Wake up: the American Dream is over

[Ava Estelle]

Wake up: the American Dream is over

Even America's richest think they're getting too many tax breaks from a government determined to keep the poor in their place. As poverty in the US grows, Paul Harris wonders what happened to the Land of Opportunity

Thursday June 8, 2006
The Observer


There is a common response to America among foreign writers: the USA is a land of extremes where the best of things are just as easily found as the worst.
This is a cliché. But it is often hard to argue with when surveying America's political and cultural landscape. America has some of the worst urban sprawl in the world and also the most beautiful and well-protected wildernesses. Its politics is awash with lobbyist inspired corruption. Yet passionate political engagement among millions of Americans puts many other countries to shame.

Culturally American TV can plunge depths that are hard to imagine. Yet at the same time commercial channels such as HBO produce the best dramas, documentaries and comedies in the world. Its media boasts celebrity tabloids including People and the National Enquirer, yet the New Yorker and Harpers and Atlantic Monthly are examples of its magazines which invest in quality journalism that no publication in Britain can match.

So in this land of black and white, we should not be too surprised to find some of the biggest gaps between rich and poor in the world. Such a yawning chasm is just the American Way, it would seem. Besides, the American Dream offers a way out to everyone. All someone has to do is work hard and climb the ladder towards the top. No class system or government stands in the way.

Sadly, this old argument is no longer true. Over the past few decades there has been a fundamental shift in the structure of the American economy. The gap between rich and poor has widened and widened. As it does so, the ability to cross that gap gets smaller and smaller. This is far from business as usual but there seems little chance of it stopping, not least because it appears to be government policy.

Over the past 25 years the median US family income has gone up 18 percent. For the top one percent, however, it has gone up 200 percent. A quarter of a century ago the top fifth of Americans had an average income 6.7 times that of the bottom fifth. Now it is 9.8 times.

Inequalities have grown worse in different regions. In California, home to both Beverly Hills and the gang-ridden slums of Compton, incomes for lower class families have fallen by four percent since 1969. For upper class families they have risen 41 percent.

This has led to an economy hugely warped in favour of a small slice of very rich Americans. The wealthiest one percent of households now control a third of the national wealth. The wealthiest 10 percent control two-thirds of it. This is a society that is splitting down the middle and it has taken place against a backdrop of economic growth.

Between 1980 and 2004 America's GDP went up by almost two-thirds. But instead of making everyone better off, it has made only a part of the country wealthier, as another part slips ever more into the black hole of the working poor. There are now 37 million Americans living in poverty, and at 12.7 percent of the population, it is the highest percentage in the developed world.

Yet the tax burden on America's rich is falling, not growing. The top 0.01 percent of households has seen their tax bite fall by a full 25 percentage points since 1980. That was when 'trickle down' economics began, arguing that the rich spending more would benefit everyone as a whole. But America's poor have simply been getting poorer: clearly that theory has not worked in reality.

And still the American government is set on tax breaks for the rich. Bush's first-term tax cuts notoriously benefited the upper strata of American taxpayers. So much so that even Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world who benefited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, has said the tax cuts 'scream of injustice'. As head of a hugely successful investment firm, it is hard to paint Buffet as a lefty liberal who hates Wall Street (though, bizarrely, some conservatives do try).

Still the tax cuts go on. This week one of the main political debates in Washington has been about scrapping the 'estate tax' whereby those who inherit large amounts from their relatives will be taxed on it. This overwhelmingly affects the wealthy. The estate tax is already set so high ($400m) that only one in 200 estates pay any tax at all when they are inherited. Unlike the UK's inheritance tax, which affects more and more Britons as house prices increase, this is not a problem faced by Joe and Jennifer Public.

Yet the White House and many politicians, overwhelmingly Republican, want to get rid of it. The lobbying campaign against it has been financed mostly by 18 business dynasties, including the family that owns WalMart. At the same time the Bush administration has sanctioned millions of dollars of cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and the education budget as part of a measure aimed at reducing the spiraling deficit. This is, frankly, obscene.

The effect of all this has been to scotch that long-cherished notion of the American Dream: that honest toil is enough to reap the rewards and let even the poorest join the middle class, or maybe even strike it rich. A survey last year showed that such economic mobility (a measure of those people trying to make the Dream come true) was lower in America than Canada, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. In fact, the only country doing as bad as America was Britain (food for thought, there).

Now this is not some argument against capitalism. Inequality is inevitable. It is a good thing. People need incentives. People need competition. People need markets. Some people will always be poor. Others deserve to be rich. But at the moment it looks like the rules of the game are being fixed in America in favour of the wealthy. The gap between rich and poor will only get wider. That is very dangerous.

Don't just take my word for it. Take Buffet's. After all he doesn't have anything to gain from criticising current policy. In fact he has hundreds of millions of dollars to lose. 'If class warfare is being waged in America,' he has written 'My class is clearly winning.' When even the rich are starting to think they are getting too many tax cuts, then you know something has gone very wrong

Source (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1792399,00.html)

[cpt_azad]

Thank you for stating the most obvious. Now go do something about it instead of posting it on online forums, because I'm pretty sure a lot of people already know this...yet they're too lazy to bring about change.

[StephG]

Does the thread starter have an opinion on the matter?

Seems a shame to go to the bother of cutting and pasting a whole article without so much as passing comment on it yourself.

[j2k4]

The effect of all this has been to scotch that long-cherished notion of the American Dream: that honest toil is enough to reap the rewards and let even the poorest join the middle class, or maybe even strike it rich. A survey last year showed that such economic mobility (a measure of those people trying to make the Dream come true) was lower in America than Canada, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.

Hmmm.

Methinks the entirety of this piece is scotched by the reality of our current immigration problems...or perhaps Mexicans don't read The Observer?

[Everose]

[The gap between rich and poor has widened and widened.


This is true. I am neither rich nor poor, but I have widened. ;-)



Yes, J2, dying in the desert to live in America where there is, according to this article, no hope to better one's circumstances.

[j2k4]

[The gap between rich and poor has widened and widened.


This is true. I am neither rich nor poor, but I have widened. ;-)



Yes, J2, dying in the desert to live in America where there is, according to this article, no hope to better one's circumstances.

Exactly.

The numbers (such as they are) do not lie...

[Ava Estelle]

Does the thread starter have an opinion on the matter?

No.

[Rat Faced]

The effect of all this has been to scotch that long-cherished notion of the American Dream: that honest toil is enough to reap the rewards and let even the poorest join the middle class, or maybe even strike it rich. A survey last year showed that such economic mobility (a measure of those people trying to make the Dream come true) was lower in America than Canada, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.

Hmmm.

Methinks the entirety of this piece is scotched by the reality of our current immigration problems...or perhaps Mexicans don't read The Observer?

You seen this interview with GW? Very funny :lol: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BqDtHOE5zs)

Your whole country is based on immigration... you asked for the poor, so stop moaning that you got 'em. :P

[Busyman™]

Hmmm.

Methinks the entirety of this piece is scotched by the reality of our current immigration problems...or perhaps Mexicans don't read The Observer?

You seen this interview with GW? Very funny :lol: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BqDtHOE5zs)

Your whole country is based on immigration... you asked for the poor, so stop moaning that you got 'em. :P
That was quite funny.:lol: :lol:

To your last, immigration is supposed to go according to law, not sneaking about.:shifty:

[thewizeard]

Does the thread starter have an opinion on the matter?

No.

Brilliant..so you could just as easily copied and pasted
..
New diabetes drugs in US

Adds analyst comment, details, background, updates shares, previous CHICAGO)

NEW YORK, June 13 (Reuters) - A diabetes drug awaiting U.S. approval helped lower blood sugar levels comparable to a conventional treatment and also helped patients lose weight, the drug's developer, Merck & Co. (MRK.N: Quote (http://today.reuters.com/stocks/overview.aspx?symbol=MRK.N&WTmodLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Profile (http://today.reuters.com/stocks/CompanyProfile.aspx?symbol=MRK.N&WTmodLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Research (http://today.reuters.com/stocks/ResearchReports.aspx?symbol=MRK.N&WTmodLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage1)), said on Tuesday.
In the study, the drug, called Januvia, reduced a measure of blood sugar control, called A1C levels, identical to the generic drug glipizide, after a year for patients with Type 2 diabetes. Merck also said patients taking Januvia had weight loss, compared with weight gain on glipizide, and had a significantly lower incidence of hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar. The study was presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific meeting in Washington.


