Quit worrying about the rich and worry about yourself

Solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation that clears our poverty thresholds can increase the circulation of money in our money based markets, hypothetically, to full employment of resources in the market for labor.

 

I'm not sure why that would be a problem, since the middle class benefits from lower prices. The problem would be that more of the jobs that would be done by lower and middle class can be off-sourced in a global economy. And to an extent, I agree that is a problem.

But that is not what is happening. Income in the US have increased nicely. It's just that over the past 30 years, most all that increase has gone to the richest.

Right. And what we are seeing is that the income Wal-mart is producing is going to a much smaller group. Their owners and execs are fabulous wealthy. Executive pay has increased 10 fold over the past few decades relative to the average. Incomes of a few million used to seem extravagant, today we here of incomes in the tens of millions regularly.

The working middle classes are getting pounded from mulitple areas. Off-shoring is one of them. Greater automation is another. The US workforce will have to adjust, but fortunately, that is one thing we excel at.

But given these global trends, the absolutely wrong thing to do, IMO, is continue the trickle down policies that pound the middle class even more. We should be cutting FICA taxes on lower income workers, increasing union representation, expanding overtime laws, and increasing the minimum wage, and securing social safety nets, and paying for it by increasing taxes on the 1%.

We took a small step in the right direction in 2012 as opposed to what surely would have been a dramatically wrong step (speaking for the good of the national economy, not the interest of the 1%).

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that is true. On the other hand, IMO you have to always be careful to balance the need to provide safety nets against the danger of disincentivizing work.

IMO that goal is better served by some of the points I made in my prior post.

 

It's interesting stuff. I kind of stumbled on this myself. I haven't really heard the talking heads (even the liberal ones) making this connection. There are many other factors that affect the economy, but if we had another $1.5 trillion per year in the hands of the middle class as opposed to the 1%, I think we'd be seeing a lot more spending and a lot stronger recovery now.

 

Why do you believe there is any danger in subsidizing the least efficient to not provide labor input to the economy under any form of capitalism; it makes it seem like the laws of supply and demand may not work at a new equilibrium.

Consider a hypothesis that claims by subsidizing some labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy for the equivalent to a minimum wage; anyone who does want to work will be able to find work at the prevailing, market based rate for that specialty.

Subsidized labor could be free to go to school or learn a new vocation; and in a more market friendly manner than can be achieved through more expensive, means tested welfare.

In my opinion, allowing for more individual liberty should be more conducive to securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

 

The data is in. America ranks among the bottom regarding economic mobility among the poor. The chance a child will succeed in life is highly dependent on whether if their parents were successful. The Horatio Algers stories are by and large fiction. When you think about this, it is very anti-American. This idea that we are supposed to support a caste system goes against American principles.

Ever since neoliberal conservative economics took root in this country, income/wealth disparities have increased, opportunities have decreased, and the middle has been eroded. During America's liberal economic heyday after WWII up to Reagan, we saw substantial growth, a thriving middle class, and a reduction in economic inequality.

Now even Democrats are center right (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s. Most of the recovery in the first year went to the rich. The top 1% captured 93% of the recovery, yet Republicans don't want to tax them more all while complaining about deficits. Talk about smoke and mirrors. Plus, Bush originally cut taxes since Clinton was left with a surplus. Greenspan and Republicans were actually afraid that were were going to pay off our debt, so Bush decided to cut taxes and wage unfunded wars. How did that turn out?

Plus, this idea that the government is a parasite to the rich is unfounded. In many instances, the rich benefit from the government; Big Pharma, big agriculture, defense contracts, patent and monopoly protection, raping our resources at below market prices, taxpayer bailouts, among others.

I am getting sick and tired of radical republicans who want to turn this country into a (*)(*)(*)(*)hole where only the rich have power. We need a strong middle class for a thriving democracy and we need to take care of our elderly, poor, and disabled, while providing a helping hand up for those who are historically disenfranchised. We need to increase opportunity and reduce income inequality.

After all, the American worker is becoming more productive, but they have seen their total compensation stagnant. If you had any morals, then you would realize that this is wrong and needs to be corrected.

There you go. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about liberals all you want, but liberals are not destroying this country. Far right Republicans and Democrat centrists are.

 

Incorrect - it's dependent on whether or not they choose to be successful, or sit on their ass collecting food stamps while blaming their parents for everything bad in their life.

The average 'poor person' in America lives like a king compared to the poor in any 3rd world country. Any 'poor person' who:

Owns a computer/internet/cable/video games

Drinks/smokes/eats fast food

Has a car or apartment with expensive monthly payments

Has kids that they can't support without taxpayer money

Has no one to blame but themselves.

People who aren't motivated to succeed tell themselves that to feel better about not trying, yeah.

Nah, it's the liberal mentality that people aren't self-reliant enough to succeed without living off of welfare, when most of their financial problems are caused by poor spending habits, having kids they can't support, or just a lack of motivation to work, go to college, join the military, etc - which is destroying this country.

 

Where do I even begin with this deflection? Even if this was the norm, it hardly explains why the free market ideology of the shadow banking industry failed to regulate itself.

It also does not explain why Cons think that firing teachers and not investing into America is a roadmap to economic success. Then again, all you clowns believe in is cutting taxes for the wealthy who are supposed to create jobs. Sorry, but the data is against you. You people are dataphobes and ignorant to reality.

In fact, all you do is blame the poor, the old, and disabled for all of societal ills. It gets nauseating.

 

I would agree with you more, but corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses to persons who are nowhere near our poverty thresholds and can afford to hire entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate.

 

Poor people in America aren't serfs, the average 'poor person' could live relatively comfortably day to day just by keeping their expenses to a minimum (with some exceptions, such as people with huge medical bills).

The sob stories I hear about some poor people who have to live month-to-month worrying that there's enough food stamps on their card for their kid to have a bite to eat, are usually only in that situation because they had kids that they can't support without welfare - so in today's economy I don't recommend anyone having a kid unless they're able to support them on their own dime and still live relatively comfortably.

As far as the lack of opportunity for advancement in the workforce - young people can join the military or national guard and earn college credits for it, all it takes is a HS diploma or GED. So there's opportunities everywhere you look, most people are just sheep and would rather pretend that everything's out of their hands.

 

Wrong.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/re...7/11/generations isaacs/11_generations_isaacs
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/

Having access to cheap consumer goods is not a valid argument.

Success is not all about earning a paycheck. If so, then we would not have teachers, policemen, firefighters, emergency responders, etc. Being successful is about making society better off, not about who has the most cookies in the cookie jar. In fact, the "greed is good" ideology running rampant among the GOP is harmful to society. In fact, it helped crashed the global economy, but then again regulations are bad. Regulating markets so they are transparent is bad.

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

People who are not able to afford basic necessities without welfare are doing something wrong.

 

Stop distorting this conservation into saying that poor people in the US are better off than poor people in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is dishonest, plus it shows are immoral you are. You have very low standards. While poor people in the US can afford cheap electronics, they often lack basic health and access to education.

Given our neocon FP, I don't think the military should be an outlet to success. Then again, military recruitment reigns in the Republican South. People don't join because they are patriotic, but are looking for opportunity.

 

High school or a GED is all you need to get a basic job.

If you want to go to college, you can earn credits by joining the military, there are also loans and grants for people who come from poor families.

 

How well did that point of view work during the Great Depression?

 

Yes, but I am sure you had a point. Then again, you just debunked your own argument. You claim that poor people are the cause of rising inequality and lack of opportunity, but you failed to explain causation.

Then again, slashing taxes for the rich, weakening unions, passing "free trade" agreement that benefit the upper class while exposing the middle and lower classes to globalization, handouts to the rich in the form of bailouts, patent protection, subsidies, tax cuts, capital gains cuts, tax loopholes, and what not has nothing to play a role in this argument?

Are you completely oblivious and still living in the false world of Reagan's Cadillac mother?

And? I agree. I hardly think this is the crux of our problem. Seriously, do you think that a poor person who doesn't buy enough toilet paper is really the cause behind our economic collapse, rising income inequality, erosion of the middle class, and loss of opportunity?

Then again, I never had much faith in Cons thinking about things.

 

A basic job is a minimum wage job that keeps you in poverty, yet you are fine with this.

You want poor people to cheer your neocon strategy in order to better themselves.

Go die for you country over useless wars so you can get a college education. Makes me sick.

 

Just in from Stiglitz and Bilmes.

The number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans receiving government medical care has grown to more than 800,000, and most have applied for permanent disability benefits. Yielding to political pressure, the White House and Congress have boosted veteran’s benefits ... and made it easier to qualify for disability... But the number of claims keeps climbing. ... To recruit volunteers to fight in highly unpopular wars, the military adopted higher pay scales and enhanced healthcare benefits... Meanwhile, there is a huge price tag for replacing ordinary equipment that has been consumed during the wars...
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/da88f8fe-63e9-11e2-84d8-00144feab49a.html#axzz2IfuYwapI

Join the military to risk your life over misguided neocon FP and make yourself more dependent on the government.

Seriously, is this the world Cons want to live in? It makes my stomach churn.

 

There are jobs which require no degree which pay better than min wage, and it is possible in theory to live on min wage without having to worry day to day about where your next meal is coming from.

Pretty much yeah - or get student loans, grants etc - bottom line is only the lazy and unmotivated say it's impossible to succeed.

 

Yes, but not many. If you weren't such a dataphobic Cons, then you would realize that those who have the least education are the most unemployed.

Plus, when McDonald's announces that is was going to hire over 40,000 workers, almost a million people applied while Wall St. whores sprinkled job application upon them and repeated your lies. There are more people out of work than jobs available.

Quit being a dataphobe and look at the unemployment data.

Stop your lying. No one ever claimed that it was impossible. You are conflating the fact that we have an ever increasing caste system with impossibility. Then again you believe in the Horatio Algers stories while I believe in the evidence.

Plus, you failed to explain how the poor collapsed the global economy. That rests upon your "Greed is good" mantra.

 

Since most everyone knows that the least educated are the ones most unemployed, why are so many Liberals in favor of making 12 million illegals, citizens when you know they will be after the same jobs most of those unemployed Americans are after?

 

I believe the point is that even if everyone had a doctorate, there would still be unemployment due to structural and other factors; in other words, it would still be a game of "musical chairs" even with a more educated work force; therefore, solving for a "natural" rate of inefficiency or unemployment under capitalism, should be a more necessary and more proper course of action in our republic, with our republican form of Government with its emphasis on equality.

 

like all liberals you are not able to separate opportunity equality from results equality--------the constitution does not guarantee equal results, just equal opportunity.

 

That I believe is true, but doesn't answer my question of why so many are willing to make 12 million illegals, citizens when we have about twenty million Americans out of work or only working part time? That doesn't make a lick of sense to me. I have to wonder if it's only because these Democrats just don't want to speak out against an Obama policy even though they know it's wrong? I have to believe that's the reason.

 

From one perspective and in that alternative, corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses to persons who are nowhere near the poverty guidelines and can afford to hire entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate, under our republican form of Government. We also have a federal doctrine regarding employment at will and State at-will employment laws.

In my opinion, our foreign policy should be to "goad" foreign States to create or expand their "welfare" programs so that their citizens won't feel any need to come over and make us look bad with a third world work ethic.

 

Wow, if there is truth to that, we will be paying for the Iraq war for a long, long time.