to how he could even go about it. While I do not agree in its necessity, I was mostly concerned over whether or not it was possible.Isn't he rolling back Bush's tax cuts on the top 2% to pay for his plan? What I don't know is who this covers. Just the currently uninsured, or everyone? Does anyone know more about this plan?

As for necessity, we don't need it just because everyone else has it, but because it would free up a huge amount of private money to be spent on other things, like jobs or goods and services.

[IJ Reilly]

No, not just because everyone else does it -- but because everybody else does it because not doing it makes no sense at all.

[wwworry]

Zim, I understand what your example was saying. The difference between that and what Bush has done is that the tax cuts that were given spurred a failing economy. That creates more jobs, higher wages, and better benefits for people who are employed by those businesses who benefited from those tax cuts. That in turn boosts the economy which in turn means that more taxes can be collected since a higher dollar amount will be taxed the next time. It's called trickle down economics and it has worked every single time it has been tried. We can debate about it endlessly, but, the proof is in the pudding and has proven itself time and again.

Sorry, I don't ever recall trickle-down working. Could you provide some proof?
The criteria for a successful economy would be lack of deficits, more jobs, higher wages for EVERYONE.

I mention deficits because anyone can live well on a credit card.
Jobs, no brainer.
Higher real wages, no brainer.

[Lyle]

When I post in ALL CAPS that I have a teaching job with benefits THEN we will know the economy is improving. In the meantime, the economy sucks.That is like a garbage man saying the economy isn't improving unless the city starts paying garbage men more money.

The economy isn't just one job or field.But it is to Neserk, and to anyone else who's currently unemployed. That is to say, when it comes to economic issues, I couldn't care less if X number of jobs were created this month if I didn't get one of them. In the school where my wife teaches, enrollment is up this year and so several new teachers were hired; I bet those folks are pretty pumped right now (*). But that good news for those people doesn't make Neserk feel any better about her situation, does it?

(*) Well, as pumped as a teacher can feel during the first full week back to school. ;)

[Desertrat]

Re TrickleDown: Governmental income increased steadily through the Reagan tenure, which means more taxes were collected which means there was increasing economic activity. Increased economic activity means more jobs created so more folks were employed and getting paid. You can call all this "trickle down" if you want, I don't care. It sure beat the heck out of the preceding 15% inflation and interest rates. Reagan's folks' policies hurt me a bit, with my pool-hall-sized penny-ante entrepreneurial hustling, but it sure helped my mother's fixed income. I voted her billfold, not mine. All I had to do was hustle a bit harder...

This so-called "recovery" derived from increased spending. Folks aren't asking whence came the money. It is reported that a lot of it has come from refinancing of homes ("refi") and from selling an inflated-value home and moving to a less costly area. That money has bought a lot of SUVs and consumer "stuff". And, ultra-low interest rates have led to low payments for more house--which means more work per house for builders--which means more payroll. It ain't the Ides of March of which to beware; it's a four-percent federal funds rate.

Cost of employees: Not only the health insurance benefit. I read a couple of days ago that the cost per car to FoMoCo for retirement benefits is $1,900. FWIW, FoMoCo spends more on health insurance than it does on steel for its cars.

Neserk, if you can't find a job where you are, you can always move. Or change your career field if you really believe moving is not an option. But don't keep crying about the problem. Nowhere is it written that some local school district is gonna hug your neck and whisper in your ear, "Come teach for us."

I left a mechanical engineering job at Chevrolet's test lab in Detroit because my wife was unhappy with Detroit. Found an electrical engineering job in Austintatious for a year; went on to civil engineering for eleven years and then wound up in environmental engineering for four years. Then I just dropped out and hustled. You just gotta develop your own shtick.

:), 'Rat

[mischief]

Have there been any figured offsetting the GDP with gross consumer debt? I know that there is an INSANE level of consumer debt out there.... The numbers were in the range of $20,000.00 per person (18-35) last I checked just for credit card debt.

Around here the "average" home cost is in the $480,000.00 (Yup, USD... you read it right folks). The mortgages folks are taking are of the fourty year or longer, non-fixed-rate variety. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest over a span that may easily outlive the owners.

