The Utter Contradiction Of The Conservative Religion Exemplified:-

This post is so dumb it doesn't warrant a response, but succinctly: I was talking specifically about China's introduction to the WTO at the behest of Clinton. That, along with NAFTA, led to a steep decline in manufacturing jobs in America, which is an integral part of propping up the middle class. Newsflash, times were better before this race to the bottom in manufacturing and labor. Maybe you should redirect your anger towards the rightful recipients, politicians, Wall Street, and corporations.

 

Dude without Nafta the alst two busineses I worked for would have lost about a 1/4 of there revenue stream...

 

So we got nothing out of WTO? Or would you prefer manufacturing jobs over the tech industry which pays far better wages?

What jobs left - specifically - that you want? Boeing? Blame Obama and his union cronies. In fact blame the unions for even more jobs lost. There is a reason manufacturing jobs still come to right to work states and I wish you leftists would face that fact one day instead of just ignore it because you want what you want consequence free.

Answer my question though, in NAFTA, what does Mexico do with the dollars we send them?

 

Again, the ignorance here is overwhelming. You know the difference between tech and manufacturing? Manufacturing requires a large labor force, tech does not. So while there are great tech jobs today, there aren't many and the barrier to entry is very high. Manufacturing is important because in order to have a thriving middle class, you need a varied distribution of skills and ladders of opportunity. Those jobs served as a viable way to raise a family if you didn't go to college, and left less competition for careers at higher echelons.

Unions are the solution here. It's been proven time and time again that Union employees make more than their non-union counterparts, and take a look at this chart showing correlation between union density and shared prosperity.



The problem is that corporations began funneling exorbitant amounts of money into politicians in the late 70s, and through that enacted laws which allowed to start a race to the bottom in production. Do you really want us to be "competitive" by emulating places like China and India? Unfortunately, you are an embodiment of just how well corporate-funded propaganda works.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? Because they would have had to pay their employees more? Oh, the humanity!

 

Median incomes rose faster in the period of union decline then gain. Depression and war can't last forever, not would any sane person want it to.

Tech makes other jobs more valuable too, because it enables greater productivity. The consumer pays the cost of your unions. They hurt other members of society and enrich themselves while driving down our export capability.

I ask again, since you are so smart, what does Mexico do with the dollars we send them? One day you may wake up and realize you rehash all the stories unions tell you about how great an idea it is to pay more for inferior goods because they have brain scrubbed you. You then call other people ignorant while dodging straightforward questions. Leftists!

 

You mean the dollars the US government sends them, or the money they through multinational corporations moving factories down there? I'm not saying that NAFTA hasn't improved the lives of Mexicans in a small way--it has--but I care more about my countrymen. Median income is skewed by income inequality, obviously, and i'm not debating that more wealth has been shifted to the top 2% since the late 70s. Actually, our compensation has not risen with productivity.



Unions are valuable, and we've seen what happens without them. Corporations are only beholden to their shareholders, not their workers. You need a counterbalance or else you'll have a nation of retail workers and burger flippers...oh wait.

 

Ok. Lets go step by step. Lets walk you backwards.

What is median income? Why do you think income inequality would skew it upward?

Yes we have become more productive since the 70s we also have big ole debt skewing the adjusted for inflation earnings downward. People are richer now then in the 70s and far more people are salaried. Your hourly measure doesn't help with them. Then you add all the new additions to the labor force. The immigrants and women. Women have driven up the supply of labor dramatically, and reduced its price.

http://m.research.stlouisfed.org/fred/series.php?sid=CIVPART&show=chart&range=max&units=lin
Other then the workers, how do unions benefit anyone?

What do Mexicans do with our dollars? Quit dodging. You called me ignorant, now answer the question. I don't care about whether or not Mexican lives improve, what do they do with the US dollars we send them?

 

It does skew it upward, not nearly as much as the average though. We do have more laborers, yes, because we have more people in general on a global scale. Honestly, look around you, how many people are struggling? I'm from the rust belt, and we have seen a steady loss of factory jobs over the years which has largely reduced people to fighting for table scraps at places like Walmart. Also, globalization has driven up the supply of labor, and thanks to all the money corporations have spent lobbying, they can move their jobs overseas with zero consequence.

Unions do help workers, that's the point. We have extreme inequality right now. At some point, it will become a national security issue, as we've seen with periods of great inequality in the past. If this trend continues, don't be surprised if you see crime go up extensively.

And I don't know, why don't you tell me. What do Mexicans do with our(?) dollars?

