Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
jessica. said:
Good point, but what if you bring something more to the table than the next person? Say I have three degrees one of them is an advanced degree. Should I be paid the same? What if what I can do isn't the same as the next person? So I should get $100 a day for taking out the trash while someone gets $100 for saving people's lives?


Why work at all when you can make your money work for you. Why earn $100 a day to take out trash, or for brain surgery when you can easily earn $100 a day staying in bed and going play golf in the afternoon.

The best thing about capitalism, is that capital is where the most money is to be made, not actually doing any work, working's for suckers.
 
killr_b said:
Not quite!!!!!

It's called original thinking. Give it a shot.

Well then spell it out, right here. Until then, I think I'll continue believing the economists who study this stuff...
 
n-abounds said:
Ironically, the US pays farmers to destroy their crops so that the farmers won't starve
Sushi said:
Reference please.
n-abounds said:
To what? It's well known the US pays farmers not to produce. This keeps up prices of agricultural goods, which makes farmers better off. The farmers have lobbied for this, and it's a very hard policy to overturn.
Hey bubba, before you start spouting off inaccuracies, you might want to do a little research.

Farmers enrolled in certain programs are paid to not grow crops in the first place as part of crop rotation and soil conservation. It is a stringent programs and you must qualify each year.

As for your completely inappropriate comment about farmers starving which is why they receive funds, that is completely inaccurate. The real issue is keeping farmers from producing too much and wearing out the soil. Crop rotation and soil conservation is very important in the long run.

Another issue to consider is taxes. There are a huge number of different taxes in the production of the final products that you purchase at your local food store. For example, from raw wheat to a loaf of bread there is something over 220 different taxes on the various parts of the production stream. This raises the price of goods. Farmers themselves see a fraction of the final price that you pay at the food store.

Also, if you really believe food prices are expensive in the US, you might want to check out some other countries and the cost of similar products.
 
sushi said:
Hey bubba, before you start spouting off inaccuracies, you might want to do a little research.

Farmers enrolled in certain programs are paid to not grow crops in the first place as part of crop rotation and soil conservation. It is a stringent programs and you must qualify each year.

As for your completely inappropriate comment about farmers starving which is why they receive funds, that is completely inaccurate. The real issue is keeping farmers from producing too much and wearing out the soil. Crop rotation and soil conservation is very important in the long run.

Another issue to consider is taxes. There are a huge number of different taxes in the production of the final products that you purchase at your local food store. For example, from raw wheat to a loaf of bread there is something over 220 different taxes on the various parts of the production stream. This raises the price of goods. Farmers themselves see a fraction of the final price that you pay at the food store.

Also, if you really believe food prices are expensive in the US, you might want to check out some other countries and the cost of similar products.

I never said half of the things that you just brought up. Food prices are not expensive- they are just higher than they otherwise would be if there were no subsidies to farmers. Farmers have lobbied for these subsidies, and received them. During the Great Depression, crops were burnt to keep up the price of agricultural products- despite people starving. The comment about keeping farmers from starving wasn't quite meant literally...I just mean that farmers lobbied for the subsidies to enable them to keep their land and their jobs, which indirectly keeps them from starving.

As seen here, from Wikipedia.org's "great depression" article:
"New Deal programs sought to stimulate demand and provide work and relief for the impoverished through increased government spending, by: cutting farm production so as to raise prices and make it possible to earn a living in farming (done by the AAA and successor farm programs)"

Many of those programs are still in effect. The environmental aspect does have something to do with it, but there are extremely high subsidies for agricultural products. If you read up, you'll see why it's highly controversial.
 
n-abounds said:
To what? It's well known the US pays farmers not to produce. This keeps up prices of agricultural goods, which makes farmers better off.

References as in "please show us some documentation from reputable sources"

Not an attack on your ideas, but what concept of crop rotation do you not understand.

What you're saying, that farmers are paid subsidies solely to keep food prices higher, sounds more like a conspiracy theory than an accurate model of American (or any nation's) agricultural industry.

n-abounds said:
Many of those programs are still in effect. The environmental aspect does have something to do with it, but there are extremely high subsidies for agricultural products. If you read up, you'll see why it's highly controversial.

Only to those who do not understand what crop rotation actually is. It's not so much environmental protection, as it is maintaining the ability to grow crops.
 
The Mad Kiwi said:
The best thing about capitalism, is that capital is where the most money is to be made, not actually doing any work, working's for suckers.

That's exactly the problem. The whole premise is crap. Hard work should be rewarded, and capitalism is a marginal system for achieving that.
 
miloblithe said:
That's exactly the problem. The whole premise is crap. Hard work should be rewarded, and capitalism is a marginal system for achieving that.

And what system is more so?
 