Consider also the likelihood that much of this money is generated by accumulating an economic vacuum in the place where it could do the most dammage. Consider also that a significant lump of this debt-born capital could be what's propping up wallstreet and consumer spending numbers.

Trickledown economics.... BAH! This is building a Castle using limestone quarried from beneath the walls' foundations.

The best lampoon of Trickledown I ever saw was SNL, They had a Bum begging on a curb, two yuppies come along and explain the whole thing to him. He sits through it looking bewildered as they tell him that he'll soon have a better job than the one he had before he was homeless because they could spend more money buying Yachts and upgrading their summer house in the Hamptons. The Bum delivers the punchline thusly:

" Let me get this straight... I sit here in the gutter.... in the rain... and you rich folks go up (Setting was New Year's Eve) and Party yourselves silly.... And eventually you come back by and I get trickled on?"

To which the yuppies emphatically agree and go on up to their party.

As to true Single Payer....

To all of you who insist it isn't possible for a variety of reasons and think that such a system can't possibly deliver top notch healthcare...

Talk to anyone in the Millitary. Talk to anyone in California who lost their income just in time to discover a Pregnancy. Talk to the Senators who have one of the most comprehensive healthcare packages going.

Now ask yourself: Has corporate competition made things better for you in other fields: Banking? Airlines? Petroleum? Insurance (of all kinds)?

Or are you routinely screwed with because you're dealing with organizations who are more interested in squeezing the most capital out of you before you get fed up and go to their slightly differently run offbrand company?

Yes, I'm jaded. In fact I'm PISSED. It seems that folks in this country seem to think it's somehow a benefit to be routinely screwed by corporations who have ZERO interest in the wellbeing of their clients so long as they don't sue.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, I'm jaded. In fact I'm PISSED. It seems that folks in this country seem to think it's somehow a benefit to be routinely screwed by corporations who have ZERO interest in the wellbeing of their clients so long as they don't sue.

Great rant. You saved me a lot of typing.

[Leo Hubbard]

Sorry, I don't ever recall trickle-down working. Could you provide some proof?
The criteria for a successful economy would be lack of deficits, more jobs, higher wages for EVERYONE.

I mention deficits because anyone can live well on a credit card.
Jobs, no brainer.
Higher real wages, no brainer.
higher wages for EVERYONE equals higher prices for EVERYONE and they raise the level of income that defines poverty to maintain the status quo, so bad logic. The way to offset this is increased productivity, that way the stuff becomes cheaper for the consumer without requiring lower wages to make it cheap enough for the consumer to purchase. Of course, that would require employers to have EXTRA money to spend on R&D in order to figure out ways to increase production without increasing the cost per item manufactured.

Trickle-down works this way --- Rich people higher poor people to work for them, poor people don't higher rich people to work for them. Rich people waste money on things like 300 - 2000 dollar per window blinds. Poor people make them, and take the money from the rich people who have too much to spend it wisely. ie a good method for redistribution of wealth is find out what these rich people are willing to pay for and then go make it and sell it to them, then you become a rich person. :D

[skunk]

a good method for redistribution of wealth is find out what these rich people are willing to pay for and then go make it and sell it to them, then you become a rich person. :D
Or you just become another arse-licking, oppressive, co-dependent co-conspirator in the Society of the Spectacle™

Whoops! Slipped into Rant mode. <adjusts Rhetoric Preferences panel>. Ahh! That's better!

[mischief]

higher wages for EVERYONE equals higher prices for EVERYONE and they raise the level of income that defines poverty to maintain the status quo, so bad logic. The way to offset this is increased productivity, that way the stuff becomes cheaper for the consumer without requiring lower wages to make it cheap enough for the consumer to purchase. Of course, that would require employers to have EXTRA money to spend on R&D in order to figure out ways to increase production without increasing the cost per item manufactured.

Trickle-down works this way --- Rich people higher poor people to work for them, poor people don't higher rich people to work for them. Rich people waste money on things like 300 - 2000 dollar per window blinds. Poor people make them, and take the money from the rich people who have too much to spend it wisely. ie a good method for redistribution of wealth is find out what these rich people are willing to pay for and then go make it and sell it to them, then you become a rich person. :D

The hole in your logic (That I will pass the following starsystem through) is that both assumptions are based on a closed economic system in which all the economic principals of supply and demand are present in one nation, evenly distributed with no subsidies or corruption.