Obesity is the leading cause of Type 2 diabetes, and weight loss associated with Januvia is considered a major advantage over some older diabetes drugs that can cause weight gain.
Nearly 21 million people in the United States, or 7 percent of the population, have diabetes, with Type 2 diabetes accounting for 90 percent to 95 percent of the cases, according to the American Diabetes Association.
"These are the first agents that patients go on to and (Januvia) holds its own relative to those therapies," Deutsche Bank analyst Barbara Ryan said, referring to the class of conventional treatments that include glipizide, known as sulfonylureas.
"Demonstrating non-inferiority to major standard-of-care is very important," Ryan added, noting Januvia's comparable ability to maintain blood-sugar levels. Merck has said it expects the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to decide whether to approve Januvia by mid-October.

~~~ http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-06-13T154355Z_01_N13298002_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-MERCK-UPDATE-2.XML&rpc=66


so then I ask you why did you post it , or where you looking for a cheap stab at the USA or alternatively, was it your pet Chimp that copied and pasted that article... :no2:

[Busyman™]

Does the thread starter have an opinion on the matter?

No.
I don't know wtf you are talking about. I'm living the American Dream right now and haven't woke up yet.:snooty:

[Filliz]

So, what is this so called "Amerian dream" exactly?

[Rat Faced]

No.
I don't know wtf you are talking about. I'm living the American Dream right now and haven't woke up yet.:snooty:

I think the whole point is that more of us can only dream in the US and UK.. whereas other countries that dont exactly flaunt their freedoms its a lot easier to actually move between Rich and Poor.

You never, as an example, hear about the "Canadian Dream"... (maybe its not the same as the American one) but the American Dream is achieved easier in Canada.

No one is saying that its impossible to move between income groups in the USA.. just that its harder there than elswhere.

[thewizeard]

Good to see you Paul; I never have trouble to move between income groups, generally in an easy downwards spiral




..You look a little pale, looks like you need some TK...

[Ava Estelle]

so then I ask you why did you post it ,

Because l knew some right wing Republican arsehole would take offence, thank you for obliging.

[j2k4]

so then I ask you why did you post it ,

Because l knew some right wing Republican arsehole would take offence, thank you for obliging.

Merely noting that it is a piece of pish is not taking "offence".

The article has no clothes, and that is the sum of it.

[maebach]

So, what is this so called "Amerian dream" exactly?

A mcDonalds and Walmart every 2 miles.

[Rat Faced]

Your mistaking The American Dream, with The American (Federal) Culture.

I shoved the Federal in, 'coz theres some places with nice architecture i've been told :P

[Rat Faced]

Good to see you Paul; I never have trouble to move between income groups, generally in an easy downwards spiral




..You look a little pale, looks like you need some TK...

I need TLC from some nice charitable 20 something Blonde Girl (but i'll except of legal age and any colouring)...

Sounds like your in the American Nightmare (the 'Dream' of course is to find the elevator going up), just like me.... its an exciting ride down that slide :wacko:

[thewizeard]

so then I ask you why did you post it ,

Because l knew some right wing Republican arsehole would take offence, thank you for obliging.

You are welcome, anything to please.
So you admit to, as I suspected , trolling...

Bye the way I am English, live in the Netherlands..and if I was American and could vote.. I would vote for Bill Clinton ( if Bush would change the constitution) ... blow job and all :) Thats what all presidents should be doing during periods of important decisions...not phone tapping the American public...so I think you understand where my sympathies lie now....

[calm2chaos]

I don't know wtf you are talking about. I'm living the American Dream right now and haven't woke up yet.:snooty:

I think the whole point is that more of us can only dream in the US and UK.. whereas other countries that dont exactly flaunt their freedoms its a lot easier to actually move between Rich and Poor.

You never, as an example, hear about the "Canadian Dream"... (maybe its not the same as the American one) but the American Dream is achieved easier in Canada.

No one is saying that its impossible to move between income groups in the USA.. just that its harder there than elswhere.

That would be great if it was actually true. Comparing the 2 countries in anyway is ridiculus to start considering A) Our Population is 10x larger then theres and B) Like it or not our economy fuels the global market. With 10x less people they still have a Lower GDP growth rate and per capita income, and coupled with that they have a higher unemployment. This done under the umbrella of the US so to speak. The difference between the uber rich and the poor is staggering in this country. But that is the price you pay for capitolism. But the movement of wealth between the lower, middle and upper middle classes is IMO greater in this country then any other on earth. The opportunity for success is great. And the payoff for your efforts is far greater. All depends on how bad you want it and how hard you work. And ya.... there is a bit of good luck that has to be thrown into the mix.

[longboneslinger]

2 fast comments:
1- on the article.......duh.
2-immigration. We want immigrants. 'Illegal immigrants' is an oxymoron. The last I heard, 11 million peeps came across yer border it was called an invasion. You break the law, yer a criminal. We have plenty. So, 'criminal invaders' is more accurate.

[Busyman™]

2 fast comments:
1- on the article.......duh.
2-immigration. We want immigrants. 'Illegal immigrants' is an oxymoron. The last I heard, 11 million peeps came across yer border it was called an invasion. You break the law, yer a criminal. We have plenty. So, 'criminal invaders' is more accurate.
Thanks for that.;)

I wish the protesters (the illegals) were carted off back to Meheeko.

Wtf were they protesting?........

Enforcing laws already on the books?
Building a security fence so their Mexican brethren (and those using Mexico as a thruway) can't break the law?

Duh, indeed. :1eye:

I don't give a fuck if they believe they take jobs Americans don't want. Fuck off.

[Rat Faced]

I think the whole point is that more of us can only dream in the US and UK.. whereas other countries that dont exactly flaunt their freedoms its a lot easier to actually move between Rich and Poor.

You never, as an example, hear about the "Canadian Dream"... (maybe its not the same as the American one) but the American Dream is achieved easier in Canada.

No one is saying that its impossible to move between income groups in the USA.. just that its harder there than elswhere.

That would be great if it was actually true. Comparing the 2 countries in anyway is ridiculus to start considering A) Our Population is 10x larger then theres and B) Like it or not our economy fuels the global market. With 10x less people they still have a Lower GDP growth rate and per capita income, and coupled with that they have a higher unemployment. This done under the umbrella of the US so to speak. The difference between the uber rich and the poor is staggering in this country. But that is the price you pay for capitolism. But the movement of wealth between the lower, middle and upper middle classes is IMO greater in this country then any other on earth. The opportunity for success is great. And the payoff for your efforts is far greater. All depends on how bad you want it and how hard you work. And ya.... there is a bit of good luck that has to be thrown into the mix.

Population and GDP have nothing to do with the ease of movement between relative Income levels.

Im sure that "your opinion" is much more valid than the Research conducted by many economists and Universities from various countries.

I'm not trying to insult any country here, you'll notice that the UK was at the bottom too.

The trouble is that in our 2 countries the divide between "Rich" and "Poor" is greater, and the gulf that needs to be Brdged is therefor that much greater.

The fact of the matter is that more people get rich through Drug Trafficking and AMWAY (or similar) in the USA than through most other means.. a lot of people get poor making each one of those rich.

[Busyman™]

2 thing to take into consideration.

1. We haven't raised our minimum wage since '97, which is just reediculous, considering that the cost of living is way higher.

2. (related to above) Our real estate market went fucking nuts due to a recession and then 9/11 spurring the feds to cut interest rates to record lows.

The housing market became a stock market for that borrowed to buy. They then sold to another "flipper" and so forth. By the the time it ended up in the hands of a person who actually wanted to (God forbid) actually live there, the fucking price probably doubled.:dry:

Now we are at a point in many areas that if a person didn't get in earlier, they won't, barring a dramatic increase in pay or settling for a muuuuuch smaller home (maybe).

Now, to curb inflation, the fed has steadily raised interest rates and, because real estate doesn't depreciate much, the damn homes are high as fuck.

High cost home, high interest.

Who knows, we may return to a Reaganomics era where the average joe will have homes with double digit interest rates.

Even now when I talk to youngsters getting out of high school and those that come into inheritances, I tell them that they need to get into a home ASAP.
Many will fuck around buying this and that shit then find out they don't have shit to show for later except an out-dated computer, graphics card, broken down dilapidated car, and abuncha CDs and DVDs, etc......

2 more...

3. Work is being shipped out of the US. Call centers kick ass in India.

4. With all these fucking tax cuts and so called newly created jobs, the average joe sure doesn't see it.

[calm2chaos]

That would be great if it was actually true. Comparing the 2 countries in anyway is ridiculus to start considering A) Our Population is 10x larger then theres and B) Like it or not our economy fuels the global market. With 10x less people they still have a Lower GDP growth rate and per capita income, and coupled with that they have a higher unemployment. This done under the umbrella of the US so to speak. The difference between the uber rich and the poor is staggering in this country. But that is the price you pay for capitolism. But the movement of wealth between the lower, middle and upper middle classes is IMO greater in this country then any other on earth. The opportunity for success is great. And the payoff for your efforts is far greater. All depends on how bad you want it and how hard you work. And ya.... there is a bit of good luck that has to be thrown into the mix.

Population and GDP have nothing to do with the ease of movement between relative Income levels.

Im sure that "your opinion" is much more valid than the Research conducted by many economists and Universities from various countries.

I'm not trying to insult any country here, you'll notice that the UK was at the bottom too.

The trouble is that in our 2 countries the divide between "Rich" and "Poor" is greater, and the gulf that needs to be Brdged is therefor that much greater.

The fact of the matter is that more people get rich through Drug Trafficking and AMWAY (or similar) in the USA than through most other means.. a lot of people get poor making each one of those rich.

And your statement at the end tells alot about your knowledge of the truth and your bias. But the fact is the movement of wealth through the classes is greater in this country then any other. And to say GDP and other economic factors don't mater is stupid. I guess unemployment or employment have nothing to do with wealth. For a country that you claims moves most of it's wealth through drug trafficing it seems amazing how our economy runs the global market...LOL

As for my opinion and economist please show me a source that states wealth does not move within our country. Please explain to me how without the movement of wealth small business within this country are responsible for most jobs.
America's Small Businesses Are Thriving. Small businesses create two out of every three new jobs and account for nearly half of America's overall employment. They have played a vital role in helping our economy add more than 5.1 million new jobs since August 2003 and have helped reduce America's unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, below the average rate of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Small businesses are also vital for supporting our communities.


The fact is the major wealth is held by a staggering few. And I guess you have to define what you or I mean by "wealth" when speaking in context of 300,000,000 people. But the movement of wealth, great or small is an everyday occurence. this country carries well over 2 million millionaires. My point is simply that within this country you are not doomed to poverty no matter what your situation. The opportunity to move upwards is definetly alive and well. Wether you want to work to pursue that goal is up to you.

The fact of the matter is that more people get rich through Drug Trafficking and AMWAY (or similar) in the USA than through most other means.. a lot of people get poor making each one of those rich.

I have to say again how utterly stupid the above statement actualy is.

[calm2chaos]

2 thing to take into consideration.

1. We haven't raised our minimum wage since '97, which is just reediculous, considering that the cost of living is way higher.

2. (related to above) Our real estate market went fucking nuts due to a recession and then 9/11 spurring the feds to cut interest rates to record lows.

The housing market became a stock market for that borrowed to buy. They then sold to another "flipper" and so forth. By the the time it ended up in the hands of a person who actually wanted to (God forbid) actually live there, the fucking price probably doubled.:dry:

Now we are at a point in many areas that if a person didn't get in earlier, they won't, barring a dramatic increase in pay or settling for a muuuuuch smaller home (maybe).

Now, to curb inflation, the fed has steadily raised interest rates and, because real estate doesn't depreciate much, the damn homes are high as fuck.

High cost home, high interest.

Who knows, we may return to a Reaganomics era where the average joe will have homes with double digit interest rates.

Even now when I talk to youngsters getting out of high school and those that come into inheritances, I tell them that they need to get into a home ASAP.
Many will fuck around buying this and that shit then find out they don't have shit to show for later except an out-dated computer, graphics card, broken down dilapidated car, and abuncha CDs and DVDs, etc......

2 more...

3. Work is being shipped out of the US. Call centers kick ass in India.

4. With all these fucking tax cuts and so called newly created jobs, the average joe sure doesn't see it.

You'll see a nice reduction in housing prices very shorty is my bet. To say that real estate doesn't depriciate is completely untrue. The housing market only bears what the market itself can handle. And as interest rates grow housing costs will come down as they always do. If I am asking 300k for a house and I am not gettig it the houseing price will drop. What the prices will do is drive the flippers out because there will not be that imediate turnover of profit. People that bought high and only intended to stay in the house a short while will definetly find them selves stuck.

A home is still the best investment I think you can make early. Specially if it i something you intend to be in for a while. But this is the forst or the last time the housing markets jumped up and then had a heart attack. It will happen again and again. thats what markets due

[j2k4]

1. We haven't raised our minimum wage since '97, which is just reediculous, considering that the cost of living is way higher.

Anyone who seriously argues in favor of raising the minimum wage hasn't given the slightest thought to the effect of such a move.

I will forego the full array of Economics 101 reasons why it is, well...stooooooooooooooooooopid, to state merely that, apart from costing jobs (it cannot be denied that even minimum wage jobs have societal value), it will have the effect only of establishing a "new" bottom-end of the financial scale.

A hike in the minimum wage could not have any positive effect whatsoever on the health of the real estate market, and would more likely result in an up-tick in foreclosures.

Personally, I start my guys a couple of bucks over minimum wage, and go from there.

I am not getting rich; in fact, if my top guy gets a bit of overtime, he makes more than I do.

It is literally the case that the proposed new minimum wage would put me out of business, either by forcing me to employ total schlubs incapable of doing the job, or pricing me out of a contract.

Is that a good thing, Busyman?

[Busyman™]

1. We haven't raised our minimum wage since '97, which is just reediculous, considering that the cost of living is way higher.

Anyone who seriously argues in favor of raising the minimum wage hasn't given the slightest thought to the effect of such a move.

I will forego the full array of Economics 101 reasons why it is, well...stooooooooooooooooooopid, to state merely that, apart from costing jobs (it cannot be denied that even minimum wage jobs have societal value), it will have the effect only of establishing a "new" bottom-end of the financial scale.

A hike in the minimum wage could not have any positive effect whatsoever on the health of the real estate market, and would more likely result in an up-tick in foreclosures.

Who said it would?

Personally, I start my guys a couple of bucks over minimum wage, and go from there.

I am not getting rich; in fact, if my top guy gets a bit of overtime, he makes more than I do.

It is literally the case that the proposed new minimum wage would put me out of business, either by forcing me to employ total schlubs incapable of doing the job, or pricing me out of a contract.

Is that a good thing, Busyman?
That's utter bullshit. It's also what the Repubs are arguing.

First off, folks need to cut the bullshit about "if they raise taxes I'll cut jobs, raise the minimum wage I'll cut jobs".

What you propose is stoooooopid. What you propose directly relates to why the financial gap between rich and poor wiiiiidens. The bottom end should not stay at the same bottom forever, j2.:dry: We should not go into 2030 with the same fucking minimum wage. I think we are due for an increase at about the decade mark.

[Busyman™]

2 thing to take into consideration.

1. We haven't raised our minimum wage since '97, which is just reediculous, considering that the cost of living is way higher.

2. (related to above) Our real estate market went fucking nuts due to a recession and then 9/11 spurring the feds to cut interest rates to record lows.

The housing market became a stock market for that borrowed to buy. They then sold to another "flipper" and so forth. By the the time it ended up in the hands of a person who actually wanted to (God forbid) actually live there, the fucking price probably doubled.:dry:

Now we are at a point in many areas that if a person didn't get in earlier, they won't, barring a dramatic increase in pay or settling for a muuuuuch smaller home (maybe).

Now, to curb inflation, the fed has steadily raised interest rates and, because real estate doesn't depreciate much, the damn homes are high as fuck.

High cost home, high interest.

Who knows, we may return to a Reaganomics era where the average joe will have homes with double digit interest rates.

Even now when I talk to youngsters getting out of high school and those that come into inheritances, I tell them that they need to get into a home ASAP.
Many will fuck around buying this and that shit then find out they don't have shit to show for later except an out-dated computer, graphics card, broken down dilapidated car, and abuncha CDs and DVDs, etc......

2 more...

3. Work is being shipped out of the US. Call centers kick ass in India.

4. With all these fucking tax cuts and so called newly created jobs, the average joe sure doesn't see it.

You'll see a nice reduction in housing prices very shorty is my bet. To say that real estate doesn't depriciate is completely untrue.

Who did?

The housing market only bears what the market itself can handle. And as interest rates grow housing costs will come down as they always do. If I am asking 300k for a house and I am not gettig it the houseing price will drop. What the prices will do is drive the flippers out because there will not be that imediate turnover of profit. People that bought high and only intended to stay in the house a short while will definetly find them selves stuck.

Yeah but in this current market. it's taking awhile for houses to drop. Even then, they will only drop but so much. I doubt we'll pre-millenium prices ever again. There are houses in my area that have doubled in a 5-year period. Even more than that in DC.

[j2k4]

Anyone who seriously argues in favor of raising the minimum wage hasn't given the slightest thought to the effect of such a move.

I will forego the full array of Economics 101 reasons why it is, well...stooooooooooooooooooopid, to state merely that, apart from costing jobs (it cannot be denied that even minimum wage jobs have societal value), it will have the effect only of establishing a "new" bottom-end of the financial scale.

A hike in the minimum wage could not have any positive effect whatsoever on the health of the real estate market, and would more likely result in an up-tick in foreclosures.

Who said it would?

Personally, I start my guys a couple of bucks over minimum wage, and go from there.

I am not getting rich; in fact, if my top guy gets a bit of overtime, he makes more than I do.

It is literally the case that the proposed new minimum wage would put me out of business, either by forcing me to employ total schlubs incapable of doing the job, or pricing me out of a contract.

Is that a good thing, Busyman?
That's utter bullshit. It's also what the Repubs are arguing.

First off, folks need to cut the bullshit about "if they raise taxes I'll cut jobs, raise the minimum wage I'll cut jobs".

What you propose is stoooooopid. What you propose directly relates to why the financial gap between rich and poor wiiiiidens. The bottom end should not stay at the same bottom forever, j2.:dry: We should not go into 2030 with the same fucking minimum wage. I think we are due for an increase at about the decade mark.


WTF?

What you propose is to manufacture inflation, then.

Do you also intend to control prices?

We all know how well that works.

Methinks you have supped too sumptuously on Democrat bullshit (to borrow your own phrase).

Do you also propose that, beneath the "minimum" wage, we also create a "sub-minimum" wage?

Has the word "minimum" been redefined?

Perhaps you prefer a wage structure with a false-bottom?

Fact is, if I were forced to raise my bid the 25% it would require to merely accomodate a new minimum wage (never mind any amount I would like in order to hedge inflation, give normal raises, or just stick in my pocket), corporate would decide to forego the services I provide, as they are purchased on an elective basis.

My presence in their "house" is not mandated by any authority; they employ me because they perceive value in excess of the money they pay me to do what I do.

If for whatever reason they feel the cost outstrips the value, I and all my guys are UNEMPLOYED, and that is not "Republican bullshit", it is pure-D fact.

[calm2chaos]

You'll see a nice reduction in housing prices very shorty is my bet. To say that real estate doesn't depriciate is completely untrue.

Who did?

The housing market only bears what the market itself can handle. And as interest rates grow housing costs will come down as they always do. If I am asking 300k for a house and I am not gettig it the houseing price will drop. What the prices will do is drive the flippers out because there will not be that imediate turnover of profit. People that bought high and only intended to stay in the house a short while will definetly find them selves stuck.