When you look at wealth, you also have to look at happiness. While money can buy you happiness if you don't have enough for basic neccessities, it does nothing beyond that point because we get habituated to the joys of spending. This is why studies have found that the wealthy are only marginally happier than the poor, and that even though the US has gained in wealth and living conditions over the last 50 years, people are no more happier than they were back then, when not everyone had a washing machine, fridge, or a MBP :). I think people should be concentrating less on buying status symbols as a way of becoming happy and focus more on developing what matters more in life--friendships, family and vacations. The first 2 are free, and the last one gives you priceless memories.
 
miloblithe said:
sushi,

What about import tariffs and quotas, and export subsidies? Those are taxes on American consumers paid to farmers. (Of course, plenty of countries are far worse--or better depending on your point of view--on this front.)

http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/bychapter/index.htm
miloblithe Thanks for the article. Unfortunately, I cannot get to that site from home.

Here's one for you to ponder from the Japanese perspective. The US was trying to force the Japanese to accept American grown lettuce. The Japanese applied their own tariff/quota system. They left it on the dock awaiting inspection until the product was no longer in shape for human consumption.

So I guess there are many ways to skin a cat as they say.

Having grown up on the farm, I know what it takes to produce. Right now high gas prices are definitely affecting farmers. Taxes always have. The cost of farming is unbelievable -- especially for some implements/vehicles.

For example, how would you like to have a business where you must have a specific tool. Only you use that tool for 1-2 weeks a year. The rest of the time it sits and you maintain it to ensure that it is ready to use. And if it doesn't work, you loose your investment. Now imagine that tool costing you around a quarter million dollars or more. The particular tool that I am referring to is a combine. Headers for combines can cost as much as a luxury car. You need a header for each type of crop that you bring in.

Farming is not for the faint at heart. That is one reason that the mom and pop farms are slowly disappearing and corporations are taking over. It is simply getting to be too expensive. And the amount of land needed to be profitable is going up dramatically.
 
n-abounds said:
I never said half of the things that you just brought up. Food prices are not expensive- they are just higher than they otherwise would be if there were no subsidies to farmers. Farmers have lobbied for these subsidies, and received them. During the Great Depression, crops were burnt to keep up the price of agricultural products- despite people starving. The comment about keeping farmers from starving wasn't quite meant literally...I just mean that farmers lobbied for the subsidies to enable them to keep their land and their jobs, which indirectly keeps them from starving.

As seen here, from Wikipedia.org's "great depression" article:
"New Deal programs sought to stimulate demand and provide work and relief for the impoverished through increased government spending, by: cutting farm production so as to raise prices and make it possible to earn a living in farming (done by the AAA and successor farm programs)"

Many of those programs are still in effect. The environmental aspect does have something to do with it, but there are extremely high subsidies for agricultural products. If you read up, you'll see why it's highly controversial.
I asked for a reference and you gave me none.

Then I replied to your message with no reference.

Now I receive this.

Who cares about the Great Depression and how things were done then. That is ancient history.

Please give me something (a reference) that shows that today farmers destroy/burn crops for funds received from the federal government.

Farming is a business plain and simple. It is not for the faint of heart. Farmers see very little of what you pay in a food market. Yes I am repeating myself a bit, but want to make sure you catch it this time.

Crop rotation (do you know how it works -- really works?) and soil conservation are very important to the long term stability of the land. You cannot farm the land continuously, regardless of what fertilizers/chemicals that you add. The soil will become depleted. Dead soil no longer can be used to produce crops. I've seen it happen to farmers who were trying to save their places by producing all they could. When in reality, they were cutting their own throats.

The federal government and state governments (especially farm based states) realize this and use these programs to keep the farming industry alive so that we may have the quality products that fill our stores.

Right now, with gasohol becoming popular, and the shift from wheat to corn, this will become even more important as farmers tap into a new revenue source.

We are extremely lucky in the US to have such a large farm belt. Compare to a country such as Japan. All of the area in Japan that can be used for farming and living (cities and built up areas) is less than half of Nebraska. Half of Nebraska. Think about it. Yet, Japan has about half of the population of the US. America is blessed with such huge farm areas. However, the soil must never die. If it does, then we will not have our fertile ground to rely upon to grow our crops...and maybe fuel in the future.
 
Farming isn't entirely a business, or there wouldn't be so many protections and subsidies for it. It's also considered a national security issue (if we imported all our food, and there were a world war, what would we eat), and also a cultural issue. France, for instance, has extremely heavy agricultural subsidies and has an incredibly high number of agricultural workers for an advanced services/industrial economy. France places a high premium on the cultural value of having farms and farmers. It's incredibly expensive supporting them, but they think it's worth it.
 
You can't ignore what happened in the Great Depression because many of it's laws are either still on the books, or have nonetheless influenced the laws we have today. Farmers went from burning crops to maintain the prices to getting paid to not plant. Yes, there are important environmental issues, I do know what they are, and farmers do deserve some compensation for them. But the fact remains that farmers are paid not to produce to keep agriculture prices high.