Currently Trickledown is syphoning money out of the middle and (growing) lower class in the USA because the money that "should" be "trickling down" isn't going to American workers, it's going to Executive bonuses and out-of-country workers.

You're also assuming that the traditional method for calculating inflation is the only manner it can exist, ie: wages AND prices go up because the system is closed. In an open system the only way to keep things from degenerating in a rich nation that's hemmorhaging cash into poorer nations is to RAISE the number of consumers able to spend larger amounts of money on the service jobs held by other AMERICANS. This raises the cost of Services via the traditional model but the cost of materials and goods goes down. The net result is that more people can live better lives by having more money.

[IJ Reilly]

You have to understand, trickle-down is an ideal theory for the crypto-libertarian market force mystics. They believe that everyone is rewarded economically in precise proportion to their value to society. So if CEOs now earn 500 times more than the average employee at their company, then this is the most perfect economic justice that can ever be achieved on this mortal plane. Trickle-down closes the public policy loop by making certain that people down the line don't get more than they deserve. Whatever manages to trickle down to those poor slobs at the bottom is all they should get. So sayeth the all-knowing, all-seeing oracle of the economy, and anyone who doesn't accept it is an apostate before the market gods.

[mischief]

You have to understand, trickle-down is an ideal theory for the crypto-libertarian market force mystics. They believe that everyone is rewarded economically in precise proportion to their value to society. So if CEOs now earn 500 times more than the average employee at their company, then this is the most perfect economic justice that can ever be achieved on this mortal plane. Trickle-down closes the public policy loop by making certain that people down the line don't get more than they deserve. Whatever manages to trickle down to those poor slobs at the bottom is all they should get. So sayeth the all-knowing, all-seeing oracle of the economy, and anyone who doesn't accept it is an apostate before the market gods.

Mine is the Temple of Supply and Demand seen in the context of the reality of total global market forces and steeped in the incense of long term growth.

[skunk]

Shouldn't this be in the Religious Fundamentalist Forum? :rolleyes:

[mischief]

Shouldn't this be in the Religious Fundamentalist Forum? :rolleyes:

I may get to use my Anti-Zealot gun yet!!!

(Unlimbers MASSIVE, cartoon style assault rifle and goes sprinting off in the direction of the Search button) :D ;)

[skunk]

Just turn sharp right, and it's straight in front of you... ;)

[Colirio]

As long as the government keeps increasing its taxes on these companies, they will continue to outsource these jobs. The answer here is obviously to give these companies tax relief here in our own country. This in turn keeps them here which keeps the jobs here, too.

Deny it all you want, but, the large businesses and those "evil rich people" are the ones who give employment to the lower income people and also provide the products that we use. If the government is going to continue taking large sums of money from them, they are going to continue to outsource.

If you start taxing them heavier for their outsourcing as John Kerry is proposing, yes, they will continue to keep their companies here. BUT, in order to compensate for lost profits, they are going to increase the prices for manufacturing their products. This creates a terrible inflation in our economy. It will also be especially bad as eventually the other way to gain a better profit margin is to cut the wages their employees receive. So, now you have inflation AND layoffs, lower wages, etc.

This is exactly what happened under Clinton and this is exactly why the economy took a dive the last two years of his Presidency. Bush gave taxes back to the American people however and therefore gave the companies the extra they needed to be able to lower prices on their products. As this happens, they will sell MORE products which in turn will increase the demand and thereby resut in more job creation.


There is just one result of where trickle-down economics has worked.

[zimv20]

As long as the government keeps increasing its taxes on these companies, they will continue to outsource these jobs.
is it your feeling that, over the past 50 years, the corporations' share of the overall tax burden has increased or decreased? (i.e. individuals make up the rest)

[Colirio]

There is a fundamental difference between our beliefs right there.

I believe that the government needs to dwell within its means and that everyone will be taxed equally by using an equal percentage. When I hear the term "paying their fair share", I believe the only way to maintain freedom AND equality is to create an equal percentage across the board.