Yeah but in this current market. it's taking awhile for houses to drop. Even then, they will only drop but so much. I doubt we'll pre-millenium prices ever again. There are houses in my area that have doubled in a 5-year period. Even more than that in DC.

If the housing has doubled and the market can't sustain that price the price will drop. Houses are not going to sell if the market does not bear it, it's pretty simple. Those houses will drop in price to whatever the market can bear. If that means the house is now only worth half as much then that is what they will get if they sell in this market. Just because you bought a house for a million bucks does not mean you will get that million back when you sell. If the market is low then the price and value drop considerably. You have two choices 1,) you take the loss and take the perceived loss (the house you intend to buy after selling this one will also be considerably cheaper) or 2.) you don't sell at this moment and wait for the upswing in housing prices when your homes value has increaed due to demand and market prices

[calm2chaos]

That's utter bullshit. It's also what the Repubs are arguing.

First off, folks need to cut the bullshit about "if they raise taxes I'll cut jobs, raise the minimum wage I'll cut jobs".

What you propose is stoooooopid. What you propose directly relates to why the financial gap between rich and poor wiiiiidens. The bottom end should not stay at the same bottom forever, j2.:dry: We should not go into 2030 with the same fucking minimum wage. I think we are due for an increase at about the decade mark.


WTF?

What you propose is to manufacture inflation, then.

Do you also intend to control prices?

We all know how well that works.

Methinks you have supped too sumptuously on Democrat bullshit (to borrow your own phrase).

Do you also propose that, beneath the "minimum" wage, we also create a "sub-minimum" wage?

Has the word "minimum" been redefined?

Perhaps you prefer a wage structure with a false-bottom?

Fact is, if I were forced to raise my bid the 25% it would require to merely accomodate a new minimum wage (never mind any amount I would like in order to hedge inflation, give normal raises, or just stick in my pocket), corporate would decide to forego the services I provide, as they are purchased on an elective basis.

My presence in their "house" is not mandated by any authority; they employ me because they perceive value in excess of the money they pay me to do what I do.

If for whatever reason they feel the cost outstrips the value, I and all my guys are UNEMPLOYED, and that is not "Republican bullshit", it is pure-D fact.

I don't understand this idea that people have considering minimum wage. How can raising minimum wage not effect businesses. If I have 15 employees, and I have to raise the pay a buck fifty, 2 bucks. How do you not think this is going to cause less jobs? If I am a business owner I have to either raise my cost to my customer or reduce my operating expense I.E. Layoffs. If I raise my costs I lose business and am forced to lay off anyway. Is there some special money tree small business are pick from to cover the extra costs?

Secondly minimum wage jobs are not careers. They are what they are, and you shouldn't be expected to raise a family or live comfortably from it. It is a bare minimum you can't earn doing something. This is a job or payscale you should have for a minimum amount of time before you move on or move up. If your trying to maintain your family on minimum wage then your problems are not the pay, it's you

[j2k4]

What you said. ;)

Amazing, isn't it, that people can still be hoodwinked by the very idea of a minimum wage, nevermind all the liberal fog spewed in service of such a counter-intuitive move as raising it.

The proper thing to do would be to eliminate it altogether.

[MagicNakor]

Because Industrial Britain was so fun!

:shuriken:

[j2k4]

Because Industrial Britain was so fun!

:shuriken:

What has "Industrial Britain" got to do with anything?

Capitalism is not Socialism.

[j2k4]

Picture this:

I have jobs to fill.

I interview candidates in order to determine to my satisfaction (1) Who has the skills to do the job; (2) Who I can trust to do the job to my specification, and, (3) Who will do the job at the least cost to me.

I bid for my contract; they can bid for their job!

What could possibly be wrong with that? :)

[Rat Faced]

Population and GDP have nothing to do with the ease of movement between relative Income levels.

Im sure that "your opinion" is much more valid than the Research conducted by many economists and Universities from various countries.

I'm not trying to insult any country here, you'll notice that the UK was at the bottom too.

The trouble is that in our 2 countries the divide between "Rich" and "Poor" is greater, and the gulf that needs to be Brdged is therefor that much greater.

The fact of the matter is that more people get rich through Drug Trafficking and AMWAY (or similar) in the USA than through most other means.. a lot of people get poor making each one of those rich.

And your statement at the end tells alot about your knowledge of the truth and your bias. But the fact is the movement of wealth through the classes is greater in this country then any other. And to say GDP and other economic factors don't mater is stupid. I guess unemployment or employment have nothing to do with wealth. For a country that you claims moves most of it's wealth through drug trafficing it seems amazing how our economy runs the global market...LOL

As for my opinion and economist please show me a source that states wealth does not move within our country. Please explain to me how without the movement of wealth small business within this country are responsible for most jobs.
America's Small Businesses Are Thriving. Small businesses create two out of every three new jobs and account for nearly half of America's overall employment. They have played a vital role in helping our economy add more than 5.1 million new jobs since August 2003 and have helped reduce America's unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, below the average rate of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Small businesses are also vital for supporting our communities.


The fact is the major wealth is held by a staggering few. And I guess you have to define what you or I mean by "wealth" when speaking in context of 300,000,000 people. But the movement of wealth, great or small is an everyday occurence. this country carries well over 2 million millionaires. My point is simply that within this country you are not doomed to poverty no matter what your situation. The opportunity to move upwards is definetly alive and well. Wether you want to work to pursue that goal is up to you.

The fact of the matter is that more people get rich through Drug Trafficking and AMWAY (or similar) in the USA than through most other means.. a lot of people get poor making each one of those rich.

I have to say again how utterly stupid the above statement actualy is.

OK.. I say something tongue in cheek to make a point and i'm attacked so...

If you dont know how big your own Drug Problem is, and how fast its growing, then your a little naive to say the least. To try and say there are not a lot of new millionaires in the USA on the back of this is laughable. Possibly because the Heroin Trade is actively encouraged abroad by the US Government and has been since the 1970's.. especially since the liberation of Afganistan, where the local Warlords that control the country are the growers..

There are here, as an example, a number of new money millionairs on the back of it, and the problem isnt quite so bad here yet... you are obviously in denial.

The AMWAY, i wont even dignify with a response, if you cant see that was tongue in cheek, then you obviously dont know me at all. Nevertheless, AMWAY it appears has produced 4000 millionaires in the USA, so I guess that it wasnt as stupid as i thought when i typed it.

This, of course, pales beside the number of millionaires that are in:

Legal Sevices (280,946) ranked 1st

Physicans (192,545) ranked 2nd

but its uncomfortably close to

Osteopathic Physicians (10,598) ranked 7th

and

Drug Store Owners (8,324) ranked 8th

In the league listed in the "The Millionaire Next Door",




I was trying to get across that, its actually harder to get to Millionaire Status in the USA, than in other countries (I was thinking of parts of Europe and Canada)

No One has said it cant be done, it obviously can (and theres a better chance than in probably 90% of the worlds countries)

No One has said its easy anywhere, including the USA.

I'm frankly, at a loss as to why you've lost your rag... I havent attacked anyone. In fact, i included the UK (my own country) as in the same general place as your own in the rankings... you can do it, but its easier in some other places.

The main point I made in my last post was this:

"The trouble is that in our 2 countries the divide between "Rich" and "Poor" is greater, and the gulf that needs to be Bridged is therefor that much greater."

Its a self evident argument.

If your income needs to double to reach the next "Income" or "Social" bracket, then that is much easier to achieve than the "Triple" or "Quadrupal" of income needed in our two countries.

And no.. I didnt look anything up here, I came up with these figures merely to simplify and explain my argument.

I also think you have a simplistic view of your economy and its GDP, which came through in your post...

The fact is, if countries stop selling Oil in USD, the USA is effectively bankrupt.

There is talk about this from Russia, OPEC and South America at various times, usually to put pressure on the US Government for one thing or another... the only one to actually do it to date was Iraq in October/November 2000 when it started selling Oil in Euro's, and the converted its entire cash reserve (including its $10 Billion "Oil for Food" reserve) into Euro's from Dollars.

As Dr Gavin Putland (a very well respected Australian Economist put it):

The Americans could live with Saddam until he started selling oil for euros instead of U.S. dollars. Then the Europeans could live with him.

Hmm... wonder what happened shortly after that?


Because dollars can buy oil, exporters in countries that need to import oil -- i.e. most developed countries -- will accept dollars for their exports. Hence everyone who needs to buy from those exporters will accept dollars as payment for other things, and so on. To pay their bills, importers must have reserves of dollars. To prop up their currencies against speculative attacks, the central banks of all countries must have reserves of dollars. To get capital, poor countries must borrow dollars, and to service these debts they must export goods to obtain more dollars. About 2/3 of all currency reserves, more than 4/5 of all currency transactions, more than half of the world's exports, and all loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are denominated in dollars. As these things create demand for the dollar and shore up its value, oil exporters are the more willing to accept payment in dollars. So the process is self-reinforcing; it's called "dollar hegemony".

So America can export dollars, which cost nothing to produce, and receive real goods and services in return. When those dollars eventually find their way into foreign reserves, they can be invested only in American assets. This creates a demand for U.S. treasury bills without high interest rates, and inflates the U.S. property market and stock market -- to the benefit of current owners of land and shares, and to the detriment of the working poor who live in caravans ("trailers") on the fringes of American cities because they do not "earn" enough to buy or rent a home. Ordinary home owners may think they benefit from rising property values; but in fact, every time an owner moves to a new home, the higher sale price of the old home is offset by the higher purchase price of the new one. The real winners are the big investors.

But this continuous inflow of foreign investment (on the "capital account") is needed to balance America's mammoth trade deficit (on the "current account"). America's imports now exceed its exports by almost 50%, or 5% of GDP. Its net foreign debt is more than a quarter of annual GDP, and its public debt is about 60% of annual GDP.


What you have to remember is "The Euro Zone" already has a bigger share of world trade than the USA. In particular, it imports more oil than the USA and is the main trading partner of the Middle East. It offers higher interest rates than the USA, but does not have a huge foreign debt or trade deficit.

If the euro becomes a global currency to rival the dollar, central banks and other traders will sell down their dollar reserves, causing the value of the dollar to plummet (and devaluing the debts of poor countries at the expense of their creditors). The unwanted dollars will be withdrawn from the U.S. asset market and will flood the market for U.S. goods and services. The U.S. property market will deflate (so that poor Americans can more easily afford homes, at the expense of current property owners). The U.S. stock market, being more volatile than the property market, will fall faster. The real prices of property and shares will fall further than the dollar prices because the dollar itself will be devalued. The additional dollars chasing U.S. goods and services will fuel domestic inflation.

Iran converted most of its currency reserves to euros during 2002, and a proposal to price Iran's oil in euros has been submitted to the central bank and the parliament.

Let us see whether the Americans find an excuse to destabilize Iran's toddling democracy in favor of a dictatorship that just happens to prefer dollars to euros.

The second offender was Venezuela. In 2000, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez convened a conference on the future of fossil fuels and renewable energy. The report of the conference, delivered by Chavez to the OPEC summit in September 2000, recommended that OPEC set up a computerized barter system so that members could trade oil for goods and services without the use of dollars or any other currency. The chief beneficiaries would be OPEC's poorer customers, who did not have large currency reserves. Chavez made 13 barter deals. In one of them, Cuba provided health services in Venezuelan villages.

In April 2002 there was a coup against the twice-elected President Chavez. The coup was welcomed by the Bush administration and by editorials in numerous American newspapers, but collapsed after two days, leaving evidence that the U.S. administration was behind it

Having occupied Iraq, America has stepped up its rhetoric against neighboring Syria. Coincidentally, Syria would like to sell oil for euros because most of its imports are purchased with euros.

source (http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/iraqeuro.html)

[Rat Faced]

Picture this:

I have jobs to fill.

I interview candidates in order to determine to my satisfaction (1) Who has the skills to do the job; (2) Who I can trust to do the job to my specification, and, (3) Who will do the job at the least cost to me.

I bid for my contract; they can bid for their job!

What could possibly be wrong with that? :)

Bollicks.

If someone cant feed/clothe/look after their family with their wage, they will go out and steal what is needed, and maybe a little more. They are also more likely to fall victim of Substance Abuse or Mental Disorders.

The policy of not increasing the Minimum Wage in line with inflation is self defeating due to the added social/criminal costs that are then footed by the Taxpayer.

If your on Minimum Wage, you also likely to have no pride in where you work and are unlikely to go the extra mile for your company.

Tell me, how far does $3 an hour go these days in the USA?

Remember that the guy has rent to pay, bills to pay, food to buy...

Besides, if the public have no money, they cant spend any money either...

[calm2chaos]

And your statement at the end tells alot about your knowledge of the truth and your bias. But the fact is the movement of wealth through the classes is greater in this country then any other. And to say GDP and other economic factors don't mater is stupid. I guess unemployment or employment have nothing to do with wealth. For a country that you claims moves most of it's wealth through drug trafficing it seems amazing how our economy runs the global market...LOL

As for my opinion and economist please show me a source that states wealth does not move within our country. Please explain to me how without the movement of wealth small business within this country are responsible for most jobs.
America's Small Businesses Are Thriving. Small businesses create two out of every three new jobs and account for nearly half of America's overall employment. They have played a vital role in helping our economy add more than 5.1 million new jobs since August 2003 and have helped reduce America's unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, below the average rate of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Small businesses are also vital for supporting our communities.


The fact is the major wealth is held by a staggering few. And I guess you have to define what you or I mean by "wealth" when speaking in context of 300,000,000 people. But the movement of wealth, great or small is an everyday occurence. this country carries well over 2 million millionaires. My point is simply that within this country you are not doomed to poverty no matter what your situation. The opportunity to move upwards is definetly alive and well. Wether you want to work to pursue that goal is up to you.

The fact of the matter is that more people get rich through Drug Trafficking and AMWAY (or similar) in the USA than through most other means.. a lot of people get poor making each one of those rich.

I have to say again how utterly stupid the above statement actualy is.

OK.. I say something tongue in cheek to make a point and i'm attacked so...

If you dont know how big your own Drug Problem is, and how fast its growing, then your a little naive to say the least. To try and say there are not a lot of new millionaires in the USA on the back of this is laughable. Possibly because the Heroin Trade is actively encouraged abroad by the US Government and has been since the 1970's.. especially since the liberation of Afganistan, where the local Warlords that control the country are the growers..

There are here, as an example, a number of new money millionairs on the back of it, and the problem isnt quite so bad here yet... you are obviously in denial.

The AMWAY, i wont even dignify with a response, if you cant see that was tongue in cheek, then you obviously dont know me at all. Nevertheless, AMWAY it appears has produced 4000 millionaires in the USA, so I guess that it wasnt as stupid as i thought when i typed it.

This, of course, pales beside the number of millionaires that are in:

Legal Sevices (280,946) ranked 1st

Physicans (192,545) ranked 2nd

but its uncomfortably close to

Osteopathic Physicians (10,598) ranked 7th

and

Drug Store Owners (8,324) ranked 8th

In the league listed in the "The Millionaire Next Door",




I was trying to get across that, its actually harder to get to Millionaire Status in the USA, than in other countries (I was thinking of parts of Europe and Canada)

No One has said it cant be done, it obviously can (and theres a better chance than in probably 90% of the worlds countries)

No One has said its easy anywhere, including the USA.

I'm frankly, at a loss as to why you've lost your rag... I havent attacked anyone. In fact, i included the UK (my own country) as in the same general place as your own in the rankings... you can do it, but its easier in some other places.

The main point I made in my last post was this:

"The trouble is that in our 2 countries the divide between "Rich" and "Poor" is greater, and the gulf that needs to be Bridged is therefor that much greater."

Its a self evident argument.

If your income needs to double to reach the next "Income" or "Social" bracket, then that is much easier to achieve than the "Triple" or "Quadrupal" of income needed in our two countries.

And no.. I didnt look anything up here, I came up with these figures merely to simplify and explain my argument.

I also think you have a simplistic view of your economy and its GDP, which came through in your post...

The fact is, if countries stop selling Oil in USD, the USA is effectively bankrupt.

There is talk about this from Russia, OPEC and South America at various times, usually to put pressure on the US Government for one thing or another... the only one to actually do it to date was Iraq in October/November 2000 when it started selling Oil in Euro's, and the converted its entire cash reserve (including its $10 Billion "Oil for Food" reserve) into Euro's from Dollars.

As Dr Gavin Putland (a very well respected Australian Economist put it):

The Americans could live with Saddam until he started selling oil for euros instead of U.S. dollars. Then the Europeans could live with him.

Hmm... wonder what happened shortly after that?


Because dollars can buy oil, exporters in countries that need to import oil -- i.e. most developed countries -- will accept dollars for their exports. Hence everyone who needs to buy from those exporters will accept dollars as payment for other things, and so on. To pay their bills, importers must have reserves of dollars. To prop up their currencies against speculative attacks, the central banks of all countries must have reserves of dollars. To get capital, poor countries must borrow dollars, and to service these debts they must export goods to obtain more dollars. About 2/3 of all currency reserves, more than 4/5 of all currency transactions, more than half of the world's exports, and all loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are denominated in dollars. As these things create demand for the dollar and shore up its value, oil exporters are the more willing to accept payment in dollars. So the process is self-reinforcing; it's called "dollar hegemony".

So America can export dollars, which cost nothing to produce, and receive real goods and services in return. When those dollars eventually find their way into foreign reserves, they can be invested only in American assets. This creates a demand for U.S. treasury bills without high interest rates, and inflates the U.S. property market and stock market -- to the benefit of current owners of land and shares, and to the detriment of the working poor who live in caravans ("trailers") on the fringes of American cities because they do not "earn" enough to buy or rent a home. Ordinary home owners may think they benefit from rising property values; but in fact, every time an owner moves to a new home, the higher sale price of the old home is offset by the higher purchase price of the new one. The real winners are the big investors.

But this continuous inflow of foreign investment (on the "capital account") is needed to balance America's mammoth trade deficit (on the "current account"). America's imports now exceed its exports by almost 50%, or 5% of GDP. Its net foreign debt is more than a quarter of annual GDP, and its public debt is about 60% of annual GDP.


What you have to remember is "The Euro Zone" already has a bigger share of world trade than the USA. In particular, it imports more oil than the USA and is the main trading partner of the Middle East. It offers higher interest rates than the USA, but does not have a huge foreign debt or trade deficit.

If the euro becomes a global currency to rival the dollar, central banks and other traders will sell down their dollar reserves, causing the value of the dollar to plummet (and devaluing the debts of poor countries at the expense of their creditors). The unwanted dollars will be withdrawn from the U.S. asset market and will flood the market for U.S. goods and services. The U.S. property market will deflate (so that poor Americans can more easily afford homes, at the expense of current property owners). The U.S. stock market, being more volatile than the property market, will fall faster. The real prices of property and shares will fall further than the dollar prices because the dollar itself will be devalued. The additional dollars chasing U.S. goods and services will fuel domestic inflation.

Iran converted most of its currency reserves to euros during 2002, and a proposal to price Iran's oil in euros has been submitted to the central bank and the parliament.

Let us see whether the Americans find an excuse to destabilize Iran's toddling democracy in favor of a dictatorship that just happens to prefer dollars to euros.

