there is no god
He assured you that above average job growth and higher wages could only happen in a socialist systemOriginally Posted by Rat Faced
Impossible..The terrible effect of raising the minimum wage
J2 I seem to remember you suggesting that what happens in one state would be mirrored in another
J2 assured me that this could only happen in our "socialist" system..
Doesn't sound like him
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Broken
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...
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
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.Could EASILY see it happen.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:
SourceUntil 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
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.)
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".
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.
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 your collapse and the world reccesion. All in all a moot point since your not going to be seeing this 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"....
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
Broken
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...
Last edited by Rat Faced; 07-03-2006 at 09:40 PM.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
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........
Broken
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...
Seems you want to trade free, but make everyone else pay to trade there.. aint gonna happen.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.
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.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
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.
Broken
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)
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.
SourceThe 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.
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.
Last edited by Rat Faced; 07-05-2006 at 12:59 AM.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
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 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
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.
SourceThe 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.
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.
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.
Last edited by calm2chaos; 07-05-2006 at 10:46 PM.
Broken
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
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....
Last edited by Rat Faced; 07-05-2006 at 11:42 PM.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
Posting Permissions
Doesn't sound like him
Reply With Quote
) 
Bookmarks