Just a question as to the meaning of your question, though. When you say, "the corporations' share of the overall tax burden", are you asking if they HAVE paid more or less or that they SHOULD BE paying more or less? I wasn't sure what you meant by "share of the overall burden."

[IJ Reilly]

He's asking you whether you believe the share of overall taxes paid by corporations has increased or decreased. He's not stating an opinion,

[mischief]

So these companies and bigwigs.....

Are these the same ones that have recently come to light as having so many tax shelters in place (thanx to copious loopholes) that they paid almost NO taxes last year?

Are you aware that since the early part of the last century Corporations have paid less taxes every year while screaming the whole time that they were being taxed to death?

Are you aware also that over that same period the compensation packages for board members and Executives have grown exponentially while costs for production have dropped through the floor thanks to open labor markets in the third world?

Are you cognizant that with Manufacturing outsourced there is NO RELATIONAL EFFECT between American wages and the cost of goods?

Did you read any of my previous posts?

Are you aware that Americans who earn the least per year pay the highest portion of their earnings in taxes, even if Corporations are included?

Are you aware also that most of the jobs out there are kept at almost exactly the minimum wage (which puts you well below the official Poverty Line BTW) while keeping workers to less than the required number of hours to be elligible for bennefits?


How can you defend such an obviously Caste based economic model?

Have you compared Trickledown to Feudalism? the economics are nearly identical.

[Colirio]

In the last 50 years? I am assuming that you mean the percentages of what the government collects from individuals versus what they collect from businesses. (IE what percentage of that lump some is comprised of taxes from businesses)


That being the case, it probably has decreased. I am honestly just guessing though without looking up any figures. The reason I am guessing that way is because the taxation of individuals has increased DRASTICALLY since that time. I would assume to compensate for much of the inflation that wasn't covered by business taxation. Anyhow, just a guess...


If so, it proves my fundamental argument about the government needing to dwell within its means rather than increasing taxes to take on more programs. Because if you compare how MUCH more the individuals are having to pay now versus then, it proves that rather than living within its means, the government is forcing the citizenry to live within ITS means.


EDIT:
Are you cognizant that with Manufacturing outsourced there is NO RELATIONAL EFFECT between American wages and the cost of goods?
Simply not true. The product is cheaper to produce. Therefore, it is sold for a cheaper price. Therefore, American wholesalers can import and sell the products for a cheaper price. This is proven by the VAST numbers of products that have been manufactured in China and sold for much less than American made products.


How can you defend such an obviously Caste based economic model? Have you compared Trickledown to Feudalism? the economics are nearly identical.
And the socialist economics that would be the contrary to them ARE those of communism. What's your point? It's capitalism versus socialism here. One maintains a free nation and treats everyone equally while the other forces its people to BE equal. By all means, tell me which one our country was founded upon...


To increase taxes on these companies WILL cause them to outsource further. If you create tax penalties for outsourcing, they WILL raise the costs of their products and drive up inflation in return. The idea of increasing taxes on them simply will not work.

[zimv20]

In the last 50 years? I am assuming that you mean the percentages of what the government collects from individuals versus what they collect from businesses. (IE what percentage of that lump some is comprised of taxes from businesses)

That being the case, it probably has decreased.
that is correct.

[IJ Reilly]

that is correct.

Except for the "probably" part.

[Colirio]

Well, as I said, I took a guess at it so I could not say with assurity that it was so. That's why the "probably" is in there.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, as I said, I took a guess at it so I could not say with assurity that it was so. That's why the "probably" is in there.

Like a lot things we discuss here, guessing is not necessary when the facts are simple enough to obtain.

[mischief]

In the last 50 years? I am assuming that you mean the percentages of what the government collects from individuals versus what they collect from businesses. (IE what percentage of that lump some is comprised of taxes from businesses)


That being the case, it probably has decreased. I am honestly just guessing though without looking up any figures. The reason I am guessing that way is because the taxation of individuals has increased DRASTICALLY since that time. I would assume to compensate for much of the inflation that wasn't covered by business taxation. Anyhow, just a guess...