The second offender was Venezuela. In 2000, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez convened a conference on the future of fossil fuels and renewable energy. The report of the conference, delivered by Chavez to the OPEC summit in September 2000, recommended that OPEC set up a computerized barter system so that members could trade oil for goods and services without the use of dollars or any other currency. The chief beneficiaries would be OPEC's poorer customers, who did not have large currency reserves. Chavez made 13 barter deals. In one of them, Cuba provided health services in Venezuelan villages.

In April 2002 there was a coup against the twice-elected President Chavez. The coup was welcomed by the Bush administration and by editorials in numerous American newspapers, but collapsed after two days, leaving evidence that the U.S. administration was behind it

Having occupied Iraq, America has stepped up its rhetoric against neighboring Syria. Coincidentally, Syria would like to sell oil for euros because most of its imports are purchased with euros.

source (http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/iraqeuro.html)



And exactly what do you think happens to the global market if the US goes bankrupt? Our economy fuels the global market... We go down and you will end up with a global reccesion or crash. Your taking about crashing the economy of the largest importer and exporter of goods and services in the world. China being heavily invested in the USD is also going to take a major hitif this happens. Should make for fun times if this ever does occur....

[Rat Faced]

The rest of the world buys up American Fortune 500 companies for pennies?

Seriously, the multinationals register their interests in other countries through creating other wholley seperate Companies. Even if they have the same name.

If McDonalds went tits up in the US, McDonalds in Europe would still be trading.

Yes, our Stocks and Shares would plummit as the Markets adjusted, then would probably go into overdrive as the rest of the world tried to take advantage of the opportunity of a lifetime.

You are a net Importer... look at your balance of payments.. something anyone that is not American loves to see.

The stuff you export... nothing there that other countries cant supply (with the exception of certain weapons systems).

The Euro-Zone is a much bigger market than the US (450,000,000 v 300,000,000), they are our main Trading Partners and as such the economy there has a much greater effect on the UKs. We may even join it at some point (as if..)

If the Dollar crashes and people are buying Oil in Euro's... well, you do the math.. that alone would more than compensate this side of the Pond for the US's economic collapse.

Its something that Europe wouldnt complain about, apart from a few weeks of inconveniance.


You forget... the US companies would mostly still be trading, its the little guy in the US that gets hit hard, the Rich Ones would still be rich (mostly).



And now i said all that, i'll point out that it wouldnt be for that long before Europe Joined you in collapse (maybe a decade?)... we've already passed the peak oil point.

[j2k4]

Picture this:

I have jobs to fill.

I interview candidates in order to determine to my satisfaction (1) Who has the skills to do the job; (2) Who I can trust to do the job to my specification, and, (3) Who will do the job at the least cost to me.

I bid for my contract; they can bid for their job!

What could possibly be wrong with that? :)

Bollicks.

If someone cant feed/clothe/look after their family with their wage, they will go out and steal what is needed, and maybe a little more. They are also more likely to fall victim of Substance Abuse or Mental Disorders.

So, then.

Every wage must be a "living wage"?

What are we to pay a teenager living with Mom and Dad?

Students?

People who are working a second job to make a little extra?

Not everyone has a family, Rat.

Does someone supporting only him or herself merit a wage fit to house/clothe/feed a family of four?

As to falling back on theft, I don't know where you get that idea-if one is inclined to steal, it is not automatically due to having a minimum wage job, and I would submit to you the vast number of minimum wage earners are not thieves.

Mental illness and drug abuse are not symptomatic of minimum wage jobs, either; the likelihood is the low-paying job follows those symptoms rather than the other way around-in any case, treatment programs for drug abuse and mental health issues are handily available for any who choose to partake, although, given those problems are most often chronic/endemic, success is not guaranteed, as well you know.

The policy of not increasing the Minimum Wage in line with inflation is self defeating due to the added social/criminal costs that are then footed by the Taxpayer.

The taxpayer pays those costs in any case, and inflation will rise along with the minimum wage.

It should be noted here that a capitalist system reacts negatively to any and every attempt to regulate anything having to do with the value of services or goods.

If your on Minimum Wage, you also likely to have no pride in where you work and are unlikely to go the extra mile for your company.

As an employer, I am not the least interested in hiring anyone whose chief source of pride is the size of his/her paycheck.

I want someone who takes pride in his/her own work and the ethic which compels them.

Tell me, how far does $3 an hour go these days in the USA?

I don't know anyone working for $3 an hour, but if there were jobs that paid $3/hr, someone would fill them.

Let's say someone with a large family wishes to employ someone for an hour a day to fold wash.

What's it worth?

Remember that the guy has rent to pay, bills to pay, food to buy...

Actually, this is not often the case, although the media and liberal movement must have you think otherwise in order to make their case.

Besides, if the public have no money, they cant spend any money either...

They seem to live rather well, all things considered; I have a friend who works at social services who told me she recently had to process a young mother who couldn't be bothered to turn off her IPod to answer questions.

BTW-those who "have no money" shop at Wal-Mart; it works rather well, and you'll find me there on occasion, too.

[Rat Faced]

When the UK Minimum Wage was introduced, we heard all these arguments coming from the employers beforehand.

Employment went UP, very few companies went under and the "new" money getting circulated into the economy stopped us going into the recession the rest of the world is now coming out of.

The Minimum Wage(s) in the UK are:

£5.05 per hour for workers aged 22 years and older

A development rate of £4.25 per hour for
workers aged 18 - 21 years inclusive
workers aged 22 years and above, starting a new job with a new employer and doing accredited training*

£3.00 per hour which applies to all workers under the age of 18 who are no longer of compulsory school age.


It therefore takes into account that they are more likely to have a family when they're older and live with their family whilst younger.

There's also a very likely increase in the Minimum Wage in the South East to £7.00+ on the cards, and this is being led by the employers to a large extent, not the Government. They actually want the legislation so that they'd all be on the same bases, rather than go into a wages war in the service/retail sectors.

I think the Exchange rate is about 1.85 at this moment in time..

Therefore in your money the minimum wage(s) are $9.29, $7.86 & $5.55 respectively, with a proposed $12.95 in the South East.


Surely if our puny economy can afford that, so can your huge one?

[calm2chaos]

The rest of the world buys up American Fortune 500 companies for pennies?

Seriously, the multinationals register their interests in other countries through creating other wholley seperate Companies. Even if they have the same name.

If McDonalds went tits up in the US, McDonalds in Europe would still be trading.

Yes, our Stocks and Shares would plummit as the Markets adjusted, then would probably go into overdrive as the rest of the world tried to take advantage of the opportunity of a lifetime.

You are a net Importer... look at your balance of payments.. something anyone that is not American loves to see.

The stuff you export... nothing there that other countries cant supply (with the exception of certain weapons systems).

The Euro-Zone is a much bigger market than the US (450,000,000 v 300,000,000), they are our main Trading Partners and as such the economy there has a much greater effect on the UKs. We may even join it at some point (as if..)

If the Dollar crashes and people are buying Oil in Euro's... well, you do the math.. that alone would more than compensate this side of the Pond for the US's economic collapse.

Its something that Europe wouldnt complain about, apart from a few weeks of inconveniance.


You forget... the US companies would mostly still be trading, its the little guy in the US that gets hit hard, the Rich Ones would still be rich (mostly).



And now i said all that, i'll point out that it wouldnt be for that long before Europe Joined you in collapse (maybe a decade?)... we've already passed the peak oil point.

Hmmmm... you give this country credit for absolutely nothing. our economy crashes and there will barely be a ripple. The largest importer of goods no longer buying from the world market is going ot essentially do nothing. A month of inconvience and everything goes back to normal...LOL The largest exporter of goods goes down and no ripple. We develop nothing.. Well except for Tecnology, I mean we only ;lead the world in Industrial R&D. I am sure that has no effect on anything.

The United States has long led the industrialized world in the performance of industrial R&D. Over the past 2 decades, however, U.S. dominance has been challenged. The U.S. share of total industrial R&D performed by the OECD countries fell between 1973 and 1992. (See figure 6-9.) Despite this decline, the United States remains the leading performer of industrial R&D by a wide margin, even surpassing the combined R&D of the 12-nation European Community. True to its belief in the economic benefits of investments in R&D, Japan followed a high R&D growth path during the 1970s and 1980s that led to a near doubling of its share of total OECD R&D over the 20-year period

The US dominates the global fortune 500, 3 of the top 4 most profitable companies are american and american based, Britain has one in the top 10 I believe then dissapears till 35.

I guess i just find it amazing that the leader in development of new technoloy, R&D and drug research collapses and there would be little effect. That trillions of spending dollars get taken off the market and it causes little if any problems other then a few months of turbulence. Per most europeans, I think you underestimate this country. Which is okay actualy...... But since in the end I am not an economist I guess you could be right. But IMO you , your kids or your kids kids will not see this countries downfall.

[Rat Faced]

Now go and look at the people doing the R&D... most are not American.

US pays more, and this causes a brain drain from the rest of the world. Those R&D scientists would just go home.

Technology? Wasnt so long ago when you could send rockets up there, but didnt have the technology to build the actual satelites, you got those from Europe... not now.

No, there would certainly be huge consequences of an American Collapse. It would cause a collapse in Asia too.

As Asia accounts for most of OUR imports, then our own companies would have a field day trying to fill the gap.

It would cause inflation on a massive scale for a short period OR a price war, depending upon the scale of the ASIAN collapse.

[j2k4]

When the UK Minimum Wage was introduced, we heard all these arguments coming from the employers beforehand.

Employment went UP, very few companies went under and the "new" money getting circulated into the economy stopped us going into the recession the rest of the world is now coming out of.

The Minimum Wage(s) in the UK are:

£5.05 per hour for workers aged 22 years and older

A development rate of £4.25 per hour for
workers aged 18 - 21 years inclusive
workers aged 22 years and above, starting a new job with a new employer and doing accredited training*

£3.00 per hour which applies to all workers under the age of 18 who are no longer of compulsory school age.


It therefore takes into account that they are more likely to have a family when they're older and live with their family whilst younger.

There's also a very likely increase in the Minimum Wage in the South East to £7.00+ on the cards, and this is being led by the employers to a large extent, not the Government. They actually want the legislation so that they'd all be on the same bases, rather than go into a wages war in the service/retail sectors.

I think the Exchange rate is about 1.85 at this moment in time..

Therefore in your money the minimum wage(s) are $9.29, $7.86 & $5.55 respectively, with a proposed $12.95 in the South East.


Surely if our puny economy can afford that, so can your huge one?


You have Socialist economy, too.

Different bird, I think you'll find.

To the extent your "employers" practice a true (and barely functional) communism in order to perpetuate themselves, our employers would run in the opposite direction, because we are a competitive economy, as compared to yours.

We have a different system, with a bigger potential payoff (we think), and, while each has it's efficiencies, they are not co-equal, you see.

Ours is bigger (God help me, I love saying that). :)

[calm2chaos]

Now go and look at the people doing the R&D... most are not American.

I will assume this to be completely false unless you have something to back it up. ANYTHING to back this up.


US pays more, and this causes a brain drain from the rest of the world. Those R&D scientists would just go home.

They are home in america.. This is there country making them americans. I would be willing to bet the majority of these people are US born and bred



Technology? Wasnt so long ago when you could send rockets up there, but didnt have the technology to build the actual satelites, you got those from Europe... not now.

Ya theres so little difference between a rocket that goes 80 miles and landing on the moon.... Luckily for us that we are not living in the past anymore.... The breakthoughs and advances you are seeing are from America, it innovation and development. You take that technology and build on it a little. But lets rememebr where the source comes from.


No, there would certainly be huge consequences of an American Collapse. It would cause a collapse in Asia too.

It would cause a world colapse without a doubt. NO .. I don't think your capable of filling any void left in the market place if the US bowed out. Not in quantity or quality. Asia would collapse for sure and you would follow right behind them. The technology would remain essentially stagnant, and the same goes for development. With the decrease in production and technology the Inflation would drive the rest into the ground


As Asia accounts for most of OUR imports, then our own companies would have a field day trying to fill the gap.

Which they wouldn't be able. Refer to above post


It would cause inflation on a massive scale for a short period OR a price war, depending upon the scale of the ASIAN collapse.

It would cause your collapse and the world reccesion. All in all a moot point since your not going to be seeing this happen.

[vidcc]

The terrible effect of raising the minimum wage (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/14680106.htm)

J2 I seem to remember you suggesting that what happens in one state would be mirrored in another ;)

[Rat Faced]

I will assume this to be completely false unless you have something to back it up. ANYTHING to back this up.


US pays more, and this causes a brain drain from the rest of the world. Those R&D scientists would just go home.

They are home in america.. This is there country making them americans. I would be willing to bet the majority of these people are US born and bred.

Ok... 17% of everyone employed in US Information Technology, as an example, are foreign nationals (as at 1998, source www.cpst.org) hired as skilled workers, under your highly skilled migrant visa program.

Usually, depending upon the company hierarchy and size, around 60-70% of a companies staff is involved as "Support Staff" (reception, sales, HR, admin etc etc), plus a percentage for management (Im sure J2 can give us closer estimates as to the usual ratio's in a large/medium US Company).

IF all Companies in IT were therefor doing the skilled research or programming; 17 + 60 = 77 + % for management (say 10?) = 13% left that could actually be US citizenes doing that "skilled" work.

However... not every company in Information Technology will be doing the skilled stuff which the foreign nationals have been hired to do. Some (most even) companies will just be "Selling Computers" or "Data Input", these dont qualify for the highly skilled migrant program. Therefor that 17% takes on a more significant meaning.. it must be MORE than 17% in the companies actually doing the skilled programming, system analyses and hardware research.

Hell, your Government itself is acknowledging that for the last 5 years or so they've been worried about a "Reverse Brain Drain", something thats never happened before, because your own companies are starting to outsource abroad and are offshoring.

Heres a snippet from your own press about that:


Until recently, if Americans heard the words "brain drain," they knew clearly what that meant: Bright, talented scientists, engineers and other techies from all over the world were migrating to the United States. They were drawn here by the world's best universities, the most dynamic companies, the freest economic and social environment and the highest standard of living.

Today, while many of these conditions still apply, Americans are starting to hear a new term: "reverse brain drain." What it suggests is the United States is pursuing government and private-sector policies that, over the long run, could lead to a significant shift in the world's balance of brainpower

Source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-23-economy-edit_x.htm)

By the way... most of them will be from Europe or Asia. Western Europeans dont generally want to be Americans. They are there for work, and only because of the work. Cant see many Japanese going out oftheir way to become Americans either...

Stop assuming everyone wants to be an American, its a false assumption based upon a lot of illegal immigration from certain countries. We either all hate you or we all want to be you... make your mind up please. (Its actually neither... USA is a lovely place to visit with fantastic people, I intend to return as often as possible, but i'd hate to live there.)



Technology? Wasnt so long ago when you could send rockets up there, but didnt have the technology to build the actual satelites, you got those from Europe...

Ya theres so little difference between a rocket that goes 80 miles and landing on the moon.... Luckily for us that we are not living in the past anymore.... The breakthoughs and advances you are seeing are from America, it innovation and development. You take that technology and build on it a little. But lets rememebr where the source comes from.

Then why is there such a hoo hah about NASA wanting to buy Russian Technology? Could it be, perhaps, its better than your own in parts?

Old Technology at that...

The CIA rates the USA as "amongst the forefront" in most research categories..."amongst"... see, Research is usually an International Effort, unless its for a specific Commercial purpose. A lot of it is done by Universities for example, and they tend to share the stuff between themselves, so its very hard to say, i'd say virtually impossiible to say, "This was 100% developed here by only our citizens".



No, there would certainly be huge consequences of an American Collapse. It would cause a collapse in Asia too.

It would cause a world colapse without a doubt. NO .. I don't think your capable of filling any void left in the market place if the US bowed out. Not in quantity or quality. Asia would collapse for sure and you would follow right behind them. The technology would remain essentially stagnant, and the same goes for development. With the decrease in production and technology the Inflation would drive the rest into the ground

You assume that the US exports loads to Europe... its not much actually (maybe to Eastern Europe or others outside the EU). The Quality of the stuff sucks and its too expensive so we wont buy it, at least if its from Asia we trust the quality and its cheap. Even the F150 pick up wont sell here, its crap.



As Asia accounts for most of OUR imports, then our own companies would have a field day trying to fill the gap.

Which they wouldn't be able. Refer to above post.

They'd fill the gap from the USA easily..there wouldnt BE much of a gap. See above post.

As I said, if the Asian Economy totally collapsed, then you'd have a point. However, as i said earlier, this isnt necessarily so... ours is a larger market for Asia than the US is.




It would cause inflation on a massive scale for a short period OR a price war, depending upon the scale of the ASIAN collapse.

It would cause your collapse and the world reccesion. All in all a moot point since your not going to be seeing this happen.

Could EASILY see it happen.

Your own Experts say its a matter of time (including Alan Greenspan), and they expect it to be within this decade... some say as little as 5 years away in fact.

Iran was, the last I heard, setting up an Oil Exchange in Euro's and Putin was certainly talking about selling Russian Oil in Euro's (as most that Russia sells goes to Europe).

Venesualla is also talking about Euros to sell its oil (mind, its also doing something similar to bartering with Cuba last I heard, so who knows what they'll be doing?...).

Did you note, by the way, that one of the first things that the USA did in Iraq was ensure that the Oil was once again sold in Dollars? Despite the cost to a bankrupt "provisional Government"....

[Rat Faced]

The terrible effect of raising the minimum wage (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/14680106.htm)

J2 I seem to remember you suggesting that what happens in one state would be mirrored in another ;)

Impossible..

J2 assured me that this could only happen in our "socialist" system..

:rolleyes:

[vidcc]

The terrible effect of raising the minimum wage (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/14680106.htm)

J2 I seem to remember you suggesting that what happens in one state would be mirrored in another ;)

Impossible..

J2 assured me that this could only happen in our "socialist" system..

:rolleyes:
He assured you that above average job growth and higher wages could only happen in a socialist system :unsure: Doesn't sound like him

[Rat Faced]

No, I assure you he did.

I received the impression that he would welcome a return to the Cotton Industry a couple of hundred years ago, as this is the ultimate in paying Low Wages.

He may have a point in that there was 100% employment for people with a slightly dark complexion at the time, as I recall from school.

Obviously paying them anything, reduced this 100% ergo:

Wages = Unemployment

The higher the wages, the higher the unemployment.


J2 is not one to change his mind as you well know..

Its obvious therefore that those States have been infiltrated by some Pinko's from overseas, or they have just decided that they dont want to compete.

Bloody anti-american they are...:angry:

[calm2chaos]

I will assume this to be completely false unless you have something to back it up. ANYTHING to back this up.


They are home in america.. This is there country making them americans. I would be willing to bet the majority of these people are US born and bred.

Ok... 17% of everyone employed in US Information Technology, as an example, are foreign nationals (as at 1998, source www.cpst.org) hired as skilled workers, under your highly skilled migrant visa program.

Usually, depending upon the company hierarchy and size, around 60-70% of a companies staff is involved as "Support Staff" (reception, sales, HR, admin etc etc), plus a percentage for management (Im sure J2 can give us closer estimates as to the usual ratio's in a large/medium US Company).

IF all Companies in IT were therefor doing the skilled research or programming; 17 + 60 = 77 + % for management (say 10?) = 13% left that could actually be US citizenes doing that "skilled" work.