From Columbia University Press' Encylcopedia:
U.S. Assistance Programs

The average U.S. farmer receives $16,000 in annual subsidies. Two-thirds of farmers receive no direct payments. Of those that do, the average amount amongst the lowest paid eighty percent was $7000 from 1995-2003. (http://www.ewg.org/farm/findings.php) Subsidies are a mix of tax reductions, direct cash payments and below-market prices on water and other inputs. Some claim that these aggregate figures are misleading because large agribusinesses, rather than individual farmers, receive a significant share of total subsidy spending. The Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 reduced farm subsidies, providing fixed payments over a period and replacing price supports and subsidies. The Farm Bill (2002) contains direct and countercyclical payments designed to limit the effects of low prices and yields.

In the United States, the federal government first assisted agriculture directly in the 1920s. During World War I farmers had been encouraged to increase production, and in the postwar period wartime levels of production were maintained. This resulted in an oversupply that caused a sharp drop in prices. The Agricultural Credits Act (1923) failed to solve the problem. In 1929, President Hoover signed the Agricultural Marketing Act, establishing the Federal Farm Board with a fund of $500 million to further farming cooperatives and to set up stabilization boards, which by their purchases on the open market were to stabilize the prices of grain and cotton. Such purchases, however, only encouraged farmers to raise still larger crops in expectation of greater profits; consequently, the Farm Board failed and had to sell its holdings at a loss of $200 million.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933, one of the first pieces of legislation passed under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal program, attempted to control farm prices by reducing and controlling the supply of basic crops. The AAA empowered the Secretary of Agriculture to fix marketing quotas for major farm products, to take surplus production off the market, and to reduce production of staple crops by offering producers payments in return for voluntarily reducing the acreage devoted to raising such crops. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), also created in 1933, began making loans to farmers on agricultural products. Loans were granted only to farmers who agreed to sign production-control agreements. Farm prices steadily improved: between 1932 and 1937 the prices for major farm products increased by approximately 85%. However, the Supreme Court declared certain production control features of the AAA unconstitutional.

Large crops of wheat and cotton led to passage of the Agricultural Act of 1937. In its amended form, this act provided the framework for the major farm programs in effect since that time. The act made price-support loans by the CCC mandatory on the designated basic commodities of corn, wheat, and cotton; optional support was authorized for other commodities. Under this act and related legislation, the CCC has supported more than 100 different commodities, including fruit, vegetables, and various types of seed.

From 1941 to 1948, during and just after World War II, surpluses were rapidly utilized, and price supports were used as an incentive to stimulate production of agricultural commodities. In 1948 price-support levels were lowered for most of those commodities. By 1949 the agriculture of war-devastated Europe and Asia had recovered to a significant extent, and demand for American farm products declined considerably. At the same time, however, crop production in the United States had greatly increased, with the result that farm commodity prices dropped and surpluses began to build up again. Rigid support levels were once again enacted, but the Korean War strengthened farm prices and most CCC stocks were sold. Mounting surpluses and increased costs of government programs led to the enactment of a flexible price support program (1954) and of the Soil Bank program (1956), which provided for direct payments to farmers in return for reducing their acreage of major supported crops and required that they leave fallow the land removed from production. The desired effect of control programs was largely negated, because improved technology made it possible to greatly increase yields per acre.

In the early 1960s price supports on major commodities were dropped to or near market-clearing prices, and producers' incomes were protected by direct payments on fixed quantities of products. Direct payments to farmers greatly increased after the 1960s, the feed grain, cotton, and wheat programs accounting for most of this increase.
 
The thing that gets to me is seeing these rich movie stars that don't have a talented bone in there body making millions yet the person who works all his life and gets the shaft and is fighting for ends meat.
 
Any economists in here who can explain debt economies and how there is, if any, correlation between national debt and individual, credit card debt in the overall picture of solvency?
 
MacNut said:
The thing that gets to me is seeing these rich movie stars that don't have a talented bone in there body making millions yet the person who works all his life and gets the shaft and is fighting for ends meat.
I wonder why more people don't go into the movie acting business. By the way you describe it, it sounds very profitable and easy work.
 
xsedrinam said:
Any economists in here who can explain debt economies and how there is, if any, correlation between national debt and individual, credit card debt in the overall picture of solvency?

Not quite an economist yet- working on it though.

I offer one possible explanation. Any economist will tell you that there are more explanations than this, but this is a plausible one that could account for a lot of the problems you brought up.