If so, it proves my fundamental argument about the government needing to dwell within its means rather than increasing taxes to take on more programs. Because if you compare how MUCH more the individuals are having to pay now versus then, it proves that rather than living within its means, the government is forcing the citizenry to live within ITS means.


Simply not true. The product is cheaper to produce. Therefore, it is sold for a cheaper price. Therefore, American wholesalers can import and sell the products for a cheaper price. This is proven by the VAST numbers of products that have been manufactured in China and sold for much less than American made products.



And the socialist economics that would be the contrary to them ARE those of communism. What's your point? It's capitalism versus socialism here. One maintains a free nation and treats everyone equally while the other forces its people to BE equal. By all means, tell me which one our country was founded upon...


To increase taxes on these companies WILL cause them to outsource further. If you create tax penalties for outsourcing, they WILL raise the costs of their products and drive up inflation in return. The idea of increasing taxes on them simply will not work.

Perhaps we're singing differing octaves of the same tune.

I feel that the existing structure of taxation, tariffs, stimulus packages, corporatized essential services and subsidies is not only fundamentally flawed but runs contrary to Constitutional doctrine.

I believe that taxing the poor more than the rich (IE: If I make 30,000/Yr. the percentage of that 30K going to taxes is higher than those earning 300,000/Yr. as compared to that 300K) is not only morally corrupt but serves to create and re-enforce a caste system that can only create an ever more exaggerated dichotamy between the rights of the rich and the rights of the poor.

I believe that the "sky-is-falling" arguement of inflationary doom is outdated and ignores fundamental market truths ie:

Inflation is based on the tie between pay and the cost of goods produced by workers paid.

IF the cost of manufacturing has been cut loose from the pay/cost cycle of the market purchasing products....

THAN the above rule is no longer directly valid and must be removed as the primary motivator for legislation.

QED

Now in terms of relating the idea of taxes paying for essential services like Health and Auto insurance...

It's a stretch to call such practices Communist. It's more of a stretch to imply that they are Bolshevic. The Communist model, both as it was theorized and as it was enacted assume that the GDP is controlled and utilized centrally, redistributing moneys to support this or that part of the national infrastructure. It's a bit like saying that anything with a vascular system is automatically a Mammal.

When did I ever say that companies should be penalized for outsourcing?

I said that Health care and other essential services should be centralized because they fall into fundamental elements of " Life, Libery and the pursuit of Happiness" from the Declaration (which is often seen as the Preamble to the Preamble) as well as "The General Welfare" of the Preamble and several others.

I believe that the only way to get this mess sorted out is to take a radical departure from the existing morass of legislation around both taxes and essential services.

I'll put out an idea I've been toying with as an example of an approach that's more in keeping with existing economic realities:

1% taxation of the average net worth of any economic calculated once a year using the total records for that year.

Further, rather than removing that money from the economy it is put in trust for the duration of that year and the total moneys are borrowed against to establish a budget. This provides a solution that is fair, ballanced, guarantees that Government cannot become out of proportion with productivity because it's budget is based directly on GDP and the factors that go into calculating the relative value of the Dollar.

Each portion borrowed against is transparently split into portions for a simple set of budgetary priorities. Each entity recieves a detailed manifest of where it's respective collateral is used.

To assure that essential services can be had in a fair manner the things that contribute disproportunate load on those services must be 1: legal 2: regulated for quality/purity/etc. and 3: TAXED. This means sales taxes on Alcohol, mind altering substances, gambling, prostitution, tobacco, etc for Medical and other "life and limb" insurances. It means taxation on motor vehicles, gas, etc for roads. Again a fairly minimal tax to supplement the primary funds and again applied to a personal Federal Collateral acount.

Since the elderly use far less of these high impact services their accumulated sales tax collateral could be used as a retirement IRA and for family leave, maternity, etc.

I must also point out that I have one Canadian and one American parent, having spent 1/3 of my life in Canada.

[Desertrat]

mischief said, "Are you aware that Americans who earn the least per year pay the highest portion of their earnings in taxes, even if Corporations are included?"

I don't see how. If I'm a minimum-wage guy/gal, and have a kid and get the IRS child-care-credit package including the money-back deal, I'm not only paying no taxes at all, but I'm getting money from the gummint.