However... not every company in Information Technology will be doing the skilled stuff which the foreign nationals have been hired to do. Some (most even) companies will just be "Selling Computers" or "Data Input", these dont qualify for the highly skilled migrant program. Therefor that 17% takes on a more significant meaning.. it must be MORE than 17% in the companies actually doing the skilled programming, system analyses and hardware research.

Hell, your Government itself is acknowledging that for the last 5 years or so they've been worried about a "Reverse Brain Drain", something thats never happened before, because your own companies are starting to outsource abroad and are offshoring.

Heres a snippet from your own press about that:


Until recently, if Americans heard the words "brain drain," they knew clearly what that meant: Bright, talented scientists, engineers and other techies from all over the world were migrating to the United States. They were drawn here by the world's best universities, the most dynamic companies, the freest economic and social environment and the highest standard of living.

Today, while many of these conditions still apply, Americans are starting to hear a new term: "reverse brain drain." What it suggests is the United States is pursuing government and private-sector policies that, over the long run, could lead to a significant shift in the world's balance of brainpower

Source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-23-economy-edit_x.htm)

By the way... most of them will be from Europe or Asia. Western Europeans dont generally want to be Americans. They are there for work, and only because of the work. Cant see many Japanese going out oftheir way to become Americans either...

Stop assuming everyone wants to be an American, its a false assumption based upon a lot of illegal immigration from certain countries. We either all hate you or we all want to be you... make your mind up please. (Its actually neither... USA is a lovely place to visit with fantastic people, I intend to return as often as possible, but i'd hate to live there.)



Technology? Wasnt so long ago when you could send rockets up there, but didnt have the technology to build the actual satelites, you got those from Europe...

Ya theres so little difference between a rocket that goes 80 miles and landing on the moon.... Luckily for us that we are not living in the past anymore.... The breakthoughs and advances you are seeing are from America, it innovation and development. You take that technology and build on it a little. But lets rememebr where the source comes from.

Then why is there such a hoo hah about NASA wanting to buy Russian Technology? Could it be, perhaps, its better than your own in parts?

Old Technology at that...

The CIA rates the USA as "amongst the forefront" in most research categories..."amongst"... see, Research is usually an International Effort, unless its for a specific Commercial purpose. A lot of it is done by Universities for example, and they tend to share the stuff between themselves, so its very hard to say, i'd say virtually impossiible to say, "This was 100% developed here by only our citizens".



No, there would certainly be huge consequences of an American Collapse. It would cause a collapse in Asia too.

It would cause a world colapse without a doubt. NO .. I don't think your capable of filling any void left in the market place if the US bowed out. Not in quantity or quality. Asia would collapse for sure and you would follow right behind them. The technology would remain essentially stagnant, and the same goes for development. With the decrease in production and technology the Inflation would drive the rest into the ground

You assume that the US exports loads to Europe... its not much actually (maybe to Eastern Europe or others outside the EU). The Quality of the stuff sucks and its too expensive so we wont buy it, at least if its from Asia we trust the quality and its cheap. Even the F150 pick up wont sell here, its crap.



As Asia accounts for most of OUR imports, then our own companies would have a field day trying to fill the gap.

Which they wouldn't be able. Refer to above post.

They'd fill the gap from the USA easily..there wouldnt BE much of a gap. See above post.

As I said, if the Asian Economy totally collapsed, then you'd have a point. However, as i said earlier, this isnt necessarily so... ours is a larger market for Asia than the US is.




It would cause inflation on a massive scale for a short period OR a price war, depending upon the scale of the ASIAN collapse.

It would cause your collapse and the world reccesion. All in all a moot point since your not going to be seeing this happen.

Could EASILY see it happen.

Your own Experts say its a matter of time (including Alan Greenspan), and they expect it to be within this decade... some say as little as 5 years away in fact.

Iran was, the last I heard, setting up an Oil Exchange in Euro's and Putin was certainly talking about selling Russian Oil in Euro's (as most that Russia sells goes to Europe).

Venesualla is also talking about Euros to sell its oil (mind, its also doing something similar to bartering with Cuba last I heard, so who knows what they'll be doing?...).

Did you note, by the way, that one of the first things that the USA did in Iraq was ensure that the Oil was once again sold in Dollars? Despite the cost to a bankrupt "provisional Government"....

First off I gotta tell you, i don't get your math. If 17% are foriegn nationals then 83% are not. Some how you equated 17% to 83%. Your logic at best makes HUGE assumptions to fit your arguement.

I have no false assumption. You have a definet elitist attitude when it comes to the US. One that is truly not deserved. Your talk of immigration is crap to start with. Of LEGAL immigrants we NATURALIZED over 600,000 last year. From almost every country in the world. Not just mexico. 97,000 came from the European Region.

The total long-term immigrants for 2004 for each country are 946,100 for the U.S., 266,500 for the UK, and 156,400 for Italy. The British government estimates are for 494,000 in 2004.

Oddly enough seems a lot less people want to belong to the EU, even with it's open door policy. There must be a reason these people are still flocking to this country................... I ya thats right to sell drugs and AMWAY.. Whatever the fuck AMWAY is.

If it's developed in this countries universities it was developed here. As for the Russian space technology.... Exactly what Hoo haa. We wanted to by soyaz rockets back in 05 while the shuttle was grounded. Was there some other hoo haa your talking about. This had to be done because russia wanted to be paid after its initial launches to the space station. I wonder what countries are paying the US for all there flights to the space station. We have a multiple re-entry craft, the first and only in the world but ya russian technology is obviously were we want to go. ..... Other then very recently has there been a lot of help with "international" effort other then russia.. Not counting the actual astrounauts themselves.

As for the vehicles, Oddly enough grew in the EU last year. The reason for the prices is not the US fault but the High tariffs imposed by the EU to stem these vehicles from coming over.

Across all sectors, Michigan's No. 1 source of foreign investment is the 25 countries of the European Union. This investment of $29 billion is three times as much as Michigan received from the rest of the world and supports more than 136,000 in-state jobs. The EU is also Michigan's second-largest export market, consuming more than $4.5 billion in Michigan goods and services and accounting for an additional 91,000 local jobs

Maybe your the one that doesn't like the product out of the US. But it seems as if the EU itself isn't completely flat on the idea

As for the economy.... Still don't think your going to be able to fill the gap. Agricultural, technological....... both are going to suffer. exporting - 6 of the top 15 are Asian countries. Importing - 5 are asian countries. Seems we have a nice little market witht that part of the world. I have no doubt that when we stop importing after our economy crashes that 150 trillion dollars won't do much the asian economy

[Rat Faced]

You dont get on the "Highly Skilled Immigrant" visa program to answer telephones.

Thats where the 17% v the 83% comes from.

All the support staff... ie: Most of the organisation (if its one of the ones that are doing highly skilled and arent just data processing, which i pointed out) is not counted as within those 17%.

They will be Americans, or immigrants on visas other than the Highly Skilled Visa program.

I tried to get figures (and also said outright that J2 would have a better idea of the percentages of "overhead" in those types of organisations in your country) in the ballpark.

How many companies in this sector are doing "Highly Skilled" ie: R&D, Programming and Analysis? I'd suggest quite a lot are just doing Data Entry or PC Sales.

You have to include all the staff in the companies that arent involved in this "Highly Skilled" stuff as part of the 83%... i'd suggest that would be a fair chunk of them.

Re:
Immigration.. You have 6 times population of UK, god knows how much bigger an economy and only took in 3 times as many migrants, not saying much positive are you?.... "managed migration" its called.

Also "The European Region" is not just the EU (and there are still countries within the EU that make the USA look like a paradise)... you also count Eastern Europe, including Russia as "European Region".

I'm talking about "Western Europe"... find those figures. And figures about taking "citizenship" not migration, thats what the argument is about. We know theres a brain drain to the US (well, YOU denied it, then gave us the evidence to support it)... YOU are stating that we want to be Americans, i deny that.

Plenty of people going to the USA, but not to become citizens of there (at least from Western Europe)...


The reason we dont buy American is because its crap quality v price (in the UK).

Its often cheaper than British Goods, more expensive than Asian. Both of the others are better quality. Hell you only just learned how to build a car that can go around corners properly... nice car, if i could find the £60,000 needed against the £20,000 Japanese equivalent...

[calm2chaos]

You dont get on the "Highly Skilled Immigrant" visa program to answer telephones.

Thats where the 17% v the 83% comes from.

All the support staff... ie: Most of the organisation (if its one of the ones that are doing highly skilled and arent just data processing, which i pointed out) is not counted as within those 17%.

They will be Americans, or immigrants on visas other than the Highly Skilled Visa program.

I tried to get figures (and also said outright that J2 would have a better idea of the percentages of "overhead" in those types of organisations in your country) in the ballpark.

How many companies in this sector are doing "Highly Skilled" ie: R&D, Programming and Analysis? I'd suggest quite a lot are just doing Data Entry or PC Sales.

You have to include all the staff in the companies that arent involved in this "Highly Skilled" stuff as part of the 83%... i'd suggest that would be a fair chunk of them.

Re:
Immigration.. You have 6 times population of UK, god knows how much bigger an economy and only took in 3 times as many migrants, not saying much positive are you?.... "managed migration" its called.

Also "The European Region" is not just the EU (and there are still countries within the EU that make the USA look like a paradise)... you also count Eastern Europe, including Russia as "European Region".

I'm talking about "Western Europe"... find those figures. And figures about taking "citizenship" not migration, thats what the argument is about. We know theres a brain drain to the US (well, YOU denied it, then gave us the evidence to support it)... YOU are stating that we want to be Americans, i deny that.

Plenty of people going to the USA, but not to become citizens of there (at least from Western Europe)...


The reason we dont buy American is because its crap quality v price (in the UK).

Its often cheaper than British Goods, more expensive than Asian. Both of the others are better quality. Hell you only just learned how to build a car that can go around corners properly... nice car, if i could find the £60,000 needed against the £20,000 Japanese equivalent...


I am not going to argue percentages with you since you don't have hard numbers. Assumptions do great if your guessing.

Who the hell said you wanted to be Americans... I know I don't. And I can't really think of a lot of if any Americans that want you to become citizens either. Stay over the pond, we do not desire your citezenship nor are we asking you to come by. I just presented you with the number that say your wrong. That our immigration is a lot more then the drug dealers and AMWAYS salesmen.

I have never had a car that had a problem going around corners. You don't like em don't buy them. But the simple fact is the EU is buying them, hence the growth. Your elitist opinion aside the exports to EU countries is significant. Not huge because we also have to deal with the tariffs set into place to make our products cost more. This is so our products don't bump the homegrowns out of the market place. Cars being the prime example.

And maybe the reason there coming here to work is the staggering unemployment and dismal growth rate in the EU. 15% of your imports come from the US. And your total import dollar is only slightly higher then ours. Which would lead me to think you import virtually everything you need to survive. With your industrial production growth rate hanging around 1% there doesn't seem to be a lot moving in the EU. You export a 1/4 of your goods to the US. I have no doubt thet your economy as bad as it is will have no problem eating that HUGE loss in revenue.

If your going to be an elitist. You should first have something to be elite about. The global market falls without us. And you will be one of the first to come with us. Theres no way your going to survive losing one of your largest exporting countries........

[Rat Faced]

The 17% "highly Skilled Visa" program figure in an entire industry was a hard figure.

Tariffs:

Maybe you should do some research here... the only reason there are any Tarrifs between the EU and USA is because in March 2002 the US government imposed 30% tariffs on a range of imported steel products, the EU retaliated. The WTO declared those steel tariffs illegal, and i think they've now been removed, however the knock on effects are still being felt on both sides of the Pond...


Earlier in 2006, the repeal of the Byrd amendment by the US Congress was welcomed by the Commission, with EU sanctions now being reduced in tandem with remaining Byrd payments. Nevertheless, US failure to comply with a number of WTO dispute settlement findings still continues to be a major EU concern. For instance, the repeal of the US FSC/ETI export-contingent tax scheme includes transitional and grandfathering provisions which have been repeatedly ruled WTO-incompatible. The EU will continue to raise compliance concerns with the US authorities. In addition, unfair anti-dumping measures taken by the United States against the EU continue to be a major trade irritant. In over 50 anti-dumping cases and reviews since 1995, US duties have been inflated using the zeroing methodology which has already been found WTO-incompatible and is currently subject to further litigation.

Seems you want to trade free, but make everyone else pay to trade there.. aint gonna happen.

The Unemployment Rate in the UK is currently 5.3% up from 4.7% last year, this compares very favourably with your own on the surface.

However whereas ours counts everyone thats registered as unemployed, yours only counts those that are getting assistance .. ie: It misses out those that dont claim, cant claim or have been unemployed long enough that they dont get assistance any more.

The most accurate ways of looking at this subject is the Employment/Population Ratio or Labourforce Participation Rate, as these are the only way that we can find out the truth, and are measured the same everywhere in the world... so lets look:

USA = 63% Employment/Population Ratio, 66% Labourforce Participation (Source US Department of Labor)
UK = 71% Employment/Population Ratio, 77% Labourforce Participation (Source EU Statistics)

So, seems your a little quick with the "staggering unemployment" huh? Seems a lot more of our population have jobs than your own... and we pay 'em enough to survive on too, with our minimum wage nearly double your own.


Lets look at Economic Growth then huh?

If what your saying is correct, we'd all be going to China, which accounted for 40% of ALL Economic Growth in the world last year...

Fact is that the UK has had Economic Growth for the last 9 continuous years (nearly 25% 2000-2005), verses US having last 3. The average Economic Growth for both countries since 1992 has been in the region of 3% per annum.. so what the hell are you talking about?

How about other economic factors?

Current Account:

US Deficit of $208.7 Billion (Projected as $477 Billion for the year)

UK Record Annual Deficit of $7.5 Billion recorded in April (£4.0Billion)..

That means we're both in the Red, but our current account deficit is something like 2% of your own. You accumulate the equivalent of our entire annual deficit every 6 days.

Overall Debt:

USA: Thats currently 60% GDP, predicted to rise to 70% GDP by 2010

UK: Currently 42% GDP, and unable to rise much above that because the Government is limited on how much it can borrow each year.


I think, personally, if i was trying to survive on my Overdraft i'd much rather have a 45% Mortgage than a 70% Mortgage.

[calm2chaos]

The 17% "highly Skilled Visa" program figure in an entire industry was a hard figure.

Tariffs:

Maybe you should do some research here... the only reason there are any Tarrifs between the EU and USA is because in March 2002 the US government imposed 30% tariffs on a range of imported steel products, the EU retaliated. The WTO declared those steel tariffs illegal, and i think they've now been removed, however the knock on effects are still being felt on both sides of the Pond...


Earlier in 2006, the repeal of the Byrd amendment by the US Congress was welcomed by the Commission, with EU sanctions now being reduced in tandem with remaining Byrd payments. Nevertheless, US failure to comply with a number of WTO dispute settlement findings still continues to be a major EU concern. For instance, the repeal of the US FSC/ETI export-contingent tax scheme includes transitional and grandfathering provisions which have been repeatedly ruled WTO-incompatible. The EU will continue to raise compliance concerns with the US authorities. In addition, unfair anti-dumping measures taken by the United States against the EU continue to be a major trade irritant. In over 50 anti-dumping cases and reviews since 1995, US duties have been inflated using the zeroing methodology which has already been found WTO-incompatible and is currently subject to further litigation.

Seems you want to trade free, but make everyone else pay to trade there.. aint gonna happen.

The Unemployment Rate in the UK is currently 5.3% up from 4.7% last year, this compares very favourably with your own on the surface.

However whereas ours counts everyone thats registered as unemployed, yours only counts those that are getting assistance .. ie: It misses out those that dont claim, cant claim or have been unemployed long enough that they dont get assistance any more.

The most accurate ways of looking at this subject is the Employment/Population Ratio or Labourforce Participation Rate, as these are the only way that we can find out the truth, and are measured the same everywhere in the world... so lets look:

USA = 63% Employment/Population Ratio, 66% Labourforce Participation (Source US Department of Labor)
UK = 71% Employment/Population Ratio, 77% Labourforce Participation (Source EU Statistics)

So, seems your a little quick with the "staggering unemployment" huh? Seems a lot more of our population have jobs than your own... and we pay 'em enough to survive on too, with our minimum wage nearly double your own.


Lets look at Economic Growth then huh?

If what your saying is correct, we'd all be going to China, which accounted for 40% of ALL Economic Growth in the world last year...

Fact is that the UK has had Economic Growth for the last 9 continuous years (nearly 25% 2000-2005), verses US having last 3. The average Economic Growth for both countries since 1992 has been in the region of 3% per annum.. so what the hell are you talking about?

How about other economic factors?

Current Account:

US Deficit of $208.7 Billion (Projected as $477 Billion for the year)

UK Record Annual Deficit of $7.5 Billion recorded in April (£4.0Billion)..

That means we're both in the Red, but our current account deficit is something like 2% of your own. You accumulate the equivalent of our entire annual deficit every 6 days.

Overall Debt:

USA: Thats currently 60% GDP, predicted to rise to 70% GDP by 2010

UK: Currently 42% GDP, and unable to rise much above that because the Government is limited on how much it can borrow each year.


I think, personally, if i was trying to survive on my Overdraft i'd much rather have a 45% Mortgage than a 70% Mortgage.

First off I never mentioned the UK....So virtually everything you said has absolutely no baring on anything. I was speaking about the EU since you have brought up the Euro. So the staggering unemployment and little growth rate is not going to help you if a miracle happens and our economy crashes. I seem to here all this talk about the EU but when you bring a negative up people seem to fall back to "Well in france" or "in the UK". If your going to stand as a union then your going to fall as one. You mention all the problems within this country and I am not about to say .. ya but the state of Pennsylvania is doing great........ Although I do believe you have a higher percentage living below the poverty line in the beautiful UK.

[Rat Faced]

You seem to have little grasp here.

The UK is part of the EU.

The UK is not in the Eurozone.

Pennsylvania isn't a sovereign nation, its part of the USA. I didnt pick one part of the UK, say England or Scotland, i used the whole UK.

I cannot say "EU" and talk about every single sovereign nation within it. The Western European countries have the capacity and capability to increase production easily and quickly, the Eastern Europeans havent and arent fussy (maybe thats where all your American Exports are going :P)

Pennsylvania is very limited in what it can do, its limited by the fact its only part of a larger country and the currency and interest rates are not controlled by Pennsylvania.

The UK controls its own Interest Rates and currency (well as much as any country can control its currency).... It does not control the Currency or Interest Rates of Cyprus or Greece. How can i therefore even pretend to speak for them?

I dont know much about the Eurozone economy except that its basically controlled by Germany and France. I do know that Interest Rates there are lower than either the UK or the USA, which indicates only that they have low inflation on the mainland....and gives me a wish that I could convert my Mortgage to Euros...(but Japanese Yen would be even better ;) )


Yet again, you talk about something you know little of re: Poverty Line.

That is measured differently in the States to the UK/EU.

If your going to use the term then define it.


The number of Americans living in poverty has grown significantly in in recent years, swelling to 37 million people in 2005 - nearly one out of every eight people in the United States. Poverty's rise to 12.7% of the total population represented an additional 7 million people falling into poverty since 2000.

13 million children lived in poverty in 2004. The rate of poverty among children was 17.8%, significantly higher than the poverty rate for the population as a whole. Child poverty in the U.S. is much higher -- often two-to-three times higher -- than that of most other major Western industrialized countries.

Source (http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm#1)

That quote above means nothing to me, its a different measure of Poverty than that used this side of the Pond.

As of 1999, the threshold for poverty for a family of four was an annual income of $17,029 in the USA. The poverty threshold varied by size and "number of related children" from $8,501 for one person to $34,417 for a family of 9 or more...what is it in 2006?