I'll simplify things a bit though. There's only a finite collection of savings in an economy at any one time. If the government goes into debt, it has to borrow from people in the form of issuing bonds. However, the interest from these bonds must also compete with the interest that investors get from any other assets in the economy. When investors invest in government bonds, they therefore do not have money to invest in other things nor to save in a bank. Therefore, since there is less money available to banks and other institutions, anyone looking for a loan will have to compete with other people who are looking for loans. This drives up the interest rate at which people borrow- resulting people who cannot carry their debt at such a high interest rate. Unfortunately, governments tend to go into debt when there is a recession which coincides with people who need more cash and have more of a reason to borrow, and less of an ability to repay the high-interest debt. However, it is believed that government spending will get the economy out of a recession faster than if the government did not intervene (unless you're talking to a Classical economist).
 
spicyapple said:
I wonder why more people don't go into the movie acting business. By the way you describe it, it sounds very profitable and easy work.

Profitable- yes. Easy- yes. Extremely competitive- yes.
 
n-abounds said:
Profitable- yes. Easy- yes. Extremely competitive- yes.

i guess you never tried to act.

just because Tom Cruise is a huge douche, doesnt mean he isnt a better actor than most people.

try to actually act out a scene from a movie, and do it well. I doubt you can, dont fool yourself, acting is hard.

Is it worth millions type of hard? I dont think so, but when you can make a billion dollars on a movie, youd pay a small percentage to "well known actors" who can guarantee a good show, its just good business.
 
I meant the work wasn't very demanding. Maybe very few people have the talent to do it well, but that doesn't make it hard. Nor did I say that actors weren't getting paid what they're worth- it is likely worth it to spend $20M on Julia Roberts in order to make your movie a sucess.

I think we can all agree that Julia Roberts doesn't work nearly as hard for that $20M as a bricklayer would work for that kind of money (never mind that he'd have to work for like 200 years). Julia Roberts just has (what some people think) is a pretty face, mixed with talent, the luck of being in the right place/movie at the right time (Pretty Woman). She does do real work being an actress, but there's a lot of other stuff that just landed on her lap.
 
n-abounds said:
I meant the work wasn't very demanding. Maybe very few people have the talent to do it well, but that doesn't make it hard. Nor did I say that actors weren't getting paid what they're worth- it is likely worth it to spend $20M on Julia Roberts in order to make your movie a sucess.

I think we can all agree that Julia Roberts doesn't work nearly as hard for that $20M as a bricklayer would work for that kind of money (never mind that he'd have to work for like 200 years). Julia Roberts just has (what some people think) is a pretty face, mixed with talent, the luck of being in the right place/movie at the right time (Pretty Woman). She does do real work being an actress, but there's a lot of other stuff that just landed on her lap.

you are confusing HARD WORK, what you mean is blue collar work, with TALENT.

There is no doubt, good actors have TALENT, and thusly are paid for it.

A surgeon is a TALENTED person who makes ALOT of money.

But, does he do any heavy lifting? Probably not.

A bricklayer working all day, makes what he earns.

An actor makes what they are worth, in terms of talent.

try not to confuse the two, or we will get confused ourselves.
 
Has no one on this thread listened?

"I meant the work wasn't very demanding. Maybe very few people have the talent to do it well, but that doesn't make it hard."
 
Acting is very demanding psychologically and mentally. Plus they put in a lot of long hours, even if it's sitting around for 5 hours on-call waiting for set-ups and such. The long, boring hours will get to anybody.

I have an actor friend who says it's hard work. Apart from appearing on camera, the steps an actor has to go through with readings, auditions and the constant rejections, is very hard to take emotionally. Quite frankly, those actors who can command multi-million dollar salaries deserve it!
 
thedude110 said:
I like your ideals, but this probably isn't true. Fact is, if we extended free public education beyond the 12th grade (and I'm reading this as "extending high school") you'd see a skyrocketing dropout rate and, in my opinion, a decreased quality of education.

Fact is, when kids go from high school to college, they recognize that they're not only becoming more responsible for their own education, but also that the expectations involved in that education have changed. There's important psychological buy in and an assumed motivation.

(...)

We need to make everyone believe in the power and potential of education -- heck, if we could do that, we might do our kids a service by shortening it some.

Well this seems to be a pretty americanised thread, so I would like to redirect your attention to Sweden, were university and other seats of higher learning (beyond 12th grade) is actually free to attend - no yearly or monthly payment plan is required, as this is managed by taxes.
We also get money from the state (loans as well as a yearly grant of money) for a period of 6 years.

There is a quite a high drop out % in the heavy duty courses, but evens out over the years to be reasonable.

I don't know if this system is ideal, but it allows everyone to study, for good and for worse (degrading results versus a lot of people studying), but in the end, studying will not improve garbage collectors' work, but it will alteast give his children a chance for a better future, while paying of his own time in school by previously mentioned taxes.

One way to manage the amount of potential drop outs are to kick people from school if they fail a certain class too many times, which was implemented where my father studied, but I have a hard time seeing the benefit of this when you study to be say an engineer, which is harder than many other approaches to higher learning.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.