Back to trickle-down for a moment: It seems to mean different things to different people. My point in my first post was that the economy and the federal income both increased during Reagan's tenure. Them's facts, not opinions. Now, if his economic policies were the so-called "trickle-down", trickle-down HAD to have worked. How else would there have been more money moving around to be taxed?

Remember, after 1981 inflation fell dramatically. Prices stabilized, yet the economy grew. Under such conditions, there must have been more jobs created in order for tax-take to go up.

So call it what you want; things improved in the U.S. for the vast majority of all those employed. And there'll never be 100% wonderful times for 100% of the populace. That'll never happen. You can try to minimize the pain for that economic bottom 10%, but there will always be those who cannot truly benefit and be self-independent. It ain't worthwhile focussing exclusively on them and ignoring the good things.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Back to trickle-down for a moment: It seems to mean different things to different people. My point in my first post was that the economy and the federal income both increased during Reagan's tenure. Them's facts, not opinions. Now, if his economic policies were the so-called "trickle-down", trickle-down HAD to have worked. How else would there have been more money moving around to be taxed?

Remember, after 1981 inflation fell dramatically. Prices stabilized, yet the economy grew. Under such conditions, there must have been more jobs created in order for tax-take to go up.

A rising tide does not necessarily raise all boats. Taxable income can increase without economic growth doing much if anything for people below the middle, or even in the middle. This year is another example of growth in the economy failing to have much impact on employment or wage growth. Expect tax-take to increase dramatically this year anyway, if only because people had a good year in the stock market in 2003. Don't equate that with the production of jobs, though.

In fact trickle-down theory is a way of rationalizing giving the lion's share to people at the top of the economic ladder in hopes that they'll spend and invest in ways that eventually provide economic benefits to the less-well off. There's absolutely no guarantee of this occurring, and little evidence that it actually does.

The stabilization of inflation after 1981 had little if anything to do with Reaganomics.

[Leo Hubbard]

In fact trickle-down theory is a way of rationalizing giving the lion's share to people at the top of the economic ladder in hopes that they'll spend and invest in ways that eventually provide economic benefits to the less-well off. There's absolutely no guarantee of this occurring, and little evidence that it actually does.

The stabilization of inflation after 1981 had little if anything to do with Reaganomics.
Giving ****, taking. They aren't giving the rich anything they are taking less from the rich. The government isn't giving anything to the rich, the tax cuts simply allows those who earn their own money to decide how to spend their own money instead of taking it from them at the point of a gun and giving it to someone else.

And why do there need to be any ****ing guarantees that the poor benefits? Why should one person be automatically guaranteed to benefit from the work of another, unless they are the one paying them to work?

[mischief]

However without that credit you'd be feeling it pretty significantly.

What worries me is that such traditional metrics are becoming less reliable as taxation becomes more convoluted.

After digging a bit I find some interesting reading.... This makes me question things a bit:

http://www.house.gov/jec/tax.htm



This next link is an excellent analysis of the situation that seems to reach the following conclusion: American society perpetuates striation and income inequality regardless of governmental intervention.

http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2002/income.htm#7


After reading these two papers I can only conclude that it is the enormous body of "spun" data (I must here admit my own complicity in such spin-based behaviour) that leverages the fears, greed and hopelessness that lead to such striation.

An important observation at the end of the second paper is that in the USA Job Creation shows significant likelihood of being a major culprit in that with a dearth of jobs in the lower third of the skills/qualification scale the value of each job is reduced significantly. This is an interesting development in that it creates exactly the situation I've found most personaly alarming: Once you're in that bottom third it's pretty hard to find time while working your butt off to go to school and earn qualifications for a higher-strata job.

I suppose that in light of these papers if I want to further the cause of a less striated society I should be arguing for a more stramlined and effective educational system as this seems to be one of the only really significant Governmentally-actable influences on potential earnings.

[mischief]

And why do there need to be any ****ing guarantees that the poor benefits? Why should one person be automatically guaranteed to benefit from the work of another, unless they are the one paying them to work?