I can tell you what the UK/EUs definition is... 60% of median disposable income (usually summarised as 2/3 average income, which isnt strictly true)...

If this was the definition used in the USA, that $8,501 figure would rise to $24,000 (Average Income of a US Male in 1999 was $40,000)...how many extra would be caught up in that? People 3 times richer would be in "poverty".

Add to this that its "disposable income" and we live in a wellfare state unlike yourself... ie: In this country they arent free to starve or die of hypothermia as they are in your own. They get free Healthcare without jumping through hoops for weeks or going to a loan shark etc etc

As the 2 definitions of "Poverty" used are completely different, then they cant really be compared, however its pretty clear that you need to be a lot poorer in the US before your actually recognised as being in Poverty.

If your poverty talk is regarding the whole of the EU, your probably correct. The EU grew recently by bringing a lot of the poorer European Country's into the Union.. this would have greatly increased the percentage of people in the EU being "in poverty", as they werent in the EU beforehand.

[calm2chaos]

You seem to have little grasp here.

The UK is part of the EU.

The UK is not in the Eurozone.

Pennsylvania isn't a sovereign nation, its part of the USA. I didnt pick one part of the UK, say England or Scotland, i used the whole UK.

I cannot say "EU" and talk about every single sovereign nation within it. The Western European countries have the capacity and capability to increase production easily and quickly, the Eastern Europeans havent and arent fussy (maybe thats where all your American Exports are going :P)

Pennsylvania is very limited in what it can do, its limited by the fact its only part of a larger country and the currency and interest rates are not controlled by Pennsylvania.

The UK controls its own Interest Rates and currency (well as much as any country can control its currency).... It does not control the Currency or Interest Rates of Cyprus or Greece. How can i therefore even pretend to speak for them?

I dont know much about the Eurozone economy except that its basically controlled by Germany and France. I do know that Interest Rates there are lower than either the UK or the USA, which indicates only that they have low inflation on the mainland....and gives me a wish that I could convert my Mortgage to Euros...(but Japanese Yen would be even better ;) )


Yet again, you talk about something you know little of re: Poverty Line.

That is measured differently in the States to the UK/EU.

If your going to use the term then define it.


The number of Americans living in poverty has grown significantly in in recent years, swelling to 37 million people in 2005 - nearly one out of every eight people in the United States. Poverty's rise to 12.7% of the total population represented an additional 7 million people falling into poverty since 2000.

13 million children lived in poverty in 2004. The rate of poverty among children was 17.8%, significantly higher than the poverty rate for the population as a whole. Child poverty in the U.S. is much higher -- often two-to-three times higher -- than that of most other major Western industrialized countries.

Source (http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm#1)

That quote above means nothing to me, its a different measure of Poverty than that used this side of the Pond.

As of 1999, the threshold for poverty for a family of four was an annual income of $17,029 in the USA. The poverty threshold varied by size and "number of related children" from $8,501 for one person to $34,417 for a family of 9 or more...what is it in 2006?

I can tell you what the UK/EUs definition is... 60% of median disposable income (usually summarised as 2/3 average income, which isnt strictly true)...

If this was the definition used in the USA, that $8,501 figure would rise to $24,000 (Average Income of a US Male in 1999 was $40,000)...how many extra would be caught up in that? People 3 times richer would be in "poverty".

Add to this that its "disposable income" and we live in a wellfare state unlike yourself... ie: In this country they arent free to starve or die of hypothermia as they are in your own. They get free Healthcare without jumping through hoops for weeks or going to a loan shark etc etc

As the 2 definitions of "Poverty" used are completely different, then they cant really be compared, however its pretty clear that you need to be a lot poorer in the US before your actually recognised as being in Poverty.

If your poverty talk is regarding the whole of the EU, your probably correct. The EU grew recently by bringing a lot of the poorer European Country's into the Union.. this would have greatly increased the percentage of people in the EU being "in poverty", as they werent in the EU beforehand.

Maybe thats the problem here. I am talking of the EU (except for that last post which was UK specific) since it as a whole most closely matches the US. It's tough to compare a country that has a 5th of our population, is quarter of our size. The poverty level is the poverty level. You take my numbers and say there wrong and substitute your own. And I am supposed to say ooo okay yours are right.. The Poverty guidleines for a family of 4 is $20,000.

You talk of speaking about things you know nothing about. There are a multitude of programs for health and well being within this country for anyone that qualifies for them. Due to health age economic status etc etc....

IF Median in the UK is about 40k USD your poverty line is 60% after housing costs (17.5 Average of disposable income) which gets you to 33,000. 60% of that takes you to 19,800..... Assuming family of four is living of that. The US equivalant is 20,000............ They seem Very very close to me. If your substantialy less median then your poverty will be less since you make substantialy less.

[Rat Faced]

No, you misunderstand..

I used US figures for 1999 here, and then converted them to what it would mean if you used the same definition of Poverty.

US median wage for a single male in 1999 was $40,000

Our definition (UK/EU) would put anyone earning less than $24,000 in the USA as below the poverty line in 1999.

The US definition put anyone earning less than $8,501 as below the poverty line in the USA in 1999. Hell, a family of four needed $17,029 before the State counted them as in "Poverty" in 1999, thats $8,000 less than we would have counted a single person.

I was trying to explain that looking at something that says "so many % in such and such a country live in Poverty" doesnt work... as the report from the country concerned (in this case the UK or indeed whatever EU country you were looking at as we all use the same formula) has a different definition for the word to that your used to.

If the same definition was used, as an example ours, then there would be a huge increase in "Poverty" in the USA.

Likewise if we used the US definition, there would be a huge drop in the UK/EU numbers.

I'm not suggesting one way of calculating is better than the other (although obviously i prefer ours, it helps in our pay negotiations ;) ) ... however it does stop us trying to make a direct comparison.

As to your Health... you said it yourself.

"For anyone that qualifies for them".

Many of the ones that really need it, havent got access for various reasons, whether it be because they have no permanent address (as they cant afford rent), or they cant wait for the (depending upon where you are) weeks of processing to try and qualify. This gives an illusion.. the ones that can just about manage (quite poor) can get stuff, but the ones that have nothing (poor), get nothing... again, this depends upon where you live.

I've said it before and i'll say it again... it's Ironic.

The US Government spends between 1.5X - 2X the GDP of any of the European Countries on Health Care. Thats GDP, not $ per head. As you said, your economy is MORE than 6x our own. In addition to this money, Americans and their employers pay $Billions in Health Insurance.

Yet it will not provide a Universal Health System "Free at the point of use"...

ie: You dont pay $100 to visit a GP or pay Hospital Fees.

The only arguments I've heard against one appear to be based on Geography.. the US population is more widely dispersed.

Yet both Canada and Australia have them, and you cant get much more "widely dispersed" than the Australian Outback I would have thought.

The only reason that i can think of; is that the Health Services, Pharmacutical Companies and Insurance Services like the billions they are conning out of the American People... and the politicians dont want to upset them.

Its pretty sad when you see small countries like Cuba can provide them though....

[calm2chaos]

No, you misunderstand..

I used US figures for 1999 here, and then converted them to what it would mean if you used the same definition of Poverty.

US median wage for a single male in 1999 was $40,000

Our definition (UK/EU) would put anyone earning less than $24,000 in the USA as below the poverty line in 1999.

The US definition put anyone earning less than $8,501 as below the poverty line in the USA in 1999. Hell, a family of four needed $17,029 before the State counted them as in "Poverty" in 1999, thats $8,000 less than we would have counted a single person.

I was trying to explain that looking at something that says "so many % in such and such a country live in Poverty" doesnt work... as the report from the country concerned (in this case the UK or indeed whatever EU country you were looking at as we all use the same formula) has a different definition for the word to that your used to.

If the same definition was used, as an example ours, then there would be a huge increase in "Poverty" in the USA.

Likewise if we used the US definition, there would be a huge drop in the UK/EU numbers.

I'm not suggesting one way of calculating is better than the other (although obviously i prefer ours, it helps in our pay negotiations ;) ) ... however it does stop us trying to make a direct comparison.

As to your Health... you said it yourself.

"For anyone that qualifies for them".

Many of the ones that really need it, havent got access for various reasons, whether it be because they have no permanent address (as they cant afford rent), or they cant wait for the (depending upon where you are) weeks of processing to try and qualify. This gives an illusion.. the ones that can just about manage (quite poor) can get stuff, but the ones that have nothing (poor), get nothing... again, this depends upon where you live.

I've said it before and i'll say it again... it's Ironic.

The US Government spends between 1.5X - 2X the GDP of any of the European Countries on Health Care. Thats GDP, not $ per head. As you said, your economy is MORE than 6x our own. In addition to this money, Americans and their employers pay $Billions in Health Insurance.

Yet it will not provide a Universal Health System "Free at the point of use"...

ie: You dont pay $100 to visit a GP or pay Hospital Fees.

The only arguments I've heard against one appear to be based on Geography.. the US population is more widely dispersed.

Yet both Canada and Australia have them, and you cant get much more "widely dispersed" than the Australian Outback I would have thought.

The only reason that i can think of; is that the Health Services, Pharmacutical Companies and Insurance Services like the billions they are conning out of the American People... and the politicians dont want to upset them.

Its pretty sad when you see small countries like Cuba can provide them though....

We'll drop the poverty line then ...LOL

As far as the care. There are walk in clinics were no permenant address is needed. Emergency care can be gotten at any hospital at anytime regaurdless. Regular preventitive (I stubbed my toe) care you can use medicade, medicare etc etc etc. The programs are there. They can be accessed, and they can and are utilized. People are not dying in the streets unless they want to.

UHC.... Not a fan of it tell you the truth. Canada has it and like it or not they have problems. One of the biggest is the immense wait times that can be had for an appointment. It is not uncommon for people coming to the US for care instead of waiting possibly months for an appt. They are from my understanding having a doctors shortage. This is mainly because of the pay. An auto worker with a little OT can make as much as a doctor does. Research. I think you limit Medical R&D with NHC. Why is a drug company or a research lab going to dump 500 million into the development of a new drug if they are'nt going to be able to get there money recouped.

[Rat Faced]

Governments foot most R&D costs through a variety of means.

Just about all BASIC research is funded by Government for example, with companies privately funding applied research. This is because with Basic Research, you dont really know where your going, its an increase in knowledge that is not profitable.

An example of this is the Pharmacutical Companies...

In the USA in 1999, the Pharmacutical Industry "Invested $24 Billion" in research.

Is this a true figure?

It comes through their books, so legally, yes they did..

However, when you consider the lobbying that they did when Congress brought in the Rule re: All Research that was funded by Federal Grants or through other Federal Money should be covered by Freedom of Information, then you must look closer as to how much of this was their own money...

The reason they were kicking up a stink was that all the BASIC research was funded, one way or another, by the taxpayer. They received the money through Grants and then "Invested" it (They also take University Research and extend it, but University Research is generally already Public Domain).

If all this basic research (funded by the taxpayer or through charitable donations) was in the public domain, which is what Congress was demanding, then other compabies could then do applied research on it and find other drugs.. ie: They lose their monopoly.

Im not saying that they dont invest much of their own money, far from it... but it is no where near the $24Billion that the spin suggests.

Basic Research is generally more expensive than "Applied Research", because you dont start the applied research until you're already on the track of something.

To use a very bad example.....

If you're looking for a green die, then Basic Research is throwing everything into a pot to see what colour comes out. When you find "Green", then you start applied research to get just the right shade of green you want.

They dont invest their own money until this point.

All the money they spent however has gone through the books as the money paid by the taxpayer was "received" and "spent" by them... so its included in their "Investment" figures.

The Pharmacutical Industry was upset and was lobbying because Congress was saying: As the taxpayer funded the Research to find "Green", this information should be in the Public Domain. (Not the information on how to get that particular shade of green).



Universal Health: No one is saying that you cant have Private Health Care (I dont know the Canadian System, but that appears to be the case there in practice.. which would be crazy, in my opinion)

For example, both are alive and well in the UK..

If you have no money, then use the NHS... if you dont want to wait, go Private.

The knock on effect is this.... If you're private, then the Insurance Premiums are much lower in the UK than they are in the USA... because the main competition is free. This is merely the Market in practice, thought you approved of that?

John Hopkins University did some research into how well the US Health System works, the results are interesting reading:


Professor Anderson compared cost versus quality of health care as well as outcomes and satisfaction provided by the health care systems in each country. Dr. Anderson found that the U.S. health care system is the most expensive in the world and often lags far behind the rest of the industrialized nations.

The United States spends considerable more on health care that any other industrialized country.

The United States also spends the highest proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - on health care.

Health insurance premiums in the United States have had double-digit rate increases for four consecutive years, five times greater than both inflation and wage increases.

The U.S. ranked 37th out 191 member states in terms of “overall health system performance” in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2000 World Health Report.

The U.S. has the 7th highest infant mortality rate of the 30 most industrialized countries; only Hungary, South Korea, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, and the Slovak Republic perform worse than the U.S.

Both U.S. patients and physicians have substantial levels of dissatisfaction with the quality of the health system.

Source (http://www.ufcw.org/worker_political_agenda/health_care/envyoftheworld.cfm)


You'll find that the walk in clinics, as an example, are not placed all over so its a lottery as to whether you can get treatment or not. It depends upon where you live. I would expect, as an example, there would be no problem in New York City... but if your in the upstate area, then it would be a little harder.

[Busyman™]

WTF?

What you propose is to manufacture inflation, then.

Do you also intend to control prices?

We all know how well that works.

Methinks you have supped too sumptuously on Democrat bullshit (to borrow your own phrase).

Do you also propose that, beneath the "minimum" wage, we also create a "sub-minimum" wage?

Has the word "minimum" been redefined?

Perhaps you prefer a wage structure with a false-bottom?

Fact is, if I were forced to raise my bid the 25% it would require to merely accomodate a new minimum wage (never mind any amount I would like in order to hedge inflation, give normal raises, or just stick in my pocket), corporate would decide to forego the services I provide, as they are purchased on an elective basis.

My presence in their "house" is not mandated by any authority; they employ me because they perceive value in excess of the money they pay me to do what I do.

If for whatever reason they feel the cost outstrips the value, I and all my guys are UNEMPLOYED, and that is not "Republican bullshit", it is pure-D fact.

I don't understand this idea that people have considering minimum wage. How can raising minimum wage not effect businesses. If I have 15 employees, and I have to raise the pay a buck fifty, 2 bucks. How do you not think this is going to cause less jobs? If I am a business owner I have to either raise my cost to my customer or reduce my operating expense I.E. Layoffs. If I raise my costs I lose business and am forced to lay off anyway. Is there some special money tree small business are pick from to cover the extra costs?

See here's the thing, in ten frigging years the business has already raised the costs to the consumer. Of course the minimum wage affects business.

It should.

Secondly minimum wage jobs are not careers. They are what they are, and you shouldn't be expected to raise a family or live comfortably from it. It is a bare minimum you can't earn doing something. This is a job or payscale you should have for a minimum amount of time before you move on or move up. If your trying to maintain your family on minimum wage then your problems are not the pay, it's you
Aww fuck. So workers' pay at McDonald's should have stayed frozen at 20 year-ago rates?

....and Congress vote themselves yet another raise.

The fact is business are able to get their workers on the cheap and as time goes on, on the same same cheap. The same argument you raise about having to lay off workers is the same one made by Repubs irregardless to raising/cutting taxes. They tend to leave out the hoarding factor.

As cost of living rises, so should wages. No one is saying they should be in perfect step but again...at about the decade mark it should fucking change by at least a fucking quarter. :dry:

[j2k4]

The very idea of a minimum wage sucks donkey balls.

Fact.

Period.

[Busyman™]

The very idea of a minimum wage sucks donkey balls.

Fact.

Period.
Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

[j2k4]

The very idea of a minimum wage sucks donkey balls.

Fact.

Period.
Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

As do all the ill-effects arising from that unfortunate fact.

Fact.

[vidcc]

It does seem that the reality of the data doesn't back the theory.

[100%]

We all have dreams
the logo of the american dream is a fine logo
whomever manages to makes their dream come true
bravo to them

[Rat Faced]

Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

As do all the ill-effects arising from that unfortunate fact.

Fact.

And yet the evidence from the UK and from the Link that vidcc supplied, appear to be at odds with your interpretation of Economic Theory.

You yourself have stated that you don't pay Minimum Wage, and therefore we can make an assumption that you may be a good employer.

However for every good employer there are bad employers... when people need Jobs they must take what they can get. These bad employers are the ones that are making the Gap between Rich and Poor wider and pressurising the Good Employers to pay as little as possible so they can still compete.

They are therefore the ones that are slowly destroying the American Dream that you cherish.

The way around this is to increase the minimum wage, in line with inflation. That way, the competition faces exactly the same rise in costs as yourself. More money is also being spent in the economy, instead of being hoarded by a small number of people, increasing the actual trade.

People can afford small treats, such as going to a Restaurant occasionally or buying little luxuries now and again.

It increases the "Feel Good" factor, increases consumer confidence, so they are more willing to risk borrowing and splashing out.

[Busyman™]

Eliminating the minimum wage would make all Mexican immigrant worker's pay perfectly legal.

Many would just love that.

Also imagine the pay at Wal Mart.:lol: :lol:

The cost of doing business is the cost of doing business. I can imagine a roll back of wages for fast food chains. I can also imagine more drug dealers.:dry:

[Busyman™]

Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

As do all the ill-effects arising from that unfortunate fact.

Fact.
Mmk. That would mean that let say uhh..$5.90 an hour is too high and some fuckschmuck businessman will have to lay off workers.

Or at least that's the excuse he'll have.:rolleyes:

The rate hike will throw off the economy. Forget the fact that said fuckschmuck businessman hasn't had to deal with doling such high pay for 10 years.

If it fucks with the stock market, so be it. Worse has fucked with the stock market like the unnecessary sacrificing of American soldiers.

[j2k4]

As do all the ill-effects arising from that unfortunate fact.

Fact.

And yet the evidence from the UK and from the Link that vidcc supplied, appear to be at odds with your interpretation of Economic Theory.

You yourself have stated that you don't pay Minimum Wage, and therefore we can make an assumption that you may be a good employer.

However for every good employer there are bad employers... when people need Jobs they must take what they can get. These bad employers are the ones that are making the Gap between Rich and Poor wider and pressurising the Good Employers to pay as little as possible so they can still compete.

They are therefore the ones that are slowly destroying the American Dream that you cherish.

The way around this is to increase the minimum wage, in line with inflation. That way, the competition faces exactly the same rise in costs as yourself. More money is also being spent in the economy, instead of being hoarded by a small number of people, increasing the actual trade.

People can afford small treats, such as going to a Restaurant occasionally or buying little luxuries now and again.

It increases the "Feel Good" factor, increases consumer confidence, so they are more willing to risk borrowing and splashing out.

Your economy and ours are different, as is your version of economic theory.

In addition to all that I've previously mentioned, there is (I stress, yet again) the inflationary aspect, which, in order to avoid, would require another government order of control.

Such controls create their own problems, compounding the complexity of the problem.

There is much too much of that already.

[j2k4]

You yourself have stated that you don't pay Minimum Wage, and therefore we can make an assumption that you may be a good employer.

I "may" be a good employer?

Inversely, if I paid the minimum wage, might I still be a good employer?

Probably not, huh?

However for every good employer there are bad employers... when people need Jobs they must take what they can get. These bad employers are the ones that are making the Gap between Rich and Poor wider and pressurising the Good Employers to pay as little as possible so they can still compete.

Let's try this, then:

I pay a few dollars more than minimum wage.

Down the street is a steam laundry where people are paid minimum wage to fold towels.

The minimum wage hike is passed, and all of my people decide that working for me is too stressful, and they decide to go down the street and fold towels for minimum wage; the operator of the laundry hires my guys, 'cuz they are better workers than those he's currently employing, so those people are out of work.

In order to attract qualified people with a good work ethic, I find I must charge more so I can pay more...my employer informs me my services are too expensive, and now I am out of work, too.

And to think-a few paragraphs ago, I may have been a "good" employer.

They are therefore the ones that are slowly destroying the American Dream that you cherish.

The American Dream still exists, although it is at risk, but not for the reasons you imagine.

The way around this is to increase the minimum wage, in line with inflation. That way, the competition faces exactly the same rise in costs as yourself. More money is also being spent in the economy, instead of being hoarded by a small number of people, increasing the actual trade.

Nah.

Doesn't work that way here.

Inflation would, in turn, rise to "accomodate" the increased minimum.

People can afford small treats, such as going to a Restaurant occasionally or buying little luxuries now and again.

It increases the "Feel Good" factor, increases consumer confidence, so they are more willing to risk borrowing and splashing out.

And that is, we find, the problem with such inanity-the "Feel Good" factor is indeed experienced, but only by those who are responsible for the implementation of such idiocy.

There is no denying the importance of maintaining the mental and emotional well-being of the do-gooding anointed. :dry:

That garbage doesn't have the slightest positive effect, those at the bottom are still at the bottom, and nothing in the world is going to make them "Feel Good" about that, Rat.

[Busyman™]

You yourself have stated that you don't pay Minimum Wage, and therefore we can make an assumption that you may be a good employer.

I "may" be a good employer?

Inversely, if I paid the minimum wage, might I still be a good employer?

Probably not, huh?

However for every good employer there are bad employers... when people need Jobs they must take what they can get. These bad employers are the ones that are making the Gap between Rich and Poor wider and pressurising the Good Employers to pay as little as possible so they can still compete.

Let's try this, then:

I pay a few dollars more than minimum wage.

Down the street is a steam laundry where people are paid minimum wage to fold towels.

The minimum wage hike is passed, and all of my people decide that working for me is too stressful, and they decide to go down the street and fold towels for minimum wage; the operator of the laundry hires my guys, 'cuz they are better workers than those he's currently employing, so those people are out of work.

In order to attract qualified people with a good work ethic, I find I must charge more so I can pay more...my employer informs me my services are too expensive, and now I am out of work, too.

And to think-a few paragraphs ago, I may have been a "good" employer.

They are therefore the ones that are slowly destroying the American Dream that you cherish.

The American Dream still exists, although it is at risk, but not for the reasons you imagine.

The way around this is to increase the minimum wage, in line with inflation. That way, the competition faces exactly the same rise in costs as yourself. More money is also being spent in the economy, instead of being hoarded by a small number of people, increasing the actual trade.

Nah.

Doesn't work that way here.

Inflation would, in turn, rise to "accomodate" the increased minimum.

People can afford small treats, such as going to a Restaurant occasionally or buying little luxuries now and again.

It increases the "Feel Good" factor, increases consumer confidence, so they are more willing to risk borrowing and splashing out.

And that is, we find, the problem with such inanity-the "Feel Good" factor is indeed experienced, but only by those who are responsible for the implementation of such idiocy.

There is no denying the importance of maintaining the mental and emotional well-being of the do-gooding anointed. :dry:

That garbage doesn't have the slightest positive effect, those at the bottom are still at the bottom, and nothing in the world is going to make them "Feel Good" about that, Rat.
Uh yeah. I remember when gas was $1.75 a gallon.

Feel me?

Bottom wages should not stay at the same bottom forever.

I get where you are coming from even though you haven't said it. "Let the market decide what wages are to be paid."

It doesn't work due to the hoarding factor.

[j2k4]

Uh yeah. I remember when gas was $1.75 a gallon.

So do I.

Your point would be?

Feel me?

No, thanks.

Feel yourself.

Bottom wages should not stay at the same bottom forever.

An inane statement which serves the debatable purpose of crystalizing the inanity of the entire argument.

I thank you for making it, nonetheless.

I get where you are coming from even though you haven't said it. "Let the market decide what wages are to be paid."

Exactly and precisely correct.

If that were allowed, you will see an expansion of the economy (especially at it's lower-end, which seems to be the current topic here) the effect of which would also aid in addressing our immigration problems.

It doesn't work due to the hoarding factor.

The "hoarding factor" is largely a fiction, and mainly a rhetorical device designed by liberals for the expression of liberal...hmmmm...I hesitate to call them "thoughts" or "ideas"...how about, "schemes"?

[vidcc]

Logic would dictate that there should be maximum pay then if inflation is such a concern. :rolleyes:

[Busyman™]

Uh yeah. I remember when gas was $1.75 a gallon.

So do I.

Your point would be?

Feel me?

No, thanks.

Feel yourself.

Bottom wages should not stay at the same bottom forever.

An inane statement which serves the debatable purpose of crystalizing the inanity of the entire argument.

I thank you for making it, nonetheless.

I get where you are coming from even though you haven't said it. "Let the market decide what wages are to be paid."

Exactly and precisely correct.

If that were allowed, you will see an expansion of the economy (especially at it's lower-end, which seems to be the current topic here) the effect of which would also aid in addressing our immigration problems.

It doesn't work due to the hoarding factor.

The "hoarding factor" is largely a fiction, and mainly a rhetorical device designed by liberals for the expression of liberal...hmmmm...I hesitate to call them "thoughts" or "ideas"...how about, "schemes"?
Hmmm, I never heard that from liberals. I don't read emails and propaganda from some "group" like you do. The hoarding factor is something I thought as common sense.

The hoarding factor is easy is to assume. You have this silly idea that all people with a bit of money wanna do is create jobs...that as soon as their is a tax cut or a slash in wages that BOOM 500 more jobs.

You are quite silly.

Oh and also without getting my thoughts from some "group", I figured this would factor into immigration. Again, it would make it nice and legal to pay whateverthefuck for services to them.

This would help the whole economy out.
:stars:

[Busyman™]

Logic would dictate that there should be maximum pay then if inflation is such a concern. :rolleyes:
:lol: :lol:

Eggzacklee.

If wages are currently like this (just a scale)

bottom 20 l-------------------l 5500 top

j2 wants it like this

bottom 1 l-----------------------------------------------------------l 7000

Yet cost of goods and services has risen

[j2k4]

Logic would dictate that there should be maximum pay then if inflation is such a concern. :rolleyes:
:lol: :lol:

Eggzacklee.

If wages are currently like this (just a scale)

bottom 20 l-------------------l 5500 top

j2 wants it like this

bottom 1 l-----------------------------------------------------------l 7000

Yet cost of goods and services has risen

In the example you've illustrated so well, what have your numbers "20" and "1" got in common?

They are both situated in direct and correct proximity to the word "bottom".

Case closed.

Vid-

In Busyman's post he typed the phrase, "You are quite silly"-I think he was speaking to you. ;)

[vidcc]

In the example you've illustrated so well, what have your numbers "20" and "1" got in common?

They are both situated in direct and correct proximity to the word "bottom".

Case closed.

So your argument is that paying a living wage is silly as they will still be payed less than those at the top :blink:


Vid-

In Busyman's post he typed the phrase, "You are quite silly"-I think he was speaking to you. ;)

Explain how having a maximum wage would not have an effect on inflation. Yes it is silly, but given the context of your argument against paying a living wage, justify one against the other.

[j2k4]

So your argument is that paying a living wage is silly as they will still be payed less than those at the top :blink:

Your definition of a "living wage" (family of four, was it?) does not and cannot exist at the bottom end of the scale.

If it did, what are we to pay those who don't require it?

If those requiring a "living wage" may hold the same jobs as those who do not, how is that to be handled?

As an employer, should I expect to be subject to some sort of government regulation as to which of the two candidates I hire?

Remember:

The object of being in business is to make money; less so to see how many jobs one can create.

Jobs are a very nice side effect of what is basically (let us not beat about the bush) greed.


Vid-

In Busyman's post he typed the phrase, "You are quite silly"-I think he was speaking to you. ;)

Explain how having a maximum wage would not have an effect on inflation. Yes it is silly, but given the context of your argument against paying a living wage, justify one against the other.

How does one go about seriously addressing something silly?

You first...oh wait, you already did. ;)

[vidcc]

Your definition of a "living wage" (family of four, was it?) does not and cannot exist at the bottom end of the scale.

If it did, what are we to pay those who don't require it? Show me where I gave such statistics.


If those requiring a "living wage" may hold the same jobs as those who do not, how is that to be handled?

As an employer, should I expect to be subject to some sort of government regulation as to which of the two candidates I hire?You are just adding a straw man to the debate


Remember:

The object of being in business is to make money; less so to see how many jobs one can create.

Jobs are a very nice side effect of what is basically (let us not beat about the bush) greed.
Hold on............


The "hoarding factor" is largely a fiction, and mainly a rhetorical device designed by liberals for the expression of liberal...hmmmm...I hesitate to call them "thoughts" or "ideas"...how about, "schemes"?
Who is arguing against what being in buisness is about? Who is saying it's about job creation. If you need 4 people to do a job why hire 5? How would removing the minimum wage create a vacancy for that 5th person?




Explain how having a maximum wage would not have an effect on inflation. Yes it is silly, but given the context of your argument against paying a living wage, justify one against the other.
How does one go about seriously addressing something silly?

You first...oh wait, you already did. ;)



Having a maximum wage is silly but the question about its effect on inflation is not....please answer.




If that were allowed, you will see an expansion of the economy (especially at it's lower-end, which seems to be the current topic here) the effect of which would also aid in addressing our immigration problems
The data shows a greater expansion in states with higher minimum wage than those with the fed rate.... you still have not explained this.
Immigrants (illegal and payed lower than minimum wage) do the jobs americans wont do....right?..... why wont americans do those jobs?

could it be because they don't pay enough to live in america? and if so then why would they do those jobs if the minimum wage was erradicated and "the market" payed less?

[j2k4]

You wish me to respond to this:


Logic would dictate that there should be maximum pay then if inflation is such a concern.

Not true.

Inflation is driven by the general economic tendency to bleed money from the largest classes, which are also those least able to avoid it.

These would be the lower and middle classes, whose earning power and sheer numbers make them the real cash cow of the economy, rather than the wealthy.




Your definition of a "living wage" (family of four, was it?) does not and cannot exist at the bottom end of the scale.

If it did, what are we to pay those who don't require it?


Show me where I gave such statistics.

If you subscribe to a different formulation than the standard, it behooves you to state what it might be.

If this is the case, please provide us with your numbers.


If those requiring a "living wage" may hold the same jobs as those who do not, how is that to be handled?

As an employer, should I expect to be subject to some sort of government regulation as to which of the two candidates I hire?You are just adding a straw man to the debate

Do you mean to imply this dilemma would not occur; that it is not a factor that would need to be addressed?


Remember:

The object of being in business is to make money; less so to see how many jobs one can create.

Jobs are a very nice side effect of what is basically (let us not beat about the bush) greed.
Hold on............


The "hoarding factor" is largely a fiction, and mainly a rhetorical device designed by liberals for the expression of liberal...hmmmm...I hesitate to call them "thoughts" or "ideas"...how about, "schemes"?

Who is arguing against what being in buisness is about? Who is saying it's about job creation. If you need 4 people to do a job why hire 5? How would removing the minimum wage create a vacancy for that 5th person?

What are you talking about?

Is there a third or fourth side to this debate you have undertaken?

I employ 5 people; that is the number of employees I need to do the job I have contracted to do, no more, no less.

Shortly after I started my endeavor, circumstances caused me to operate with three people, and I found myself working 108 hours a week for two months.

Oddly enough, this did not result in any significant savings, although I did keep two slots open for employees I wanted to retain.


Explain how having a maximum wage would not have an effect on inflation. Yes it is silly, but given the context of your argument against paying a living wage, justify one against the other.
How does one go about seriously addressing something silly?

You first...oh wait, you already did. ;)



Having a maximum wage is silly but the question about its effect on inflation is not....please answer.

See top of post.


If that were allowed, you will see an expansion of the economy (especially at it's lower-end, which seems to be the current topic here) the effect of which would also aid in addressing our immigration problems
The data shows a greater expansion in states with higher minimum wage than those with the fed rate.... you still have not explained this.
Immigrants (illegal and payed lower than minimum wage) do the jobs americans wont do....right?..... why wont americans do those jobs?

To what data do you refer?

Expansion of what, precisely?

Illegal immigrants don't "do jobs Americans won't do", they do those jobs that Americans will do, if they are paid more money.

Actually, the illegal-immigrant workers are providing a splendid example of "can-do"-ism, which used to be a distinctly American trait, at least before the minimum wage was established.

could it be because they don't pay enough to live in america? and if so then why would they do those jobs if the minimum wage was erradicated and "the market" payed less?

Ah, but remember:

THEY DON'T OFFICIALLY "LIVE" HERE!

If "they" decided not to do "those jobs", we could continue this discussion while talking about Americans.

Who do you think would do the jobs?

Perhaps the jobs would no longer exist...

Any such job would be evaluated by those who want the job done-it would be up to them to determine how this occurs.

The government need only ensure slavery is not an option.

The market will provide, fear not.

BTW-Please start a fresh post without all these fucking quotes?

It is tiresome to spend more time typing brackets, slashes and caps just to stay in theme.

I've had enough of that.

[vidcc]

The terrible effect of raising the minimum wage (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/14680106.htm)


reality has a liberal bias

[j2k4]

From "Asymetrical Information: An opinion ridden free-for-all".

Please read it carefully.


March 05, 2006

From the desk of Jane Galt:

Is raising the minimum wage a good idea?

A friend who was recently in a heated debate on the topic got me musing.

To answer the question, though, we first have to set aside the (important!) value judgements about the rights business owners have to set wages, how much help poor workers deserve, and so forth. Those questions will probably never be settled, though they certainly are a lot of fun to debate.

But we probably can settle, to a reasonable approximation, how well the minimum wage will accomplish the policy goals its advocates have set for it, and at what cost. So let's assume, arguendo, that we don't really care about the property rights of our nation's small businessmen, and all we're really interested in is helping poor people By Any Means Necessary--provided the relationship of costs to benefits isn't entirely outlandish. Then we're in good shape to ask: should we raise the minimum wage?

I won't go into the putative benefits, since they're pretty obvious: poor people get more money. No, what we have to look at is the costs; and specifically, costs to poor people, since we've already agreed that that's pretty much all we care about.

Standard economic theory tells us that if you artificially raise the price of something, suppliers want to sell more of it, while buyers want to purchase less. In the labour market, this means that more people want to work, but employers don't want to hire so many of them, so you end up with too many people chasing too few jobs.

But while virtually every economist would agree on the direction of the change in employment--unemployment goes up--there is some disagreement between liberal and conservative economists over the magnitude of the change. Many liberals, citing Card and Krueger's paper on changes in the minimum wage, say that any fall in employment is so small that it might as well be zero; it is too small to detect in the constantly fluctuating marketplace. The abstract describes their findings:

On April 1, 1992 New Jersey's minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the rise in the minimum. Comparisons of the changes in wages, employment, and prices at stores in New Jersey relative to stores in Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage remained fixed at $4.25 per hour) yield simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. Our empirical findings challenge the prediction that a rise in the minimum reduces employment. Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent. We also compare employment growth at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (and were unaffected by the new law) to employment changes at lower-wage stores. Stores that were unaffected by the minimum wage had the same employment growth as stores in Pennsylvania, while stores that had to increase their wages increased their employment.

This makes conservative economists say "Whoa!" Card and Krueger didn't simply find that effect of a relatively small change in the minimum wage was too negligible to measure; while a conservative might dislike this finding, it wouldn't be obviously, outrageously wrong. But Messrs Card and Krueger actually found that raising the minimum wage increased low-wage employment, a result that simply makes no sense to all but a handful of hard-left activists who used the study to argue that they'd found some sort of magic money machine. No one has posited any plausible reason that an employer whose wage bill has just gone up would respond by . . . taking on more, now more expensive, workers. Without such a mechanism. . . and colour me suspicious that we will find one . . . we are left with two possibilities:

1) There is some other effect, such as a boom in New Jersey's fast food sector, that masked the employment drop

2) There's something wrong with the data.

Number 1 seems possible, and number 2 seems very likely, because they relied on survey data, and surveys are notoriously unreliable. Just ask the folks at Coca-Cola, who did the most extensive surveys in history, and unveiled "New Coke" only after every single study had reported that consumers overwhelmingly favoured the new taste. A later study using more-reliable payroll data (but funded by the retail/restaurant industry, and involving a smaller data set) found the effect you'd expect: minimum wage employment in New Jersey went down compared to Pennsylvania. Other criticisms of the study's methodology helped to seriously weaken their assertion that there was no measurable employment effect. Most of the studies that have been done in the past have tended to reinforce the economic conventional wisdom.

Nonetheless, while modest increases in the minimum wage may increase unemployment, the effect doesn't seem to be huge; when the studies tend to point both ways, that's a good sign that whatever change you're looking at is pretty small. Might we not make a dent in poverty by helping a lot of poor workers to higher wages, at a modest cost in employment to the few?

Possibly . . . but the problem is that, as a poverty fighting weapon, the minimum wage is an exceptionally blunt instrument. Only about half of the people earning the minimum wage are adults; the rest are teenagers and young adults, many of whom come from relatively affluent families. According to this paper from the Clinton-era Department of Health and Human Services, only about 30% of the people receiving minimum wage live in families near or below the poverty line . . . a result that is hardly surprising, since the overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers worked less than twenty hours a week--so much less that the average workweek for all minimum wage workers was less than 10 hours in 1998. This would suggest that most people working at minimum wage are supplementing their studies, or their spouse's income, rather than trying to support themselves with such a job. So in order to get to the relatively small number of people who need the money, we provide a subsidy to the 71% who do not. This is not very efficient social policy.

Even worse, there is evidence that whatever job losses there are fall disproportionately on minorities and women, the groups most likely to be dependant on the minimum wage to support themselves. So there is a real possibility that the minimum wage is a subsidy to affluent workers at the expense of the poor workers it is supposed to help. Or, as the HHS paper sums up the moderate consensus on the minimum wage:

* A disproportionate share of minimum wage workers are teenagers and most do not live in poor families.

* A sizable portion of minimum wage workers are poor parents.

* Negative employment effects, if any, appear to be slight and are difficult to detect.

* Minimum wages curb employer-provided training opportunities for low-wage workers and may reduce educational attainment for some at-risk groups.

* Moderate minimum wage increases will not reduce poverty rates.

Pay close attention to that second-to-last point. Another little-considered downside of minimum wage increases is that employers who are forced to pay higher wages often find ways to get it out of their employees in other ways; as Tyler Cowen pointed out:

Gordon notes that the government can make an employer raise nominal money wages, but can't stop him from turning off the air conditioner. [A more optimistic scenario is that the employer invests in creating a higher-productivity job.] Surely just about every job out there can be made worse, one way or another, in a way that saves the employer money.

So the scenario is now simple. The government boosts the minimum wage. Low-wage workers earn more. Few lose their jobs. Workers sweat more too, one way or another. Few are much better off.

This point was made in a slightly different way by Kevin Murphy et al. in their critique of Card and Kreuger:

A popular idea among those who favor increasing minimum wages is that firms will respond to an increased minimum by "getting more out of" their employees. But how would this be accomplished? If greater productivity is achieved by substituting higher-quality workers, then low-skilled, and thus low-wage, workers take it on the chin. If, on the other hand, the same workers are now working harder, there is still a problem. Work has two dimensions, time on the job and effort at the job. At the previous wage the employer and his employees had reached an understanding about what constituted an hour's worth of work for an hour's pay. They could have reached an agreement on a greater amount of effort per hour and a greater hourly wage. But the fact that they did not suggests that the agreement they did reach was preferred to other potential agreements involving higher wages and greater effort. If low-skilled workers must put forth more effort just to keep their jobs and earn the higher wage, then they have actually taken a step backward. Their earnings have risen, but not by enough to make up for their increased effort. This must be true, otherwise the employer could have been "getting more out of" his workers all along simply by paying the higher wage.

In effect, by removing the worker's ability to trade off cash for better working conditions, the government might be making low-wage workers worse off. Oh, and it might prevent poor teenagers from getting a toehold in the labour market.

So the minimum wage does not look like a very good programme for fighting poverty, especially compared to alternatives like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). To this, there are two possible responses from minimum wage advocates:

1) The problem is that we are not increasing the minimum wage enough. If we had a really high minimum wage, then there would be big benefits to poor workers to offset the employment loss.

2) Even if there are big efficiency costs--excess subsidies to middle-class workers and so forth--they are necessary to gain support for the programme. "A programme for the poor is a poor programme", and even though straight income redistribution system like the EITC might be a more effective poverty-fighter, it is much easier to get political support for the minimum wage than for a program that targets the poor.

To number one, I'd point out that really big increases in the minimum wage are likely to correspond to really noticeable losses in employment--once again, falling disproportionately on the low-skilled, minorities and women, exactly the groups you're trying to help. Even Mr Krueger is careful to emphasize that his work applies only to small wage increases; no one (or at least no economist) thinks that if you suddenly ratcheted the minimum wage up to $10 an hour, you'd see no effect on labour markets.

(But employers can just raise prices! say advocates. Mmmm, yes . . . unless there are substitutes for their product. McDonalds competes with frozen dinners and 7-11 burritos and Kraft Mac n' Cheese; The Gap competes with the J Crew catalogue. No, McDonalds won't shut its doors, but it doesn't have to in order to reduce employment; if 15% of its customers defect to cheaper alternatives, it will need fewer burger-flippers and order-takers. There's also the fact that workers complete with labour-saving equipment, which may become cost-effective if wages skyrocket. Plus, since poor people are disproportionately likely to shop at places that pay minimum wage, including fast-food outlets, the higher prices often come out of their pockets.)

To number two, I'd argue that the political evidence for this is thin; IIRC the EITC has been expanded more recently than the minimum wage. But more importantly, I'd want to ask: is the point to "DO SOMETHING!", or is it to help the poor? Given the enormous uncertainty as to whether the minimum wage helps the poor more than it hurts, it would seem obvious that the focus should be placed upon expanding known poverty-fighters like the ETIC and Medicaid, rather than lobbying for another middle-class subsidy because a few dollars might eventually trickle poorwards. Even if the minimum wage helps more than it hurts, the effect is far too modest to merit expending political energy on its expansion.

There's a sort of nostalgia halo around policies like the minimum wage. Minimum wages and unionization were high in the 1950's; income inequality was low; therefore if we implement the former, we will produce the latter result. But it seems at least as plausible that unionization and the high minimum wage were the result of high demand for labour, which also caused income inequality to shrink. If this is true, enacting the minimum wage, or getting the NLRB to beat up on companies, will be no more effective at bringing back those halcyon days of income compression than resurrecting Burma Shave billboards across the land . . . and considerably less entertaining.

We are finally starting to get a hazy idea about which poverty programmes solve more problems than they create. Given the huge questions about its effectiveness, and its obvious inferiority to programmes such as the EITC, it's hard to understand why raising the minimum wage is even in the standard liberal policymaker's toolbelt.

I could have merely provided a link, or done a cut-and-paste; instead, I transcribed this just for you. :)

[vidcc]

We are all aware of the theory......We have had to listen to it for a long time.........However........The reality in all the states that have increased the minimum wage doesn't match the theory......

Now there are exceptions to every rule but as the theory you posted doesn't mention exceptions it's hardly worth using an exception to counter the reality.

Don't you find it odd that she pointed to an increase in the fast food sector (a low paying sector) when saying that increasing the minimum wage lowers employment in low paying sectors ?

The way to help the poor is to pay them less apparently

[j2k4]

We are all aware of the theory......We have had to listen to it for a long time.........However........The reality in all the states that have increased the minimum wage doesn't match the theory......

Now there are exceptions to every rule but as the theory you posted doesn't mention exceptions it's hardly worth using an exception to counter the reality.

Don't you find it odd that she pointed to an increase in the fast food sector (a low paying sector) when saying that increasing the minimum wage lowers employment in low paying sectors ?

The way to help the poor is to pay them less apparently

Are you saying that the fast food sector is not a suitable "general indicator" of trends in lower-paying jobs?

Why do you suppose the term ""burger-flipper" is held in such rhetorical favor?

Besides which, if you choose to regard your just-discovered wonder-fix as a panacea, perhaps you'd consent to construct an argument in favor of raising the minimum wage to a level which would allow each "burger-flipper" to drive a Ferrari and sail about on yachts...after all, it's naught but sunny skies, right?

BTW-

What do you suppose an expansive market for fast-food could possibly mean?

For one, it could mean expanding population, or be attributable to population movement.

It could also mean the steak-and-lobster joints are suffering. ;)

[j2k4]

We are all aware of the theory......We have had to listen to it for a long time.........

Speaking of theories, why do you suppose that, it having been conclusively proven that proper tax cuts result in increased revenues, liberals still "theorize" that raising taxes is the only fix for the deficit?

It is a well known fact that the more money made available to the government, the more it will spend.

Have you any non-theoretical ideas to refute that?

[Busyman™]

I love how j2 comes back to what I've already said.

Immigration (mainly illegal) and greed (hoarding factor).

Apparently j2 wants a new legal "bottom" so the employer of those landscapers can rest easy.

@j2 - I was wondering when you'd paste something to "prove" your point.:lol: :lol:

I'll actually read it one day. I know you've read many similar articles across multiple topics to help form your opinions.:rolleyes:
---
I think there are about 5 states with no minimum wage laws and 1 that is lower than the federal rate. I know DC and Maryland are about $6.50 and hour (something like that).

[Busyman™]

We are all aware of the theory......We have had to listen to it for a long time.........

Speaking of theories, why do you suppose that, it having been conclusively proven that proper tax cuts result in increased revenues, liberals still "theorize" that raising taxes is the only fix for the deficit?

It is a well known fact that the more money made available to the government, the more it will spend.

Have you any non-theoretical ideas to refute that?
So you'd give the farm to business? There has to be middle ground. Fuck, lets cut taxes down to the cuticle then.

You know, outsourcing call center jobs to India and taking peoples land to put a shopping mall on it will most likely increase revenues too.:1eye:

[vidcc]

Speaking of theories, why do you suppose that, it having been conclusively proven that proper tax cuts result in increased revenues, liberals still "theorize" that raising taxes is the only fix for the deficit?

Firstly where has anything been proven conclusively. More tax revenue is generated though a growing economy. This happened under higher and lower tax administrations.
Secondly you seem to be confusing actual theories with spin as to those theories....you collect revenue to pay for things. Now you may think that liberals want to pay for too many things but that is completely different from collecting revenue to reduce a deficit...a conservative created deficit at that which thirdly, has been created by lowering tax while still spending, a conservative tactic that seems designed to bankrupt the government and thereby justifying draconian cuts in the social programs they hate so much. How else can the removal of "pay as you go" be explained?
Reagans cuts ran up huge deficits and so have the bush 2 era cuts.
Liberals do not want to raise tax, they want to balance the budget and are against lowering tax unless the budget can be balanced.


It is a well known fact that the more money made available to the government, the more it will spend.

Have you any non-theoretical ideas to refute that?

yet it seems your boys and girls in office right now are spending money they don't have.

You seem to be ignoring stealth tax increases under this lot as well

[Busyman™]

Firstly where has anything been proven conclusively. More tax revenue is generated though a growing economy. This happened under higher and lower tax administrations.
Secondly you seem to be confusing actual theories with spin as to those theories....you collect revenue to pay for things. Now you may think that liberals want to pay for too many things but that is completely different from collecting revenue to reduce a deficit...a conservative created deficit at that which thirdly, has been created by lowering tax while still spending, a conservative tactic that seems designed to bankrupt the government and thereby justifying draconian cuts in the social programs they hate so much. How else can the removal of "pay as you go" be explained?
Reagans cuts ran up huge deficits and so have the bush 2 era cuts.
Liberals do not want to raise tax, they want to balance the budget and are against lowering tax unless the budget can be balanced.


It is a well known fact that the more money made available to the government, the more it will spend.

Have you any non-theoretical ideas to refute that?

yet it seems your boys and girls in office right now are spending money they don't have.

You seem to be ignoring stealth tax increases under this lot as well
:pinch: OUCH!!! :pinch:

[vidcc]

A thing that also seems to be ignored is that removing the minimum wage, thus lowering the wages for those already on it has the knock on effect of increasing the burdon on the tax payer for things like the healthcare they will be able to afford even less.

Of course conservatives don't believe in government involvement in healthcare....

[lynx]

I see 3 major flaws in the Jane Galt piece. I won't bother quoting the whole piece, you can scroll up the page and read it as originally posted.


On April 1, 1992 New Jersey's minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour.
.
.
Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent.
.
.
No one has posited any plausible reason (yes they have, it just depends on who decides what is plausible) that an employer whose wage bill has just gone up would respond by . . . taking on more, now more expensive, workers. Without such a mechanism. . . and colour me suspicious that we will find one . . . we are left with two possibilities:
1) There is some other effect, such as a boom in New Jersey's fast food sector, that masked the employment drop
2) There's something wrong with the data.
3) Poor people are disproportionately likely to shop at places that pay minimum wage, now they have more to spend so sales rise.

Number 1 seems possible, and number 2 seems very likely, because they relied on survey data, and surveys are notoriously unreliable. Just ask the folks at (hang on, I'll just find something completely irrelevant) Coca-Cola, who did the most extensive surveys in history, and unveiled "New Coke" only after every single study had reported that consumers overwhelmingly favoured the new taste. A later study (read: unreliable survey) using more-reliable payroll data (but funded by the retail/restaurant industry (who, of course, don't have any interest in the ourcome), and involving a smaller data set (smaller because it excluded data which didn't fit the required model?)) found the effect you'd expect (read: we want you to believe): minimum wage employment in New Jersey went down compared to Pennsylvania. Other criticisms of the study's methodology helped to seriously weaken their assertion that there was no measurable employment effect. Most of the studies that have been done in the past have tended to reinforce the economic conventional wisdom.Don't like the result of one survey, just do another until you get the results you want.


* A disproportionate share of minimum wage workers are teenagers and most do not live in poor families.

* A sizable portion of minimum wage workers are poor parents.

* Negative employment effects, if any, appear to be slight and are difficult to detect.

* Minimum wages curb employer-provided training opportunities for low-wage workers and may reduce educational attainment for some at-risk groups.

* Moderate minimum wage increases will not reduce poverty rates.

Pay close attention to that second-to-last point.Ok, since it's so important let's have a close look at it. Low wage employers are unlikely to provide more than minimal training in the first place, enforcing a minimum wage isn't going to stop them from providing training that aren't giving. Similarly with any other "workplace benefits". If they are not mandatary they aren't likely to exist so it's difficult to see how they are going to be withdrawn.


But employers can just raise prices! say advocates. (Do they? I doubt that very much.) Mmmm, yes . . . unless there are substitutes for their product. McDonalds competes with frozen dinners and 7-11 burritos and Kraft Mac n' Cheese; The Gap competes with the J Crew catalogue. No, McDonalds won't shut its doors, but it doesn't have to in order to reduce employment; if 15% of its customers defect to cheaper alternatives, it will need fewer burger-flippers and order-takers. There's also the fact that workers complete with labour-saving equipment, which may become cost-effective if wages skyrocket. Plus, since poor people are disproportionately likely to shop at places that pay minimum wage, including fast-food outlets, the higher prices often come out of their pockets.Hang on, prices can't rise because of competition, but these higher prices are going to affect the poor? What higher prices? Did prices rise in New Jersey? I doubt that otherwise it would have been up there in headlines. Of course, that little tidbit is allowed to slip because (once again) it doesn't fit the required model.


Having read some of her other weird ideas I'm not surprised her theories here are such a mess.

[j2k4]

It is a well known fact that the more money made available to the government, the more it will spend.

Have you any non-theoretical ideas to refute that?

yet it seems your boys and girls in office right now are spending money they don't have.

You seem to be ignoring stealth tax increases under this lot as well

You know what I really cannot abide?

The ignorance the two of you display (you and Busyman) when you make such an assertion and he seconds it, both of you overlooking the misgivings I have expressed with Republican spendthrifts elsewhere in this forum, at other times, and then pounce on a quote that doesn't even distinguish between the two political parties.

As you both are well aware, I have no difficulty calling a spade a spade, and if I felt it beneficial to lay our current and ongoing spending woes at the doorstep of the liberals, I would have done so.

Lynx-

Your objections/exceptions are weak opinions, nothing more.

You ascribe your perceptions to faulty data without backing it up, possibly because you'd have to cut-and-paste or provide a link like vid and I have; subsequent posting has had the effect and purpose of denigrating the respective worth of such tactics as a means of conducting our little debate, which is ironic, as the liberal/socialist wing of this forum is absolutely reliant on links, etc., to backstop their proffers, but somehow this same tactic is viewed as a flaw in the ideological cloth when practiced by yours truly.

I've always wondered why that is.

Not really; I know exactly why.

[vidcc]

You know what I really cannot abide?

The ignorance the two of you display (you and Busyman) when you make such an assertion and he seconds it, both of you overlooking the misgivings I have expressed with Republican spendthrifts elsewhere in this forum, at other times, and then pounce on a quote that doesn't even distinguish between the two political parties.

As you both are well aware, I have no difficulty calling a spade a spade, and if I felt it beneficial to lay our current and ongoing spending woes at the doorstep of the liberals, I would have done so.
SO you didn't have a pop at liberals in the post I was responding to:rolleyes:

Speaking of theories, why do you suppose that, it having been conclusively proven that proper tax cuts result in increased revenues, liberals still "theorize" that raising taxes is the only fix for the deficit?


you know what I can't abide?

the way you take half a post and ignore the rest pouncing on just a couple of sentences, often totally ignoring any questions directed specifically at you or posing different questions to sidestep :rolleyes:

As to Busys posting habits he is alone on that.


And you wonder why people accuse you of being "sensitive":rolleyes:



3 rolleyes in one post :shifty:



You ascribe your perceptions to faulty data without backing it up

Prove it is faulty....back up what you say

[j2k4]

SO you didn't have a pop at liberals in the post I was responding to:rolleyes:

Speaking of theories, why do you suppose that, it having been conclusively proven that proper tax cuts result in increased revenues, liberals still "theorize" that raising taxes is the only fix for the deficit?


Excuse me, but that was not part of your quote, and that which you now choose to quote has only to do with the liberal's view of "reasons" to raise taxes.

you know what I can't abide?

the way you take half a post and ignore the rest pouncing on just a couple of sentences, often totally ignoring any questions directed specifically at you or posing different questions to sidestep :rolleyes:


If the rest of your post was sensible, I would have responded.





You ascribe your perceptions to faulty data without backing it up

Prove it is faulty....back up what you say

Unbelievable.

My pique was at lynx's presumption that "Jane Galt's" conclusions were somehow incorrect, or faulty.

I was asking him to "back it up".

Right thought, wrong member, sir...:dry:

[lynx]

Strange that you quote Jane Galt, but don't expect her to provide facts and figures to back up her case, but you expect the rest of us to accept it.

Since you introduced the "evidence" first, I simply say - after you.

[vidcc]

Excuse me, but that was not part of your quote, and that which you now choose to quote has only to do with the liberal's view of "reasons" to raise taxes.



It was all part of the same quote...allow me to quote the whole thing together



Speaking of theories, why do you suppose that, it having been conclusively proven that proper tax cuts result in increased revenues, liberals still "theorize" that raising taxes is the only fix for the deficit?

It is a well known fact that the more money made available to the government, the more it will spend.

Have you any non-theoretical ideas to refute that?

now i may have split it up to deal specifically with why revenues are raised but it was a quote from the same post. You may have started a new paragraph but still in the same post and right after you made the misleading dig at liberal tax policy...looks suggestively connected to me subliminal message....:rolleyes: I'm sure you are Karl Roves chief advisor.


Unbelievable.

My pique was at lynx's presumption that "Jane Galt's" conclusions were somehow incorrect, or faulty.

I was asking him to "back it up".

Right thought, wrong member, sir...:dry: ...but you did mentioned me personally and I think he has a point, so I am asking you to prove he has faulty data... He seemed to be mostly getting his data from Galts own article pointing out she counters her own statements.
:unsure:

[lynx]

He seemed to be mostly getting his data from Galts own article pointing out she counters her own statements.
:unsure:I was saving that bit for later. :shifty:

[j2k4]

Suffice it to say we each have our own beliefs on the matter; I stand by my posts.

I really have had enough of this thread-a degreed economist won't get respect if he falls to the "wrong" side of the debate. :dry:

[Busyman™]

Suffice it to say we each have our own beliefs on the matter; I stand by my posts.

I really have had enough of this thread-a degreed economist won't get respect if he falls to the "wrong" side of the debate. :dry:
Imagine that.

I'm sure there are degreed economists on both sides of the debate.

Agendas are a motherfucker though. Sensibilities are a must.

It's like when the prosecution and defense both have their own expert witnesses.

[j2k4]

Agendas are a motherfucker though. Sensibilities are a must.

Agendas? :huh:

Yeah, sure...

[100%]

One day i hope to go to america and surf on their waves, visit the galleries in chelsea, and sea the largest trees in the world, order a coffee in a diner and maybe not even meet one person who does not tell their political opinion, i am certain it is a good place outside of the media.

[vidcc]

One day i hope to go to america and surf on their waves, visit the galleries in chelsea, and sea the largest trees in the world, order a coffee in a diner and maybe not even meet one person who does not tell their political opinion, i am certain it is a good place outside of the media.And you will .....as long as you stay out of internet cafes and forums :)

[Busyman™]

One day i hope to go to america and surf on their waves, visit the galleries in chelsea, and sea the largest trees in the world, order a coffee in a diner and maybe not even meet one person who does not tell their political opinion, i am certain it is a good place outside of the media.
People don't talk about their politics while touring. I met many while on vacation and it didn't come up once.

[MagicNakor]

Quite a few Americans talk about politics up here on vacation. It's very odd, especially since they're coming to drink wine.

:shuriken:

[Busyman]

Quite a few Americans talk about politics up here on vacation. It's very odd, especially since they're coming to drink wine.

:shuriken:
Oh sorry, I meant in America.