 

I believe in equality. I think men should be born with boobs and women born with a penis.

 

no it doesnt. It would go down. You got the wrong concept and dont want to admit it. That is OK. So now you agree median income measure the middle class?

i never made a population increase argument or mentioned global populations. I mentioned women entering the workforce and showing a graph tht matche yours.

many in the obama economy. Maybe we shoud print up a fee hundre more billion and guve it obama loyalists and call it a jobs bill

so you understand the damage unions do.

Meanwhile manufactuting is rising in right to work states. No new plant has moved to flint since the first UAW sit ins bankrupting half a dozen.

What consequence would you impose? Whose money is it?

only their workers. No other workers are helped and they bear the cost pf union thievery.

So? If the floor is rising why does it matter?

Will the leftists revolt for theft again? What period are you referring to?

They spend it on US goods or pesos of course. They don't want fiat money they want the goods and services it can buy. If they sent us their resources an labor for paper would be rich and they would be poor. Do you understand that and why?

 

More of the wealthy live in concentrated centers in America (NY, San Francisco, etc), which does have an effect. Unions are the most demonstrably effective way to increase standards of living, just look at our history. Women aren't to blame for lower economic gains, policy which allows American corporations to avoid tax and move production to the developing world is. Also, I think you mean Mexicans spends their pesos on Chinese goods by way of America. The factories in right-to-work states pay much less than those without, and don't even come close to recouping our losses initiated by a corporate race to the bottom.

 

Not with median income. Again, if income inequality was as bad as you say it would hurt rather then help median income.

Detroit and flint are the two most unionized cities in America. Need I say more?

It isn't good. Why do you think it is? The racial discrimination? Violence against scabs? Stagnant education results? Higher cost everything?

no they arent but they added to the labor supply.

Which one be specific. I am sure you are just repeating a talking point and not thinking for yourself.

how would you stop them?

So we get their labor and resources and china pays them with their labor and resources? Woohoo! Too bad you are wrong. That would be awesome.

They hire while union leaches on businesses have to fire. Can't buy politicians to sell the Americans a more expensive life forever union thugs. You killed enough manufacturing.

What losses? They created jobs that didnt exist that unions were forcing out of America. There is a reason they have to sue to stop Boeing going to north carloina and Boeing went to china instead. The unions kill our competitiveness and you all want to pretend it doesn't matter, we will just force other workers to pay higher prices for inferior goods by law. Crazy!

 

Ever heard of tax loopholes? Hell, an $100 billion "accidental" loophole made the news just last week. Your game is simply blaming the result of globalization and international trade policy on the unions. Of course companies want to pay their employees less, that's why they move production to places like China, Cambodia, India, etc.

 

Obeying the law is not a loophole. Congress sets up 401ks too, is that a tax loop hole? Lower the tax rate and people wont waste money inefficiently on tax shelters that congress sets up to invest certain kinds of dumb investment. That still had nothing to do with what you were saying though.

How would you force these companies to pay more, and how will the stay globally competitive? Which goods should US citizens not be able to buy from overseas people?

 

Huh, so Congress set up tax shelters, eh? If you really want more examples of how corporations avoid their tax liability and lobby politicians to abstain from fixing these loopholes, just do a Google search. Let me ask you something, does being competitive on a global scale *have* to necessitate paying your employees a pittance? Here in America, Costco is doing pretty damn well and they pay their employees much better than places like Walmart. This is because the CEO and executives take less.

Unfortunately, we have a culture of exorbitant wealth these days. I'm more interested in forcing American corporations to pay their taxes, but the easiest way to lift the wage floor is to raise the minimum wage. Numerous studies have shown it doesn't have any discernible effect on employment.

Now, I expect you post some bogus stats from the "Employment Policies Institute" or some such corporate front group. Go ahead.

 

Yes, bonds, 401ks, IRAs, are all tax shelters.

You are the one claiming they are abusing the tax system by moving overseas. I have heard no proof of that yet. Internationally earned income is not under the taxing jurisdiction of the US.

No, many firms pay top dollar to stay competitive. They hire skilled workers. People like Pfizer and Merck, and Windows, and Dell, and Google, and Ebay etc...

Way smaller then Walmart whose CEO only makes $6 per employee per year.

No it isnt. That guy takes like $14 per worker per year. What would the WalMart workers be able to do with that $6, pay for 2 hours tax burden?

envy

Which ones are cheating? Or are you calling for a removal of special programs like Romney?

Just causes more unemployment among low skilled workers and the youth. Look at how high black youth unemployment has climbed since the minimum wage jump in the 60s.

They all purposefully look at total employment and not at the people it will affect. How do you measure a job that no longer exists? The minimum wage killed apprenticeships. See many of those these days? Of course not, got to pay to go to school now. Why not raise the minimum wage to $1000 an hour so we can all be rich? ? Why havent you hired all these people at top dollar wages yet? Do you also lack a money tree, and have to balance your budget unlike government?

No, I expect data from you showing that minimum wage hikes have increased wages adjusted for income. Have fun.

 

I haven't read much of Marx, but understand the fundamentals and the 10 basic tenets of Communism.

By the way, how many of these tenants do YOU support? I'd guess at least 5 from your posts.

So if someone supports half of Hitler's policies, would it not be fair to call them a "Neo-Nazi?" By the same token, if you or others support half of more of what Marx supported in his books---wouldn't it not also be fair to call all of you "Neo-Communists or Marxists?"

I think it pointless to discuss the Bible with a fanatical pagan because Jesus said:

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

 

You need evidence of corporations using tax shelters? And I mean offshore tax havens, not 401ks and IRAs. Here's just one article on Apple's practices, but Google, Starbucks and many others emulate them. Since you'll jump to defend corporations so easily, i'm sure you'll defend their tax avoidance (but god forbid poor people don't pay an income tax).

Here is a paper positing that the minimum wage has so discernible effect on employment, penned by the former Secretary of Labor.

Also, Walmart is the largest retail operation in the world, and the six Waltons have more wealth than the bottom 42% of Americans. I think they can afford to pay a little more. They won't on their own volition of course because we humans aren't very empathetic, just look at all the poor-bashing conservatives engage in constantly.

 

I also find it humorous that a Country that espouses Freedom is populated by a moral majority that want to rob me of it. You are free so long as you stay within the confines of the box... hypocrisy IMO. Some seem to think we are a mono-theocracy when we are really a representative democracy.

 

How about you defend what were doing to Americans overseas, to include those who aren't the 1%?

This just encourages a ham-fisted, despotic tax system which we then try to force down the throats of smaller nations who actually have far better tax systems than we do.

Then again, Why aren't you calling for $100/hr? Surely if you believe it has no effect, you wouldn't stop at just $10/hr?

And to counter your example, I give you the left's favored son, Paul Krugman:

And the Gov't can afford to spend a little less, considering it was at over 24% of GDP in 2010 and 2011.

For reference, we have never raised more than 20.1% of GDP in taxes, even in the days 80-90% marginal tax rates.

 

I agree, the Government should spend less. Cutting the military would be a good start, followed by repatriating all that lost tax revenue. The problem is that corporations in the low-wage sector won't raise wages voluntarily. I don't like having to rely on a minimum wage increase, but how else could we get places like Walmart to pay more? Also, lets not forget that we as taxpayers subsidize these corporations, as their employees often have to rely on public assistance.

 

No disagreement about the military, but It's a pretense that money is overseas because of tax rates, rather than, say, that our interest rates are <1%. This is not enough to overcome inflation, so either you put your money in a foreign bank, or you put it in an American one and watch as it loses value.

Further, for businesses who invest overseas, the primary reason they do that is to address markets in those nations. So that money is right where it should be.

Wal Mart has in the past come out for raising the minimum wage. Why? Because there's something in it for them: market share.

Wal mart has more latitude than their small-time competitors, and can even automate like many grocery stores are doing if it comes right down to it.

Raising the minimum wage fixes nothings, because it does not raise the value of the worker's labor, it only makes it more expensive. Businesses with carefully calculated margins for just how much value their workers create for them will either let people go or simply not hire them in the first place (Or, Automate). We only see this correct itself once the new minimum wage is again made meaningless due to inflation, just as it has since the minimum wage was implemented.

 

The minimum wage should be indexed to inflation. Walmart supported raising the minimum wage from $5.15 eight years ago if that's what you mean. That money is right where it should be? What are you talking about? I'm talking about corporations that basically buy a P.O. box in the Cayman's and then say they do a legitimate amount of business there.

 

Why don't you pay them more? Why aren't you "emphatic"?

(As expected, your source looks at total employment and not affected groups. There is also no argument that it causes a wages increase because it foesnt. You can't tell on a grap where the minimum wage has changed. They also use a base line after the minimum wage. If they applied to our employment before it would change. They also use a total number of workers count while ignoring women entering the workforce).

 

Sure, quit flame baiting before you're reported.