I'll take that to mean that you question providing services (like health care) to the poor because you believe that their station and earnings are (only) proportunate to their motivation and work ethic (IE: the poor are poor because they choose to be).

I'll answer thusly:

Although many prominant figures in American history (Ben Franklyn et al) were at essence elitist, the "American Dream" that keeps the population motivated to better themselves was concieved by Idealist Populists like Adams. The cultural belief at the basis of the American persona is that every American has an unaleable right to live, live free and pursue their dreams.

In this light it is argued that those who cannot afford essential services like Health Care are being denied one or more of those unaleable rights by the inaction of a system that's mission statement is to represent and support them.

Without some form of user friendly support those who are otherwise in a position to advance lose hope and fall out the bottom of the system.

When "Support the General Welfare" is in the Preamble to the Constitution you actually do have to think in more compassionate terms.

[Leo Hubbard]

I'll take that to mean that you question providing services (like health care) to the poor because you believe that their station and earnings are (only) proportunate to their motivation and work ethic (IE: the poor are poor because they choose to be).


No I don't mean that at all.
I mean it isn't fair to take money that someone else has earned and give it to the poor just because they are poor. Actually everything in moderation, but we are past overkill here need to drop everyone's taxes down below 30% at least.

[mischief]

No I don't mean that at all.
I mean it isn't fair to take money that someone else has earned and give it to the poor just because they are poor. Actually everything in moderation, but we are past overkill here need to drop everyone's taxes down below 30% at least.

We come to a place where you make 1 point in 2 that I agree with. It's insane for ANYONE to pay a third of their income in taxes.

In terms of wanting to prosecute William Tell....

I think you're oversimplifying a tad. It's not as simple as one person is taxed to pay another. It's a matter of (as it exists presently) everyone being taxed for emergency services like mediCal or paying into things like Unemployment Insurance or Social Security.

Do you have a problem with how commercial Insurance works? It's the same fundamental model: Everyone pays in at a level that can suport the fact that some people need little or no help while others need a lot of help.

Saying the poor don't deserve help is like saying (in the private medical sector) that Athsmatics don't deserve treatment because the condition is chronic and pre-existing. It's like saying smokers don't get covered for Cancer treatment. It's like saying that unplanned or out of wedlock pregnancies don't get prenatal care or birthing services.

You really should think about the ramifications of your views Leo. It's a big world out there where some people start with less and others with more . There is no denying the inequality of that. Just as it cannot be ignored that sometimes you can do all you possibly can to succeed and life still kicks your ass. There's no such thing as a perfect system Leo. All we can do is work towards one that's compassionate, humane and best creates an environment in which anyone can succeed if they try hard enough.

[Leo Hubbard]

Do you have a problem with how commercial Insurance works? It's the same fundamental model: Everyone pays in at a level that can suport the fact that some people need little or no help while others need a lot of help.


I don't carry health insurance. I figure the way they make their money is they are betting I won't need it. That by buying it I only win out if I need it, and why pay for something I'm not actually using. I pay 100 bucks a year for AAA, in return I get towed free of charge 4 times a 200-300 dollar value and a service I actually use. Medical Insurance wants me to pay over 300 bucks a month, for something I never use. It would be smarter to put 300 bucks a month into a savings account. If you can afford to pay for medical insurance you can afford to save instead.

The problem is it is not fair for those who need little or no help to be overcharged so they can pay for those who need more. It is not a good investment for the individual being overcharged. Better they keep their own money and invest it in the stock market.

[Leo Hubbard]

It's like saying smokers don't get covered for Cancer treatment. It's like saying that unplanned or out of wedlock pregnancies don't get prenatal care or birthing services.


Why should someone be covered for being stupid? Why should someone be covered for screwing themselves? Why should the government be protecting people from themselves? That sounds just plain stupid to me. Why should those who don't do stupid things like the above be responsible to reward or pay for those who do? The reward for not doing stupid things like the above is being able to keep more of your own money to spend on other things.

[Neserk]

I don't carry health insurance. I figure the way they make their money is they are betting I won't need it. That by buying it I only win out if I need it, and why pay for something I'm not actually using. I pay 100 bucks a year for AAA, in return I get towed free of charge 4 times a 200-300 dollar value and a service I actually use. Medical Insurance wants me to pay over 300 bucks a month, for something I never use. It would be smarter to put 300 bucks a month into a savings account. If you can afford to pay for medical insurance you can afford to save instead.

The problem is it is not fair for those who need little or no help to be overcharged so they can pay for those who need more. It is not a good investment for the individual being overcharged. Better they keep their own money and invest it in the stock market.

You are gambling. I had emergency surgery for a condition I didn't know I had when I was uninsured (not by choice). Cost? $26,000!

My sister and her husband went through a transition when they had to Cobra... he ended up in the ER having his appendix removed. Had they not cobra'd it would have probably been close to the same amount of money as my insurance.

My dad has been out of work for about 6 months. If he hadn't Cobra'd they'd lost all of their 401k retirement. He got a rare syndrome (GBS, for short) that he miraculously recovered from in a short period of time (4-6 weeks) but that often takes 6 months to recover from if you ever recover. The cost of his
hospital stay, treament, and rehab cost well over $100,000.

[zimv20]

ah, let him put it in the stock market, neserk. he probably picks his own stocks, which means it'll end up in my account sooner or later.

come to think of it, w/ my healthcare unit investment trust, i get his money that way, too.

i get leo's money either way.

[Neserk]

ah, let him put it in the stock market, neserk. he probably picks his own stocks, which means it'll end up in my account sooner or later.

come to think of it, w/ my healthcare unit investment trust, i get his money that way, too.

i get leo's money either way.


LOL... but when he is rushed to the hospital in an Ambulance with an appendicitis he can't say I didn't warn him :D

[IJ Reilly]

LOL... but when he is rushed to the hospital in an Ambulance with an appendicitis he can't say I didn't warn him :D

No, but guess who'll foot the bill if he doesn't happen to have $20-30k laying around.

[mischief]

No, but guess who'll foot the bill if he doesn't happen to have $20-30k laying around.

The poor? :eek:

JK

I think it'd be educational for you to look at what the average emergency room stay, ambulance ride or inpatient treatment costs Leo. That 300 a month looks pretty good when you get 4 or 5 bills totalling tens of thousands of dollars for what you thought was a simple pit-stop.

I find it a bit disturbing that you have a fundamental problem with co-operative mechanisms. You do realize that we are a social creature whose evolution never designed to function alone... right?

BTW: If you are so adverse to pooling resources... how can you still support corporations, stock exchanges, banking, marriage, nations, the millitary, the police or any political party? Or for that matter: Families?

If we're going to look at spin, facts and hipocrisy here we need to really look at such questions.

[mactastic]

No, but guess who'll foot the bill if he doesn't happen to have $20-30k laying around.

And when Leo doesn't have that kind of money laying around what happens? The hospital has to put him on a payment plan at best if he doesn't just skip out on the bill. As a result the hospital now has to make up for the cost they incurred without Leo's revenue coming in. Not very fair, is it? I wonder how Leo feels about people who eat at a restaurant and then announce that they have no money to pay for the rather extravagant meal they just ate?

So what would Leo rather do? Be left to die in the street if something goes badly for him, or carry health insurance? The only fair thing for him to do would be to refuse the ride to the hospital, and any medical care offered beyond what he can pay for or finance on credit. Why should he bring down the overall level of care available at a hospital if he can't pay for it?

[mischief]

So what would Leo rather do? Be left to die in the street if something goes badly for him, or carry health insurance? The only fair thing for him to do would be to refuse the ride to the hospital, and any medical care offered beyond what he can pay for or finance on credit. Why should he bring down the overall level of care available at a hospital if he can't pay for it?

Most likely the Ambulance crew would decide that he's altered (cuz he'd refuse treatment and likely be raving about something) and therefore not rational, strap his ass to a backboard and take him in anyway.

[IJ Reilly]

It's like that commercial, where the road is created right in front of the speeding car. That's the way some people think the health care system ought to work.

[mactastic]

Most likely the Ambulance crew would decide that he's altered (cuz he'd refuse treatment and likely be raving about something) and therefore not rational, strap his ass to a backboard and take him in anyway.

And I'd end up paying for his lack of personal responsibility. :mad: