Obama Administration = Most successful at reducing income inequality in 50 years

[IronWing]

Damn... the woodshed.. you took him there.

It's like shooting pickles out of a tree.

 

[Jhhnn]

Que? What demand do immigrants create relevant to this discussion? Labor is the supply. Demand varies according to the number of positions available due to trade-offs between wage costs and productivity gains.

Immigrants create demand for goods & services we wouldn't otherwise have. Demand is what drives the economy. They arrive with very little & set out use goods & services, to accumulate stuff just like the rest of us. Boomers transitioning to retirement don't need more stuff, but immigrants who have faith in America certainly do with their relatively high birth rates. If it weren't for immigrants, we wouldn't be at population replacement, let alone growing so as to support a growing population of seniors.

 

[Jhhnn]

Being on medicaid is a lifestyle. You have to meet certain criteria and you are motivated to keep meeting those criteria. Unless you can land a job with good benefits you'r going to want to stay unemployed or minimally employed.

The ACA destroyed the working class IMO. The $15-$20/hr jobs without good benefits. It used to be in that income bracket individual health insurance was affordable. Now its not. The benefits are shit and the premiums have almost doubled.

Stuff like
PRN Pharmacy Tech
Apprentice Electricians
Bartenders
Waiters
Hairdressers
Mom & Pop Store managers
Painters

Please. I looked long & hard at individual health insurance plans for the family when I wanted to retire early. They never were affordable for the people you claim they were. If they had been the ACA never would have come into existence.

Transitioning out of Medicaid onto a subsidized exchange plan isn't expensive at all.

The numbers are here-

https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/will-you-receive-an-obamacare-premium-subsidy/

It's only 2.04% of income at the lowest tier & the rest depends on how much a family utilizes healthcare.

You really know a helluva lot less about it than you think you do.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Immigrants create demand for goods & services we wouldn't otherwise have. Demand is what drives the economy. They arrive with very little & set out use goods & services, to accumulate stuff just like the rest of us. Boomers transitioning to retirement don't need more stuff, but immigrants who have faith in America certainly do with their relatively high birth rates. If it weren't for immigrants, we wouldn't be at population replacement, let alone growing so as to support a growing population of seniors.

Poor and middle-class immigrants create demand for inexpensive goods, the kinds of goods produced less and less by Americans, immigrant or otherwise. If the solution was as simple as "people exist, people consume, therefore we can sell things to them", immigration wouldn't mean anything and we could just export export export to those same people living in different countries. Material consumption is not an inherent good; it is only worthwhile if those consuming produce more material in the long run, which is threatened with exponential world population growth.

A system built on an assumption of infinite population growth is inherently flawed, as Japan is showing us so beautifully right now. First-world seniors want to rest easy on the backs of the world's billions of workers, and I say screw them.

 

[ivwshane]

Poor and middle-class immigrants create demand for inexpensive goods, the kinds of goods produced less and less by Americans, immigrant or otherwise. If the solution was as simple as "people exist, people consume, therefore we can sell things to them", immigration wouldn't mean anything and we could just export export export to those same people living in different countries. Material consumption is not an inherent good; it is only worthwhile if those consuming produce more material in the long run, which is threatened with exponential world population growth.

A system built on an assumption of infinite population growth is inherently flawed, as Japan is showing us so beautifully right now. First-world seniors want to rest easy on the backs of the world's billions of workers, and I say screw them.

I wasn't aware Japan had a growing population problem. When did this happen?

 

[Jhhnn]

Poor and middle-class immigrants create demand for inexpensive goods, the kinds of goods produced less and less by Americans, immigrant or otherwise. If the solution was as simple as "people exist, people consume, therefore we can sell things to them", immigration wouldn't mean anything and we could just export export export to those same people living in different countries. Material consumption is not an inherent good; it is only worthwhile if those consuming produce more material in the long run, which is threatened with exponential world population growth.

A system built on an assumption of infinite population growth is inherently flawed, as Japan is showing us so beautifully right now. First-world seniors want to rest easy on the backs of the world's billions of workers, and I say screw them.

Immigrants buy all the same stuff as the rest of us. They also pay rent & use services of all kinds. There's a basic !00% markup on retail goods no matter where they're made.

The reason that they can consume more in this country is because they're paid more. In Juarez, it's $3/hr. In El Paso, it's more like $9/hr.

Exponential population growth simply does not exist, certainly not in this country. The only reason our population grows at all is immigrants. Without it, our population would be sinking.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I wasn't aware Japan had a growing population problem. When did this happen?

They did in the 1950s or thereabouts; the problem takes a little while to become serious. No population grows forever. They have a retiree and pension problem, and the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

They did in the 1950s or thereabouts; the problem takes a little while to become serious. No population grows forever. They have a retiree and pension problem, and the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world.

And we are right behind them. Japan is a society that is very work orriented. Work is the highest priority.

We're turning the same way, the most fertile years for women are during the most important career years. So what do you want? Produce offspring? Or get a decent kick-start on your career? The fact that you have to make such a choice is disturbing, and it's the entire reason why the lack of procreation is such a serious issue.

It's also the reason why movies like Idiocracy are seen as scary that could very well become a reality. When couples do not produce during their 20's, they heavily risk having fertility issues during their 30's/40's. What does that leave? Uneducated, unprepared, and unqualified people being the only ones procreating. It's a recipe for disaster as far as producing a society of productive humans that society benefits from.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Immigrants buy all the same stuff as the rest of us. They also pay rent & use services of all kinds. There's a basic !00% markup on retail goods no matter where they're made.

The reason that they can consume more in this country is because they're paid more. In Juarez, it's $3/hr. In El Paso, it's more like $9/hr.

Exponential population growth simply does not exist, certainly not in this country. The only reason our population grows at all is immigrants. Without it, our population would be sinking.

Not really. People from developing countries spend far closer to their total GDP per capita, whereas people from wealthy countries are free to consume luxury goods, invest, etc. That's because poorer people have to take far more out of their pay-check on the essentials of food, housing, etc in order to live. Those essential goods are usually created by people near or even below the minimum wage (McJobs, illegal produce workers, etc). They may consume less in terms of absolute consumption, but they also live in areas with significantly lower rents and standards of living, so it actually kinda cancels out. Aside from homesickness/familial connections, the main thing preventing poor people from coming here are labor-barriers by the name of citizenship. If they have the same skills that the average American has (I'd imagine they are actually more skilled, or at least more willing to become skilled), then they could easily come here and drive down wages until they reach the livable (but sub-American-luxury) standard approaching that of their home countries.

A shrinking population is a good thing in the long run, unless we discover/invent some incredible new energy source. Labor is unlike its product in that we can't dispose of excess inventory painlessly, and it's not worth banking on its continued growth when many projections predict we're going to cap out by the end of the century.

 

[Jhhnn]

They did in the 1950s or thereabouts; the problem takes a little while to become serious. No population grows forever. They have a retiree and pension problem, and the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world.

Japan's problem is that the population is shrinking & aging. Too few workers vs too many seniors-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-japans-population-is-drastically-shrinking/

 

[Jhhnn]

Not really. People from developing countries spend far closer to their total GDP per capita, whereas people from wealthy countries are free to consume luxury goods, invest, etc. That's because poorer people have to take far more out of their pay-check on the essentials of food, housing, etc in order to live. Those essential goods are usually created by people near or even below the minimum wage (McJobs, illegal produce workers, etc). They may consume less in terms of absolute consumption, but they also live in areas with significantly lower rents and standards of living, so it actually kinda cancels out. Aside from homesickness/familial connections, the main thing preventing poor people from coming here are labor-barriers by the name of citizenship. If they have the same skills that the average American has (I'd imagine they are actually more skilled, or at least more willing to become skilled), then they could easily come here and drive down wages until they reach the livable (but sub-American-luxury) standard approaching that of their home countries.

A shrinking population is a good thing in the long run, unless we discover/invent some incredible new energy source. Labor is unlike its product in that we can't dispose of excess inventory painlessly, and it's not worth banking on its continued growth when many projections predict we're going to cap out by the end of the century.

Please. It doesn't matter how money is spent so much as the fact that it gets spent. So far as working people's incomes being diverted into investment, half of America has no investment outside their home.

So long as the ownership class, the rentier class, receives an outsized share of national income we need growth for working people to get much at all.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

A shrinking population is a good thing in the long run, unless we discover/invent some incredible new energy source. Labor is unlike its product in that we can't dispose of excess inventory painlessly, and it's not worth banking on its continued growth when many projections predict we're going to cap out by the end of the century.

How is a shrinking population a good thing overall? Honest question here. I understand the premise... less consumption of fossil fuels, less people to pay for, what have you.... But we're kind of in too deep on a lot of issues. Social Security... Medicaid/Medicare government programs... all of them are ENTIRELY dependent upon the pyramid scheme of producing more people each year to pay for the people at the top every year. I will be thankful to get anything out of the bogus tax dollars I pay when I reitre.

On top of that, we have plenty of industries that Americans are just too goody goody to work. They woundn't dare do something like pick up trash cans, learn to be a plumber, or any other decent trade-skill. How do you expect us to have these positions filled when no one is procreating?

 

[Zaap]

How is a shrinking population a good thing overall? Honest question here. I understand the premise... less consumption of fossil fuels, less people to pay for, what have you.... But we're kind of in too deep on a lot of issues. Social Security... Medicaid/Medicare government programs... all of them are ENTIRELY dependent upon the pyramid scheme of producing more people each year to pay for the people at the top every year. I will be thankful to get anything out of the bogus tax dollars I pay when I reitre.

On top of that, we have plenty of industries that Americans are just too goody goody to work. They woundn't dare do something like pick up trash cans, learn to be a plumber, or any other decent trade-skill. How do you expect us to have these positions filled when no one is procreating?

In every other argument, SS and the rest of it are magical things that pay for themselves. Suggesting they are ponzi schemes dependent on the current money coming in just going straight back out and you get a chorus of "Oh, you!! Come now! These things pay for themselves!"

But in a discussion about population, suddenly it's back to being ponzi/pyramid schemes, and wringing of hands over "Where will all the new workers come from to actually PAY for everything??!"

Wait, why do programs that "pay for themselves" require current workers paying in??

(I know, I know, you, I and most everyone knew all along that nothing was really paid for- governments blow through everything the second they get it, and that the ponzi scheme charge was correct, it's just fun to see it burned at both ends like a lot of issues.)

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Japan's problem is that the population is shrinking & aging. Too few workers vs too many seniors-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-japans-population-is-drastically-shrinking/

Yes, the solution is obviously to promote another baby boom so then the next few generations can deal with an even larger problem, who can in turn have an even larger baby boom, and so on.

Please. It doesn't matter how money is spent so much as the fact that it gets spent. So far as working people's incomes being diverted into investment, half of America has no investment outside their home.

So long as the ownership class, the rentier class, receives an outsized share of national income we need growth for working people to get much at all.

It absolutely matters in the context of a discussion on wages sufficient to bring individuals outside of a lifetime of rental and self-maintaining consumption. If you bring in cheap labor that can only afford cheap products and services, the only demand for labor you produce is one of more cheap labor. It's a perpetual cycle of reproduction and base living maintained only because of tax $$$ coming in from the ownership and inventor classes (which spend a significant amount of effort trying to figure out how to drive labor costs down even further).

How is a shrinking population a good thing overall? Honest question here. I understand the premise... less consumption of fossil fuels, less people to pay for, what have you.... But we're kind of in too deep on a lot of issues. Social Security... Medicaid/Medicare government programs... all of them are ENTIRELY dependent upon the pyramid scheme of producing more people each year to pay for the people at the top every year. I will be thankful to get anything out of the bogus tax dollars I pay when I reitre.

On top of that, we have plenty of industries that Americans are just too goody goody to work. They woundn't dare do something like pick up trash cans, learn to be a plumber, or any other decent trade-skill. How do you expect us to have these positions filled when no one is procreating?

I agree that we have systems set up on assumptions of continuous growth, and it's very unfortunate that they exist. Social security and others don't have to be pyramid schemes; as Zapp implied, if the government didn't arbitrarily dip into funds when it feels like blowing cash on something, they would probably at least be stable.

When real labor shortages exist, that's when we should bring in immigrants. Right now we're at a total opposite of having too few plumbers or trashmen; there are literally hundreds of millions that would be overjoyed to come here and work. No need to actually create more people though, particularly not if it's goody goody, all-too-lazy Americans having the babies.

 

[OverVolt]

Please. I looked long & hard at individual health insurance plans for the family when I wanted to retire early. They never were affordable for the people you claim they were. If they had been the ACA never would have come into existence.

Transitioning out of Medicaid onto a subsidized exchange plan isn't expensive at all.

The numbers are here-

https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/will-you-receive-an-obamacare-premium-subsidy/

It's only 2.04% of income at the lowest tier & the rest depends on how much a family utilizes healthcare.

You really know a helluva lot less about it than you think you do.

You have chosen to become an expert at gaming the system and you will now always be dependent on the system. I actually have assets. Thats the difference between you and me.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have chosen to become an expert at gaming the system and you will now always be dependent on the system.

People who go back & forth from the medicaid extension to subsidized exchange plans & hopefully on to employer sponsored group plans aren't gaming the system. That's what the ACA is designed to accomplish, to keep them covered one way or another.

I actually have assets. Thats the difference between you and me.

You're just looking for a way to defend your ego by looking down your nose at me. Don't mistake that for the truth.

I'm on Medicare but my wife & family are covered under an exchange plan where we receive no subsidy. I went to the trouble to figure out how it actually works & I'd encourage you to do the same. You might need it someday.

 

[glenn1]

People who go back & forth from the medicaid extension to subsidized exchange plans & hopefully on to employer sponsored group plans aren't gaming the system. That's what the ACA is designed to accomplish, to keep them covered one way or another.



You're just looking for a way to defend your ego by looking down your nose at me. Don't mistake that for the truth.

I'm on Medicare but my wife & family are covered under an exchange plan where we receive no subsidy. I went to the trouble to figure out how it actually works & I'd encourage you to do the same. You might need it someday.

Well that explains (as if anyone needed an explanation) why you're so far in the tank for the progressive cause and Democratic candidates - your livelihood literally depends on transfer payments. Behold everyone, Jhhnn is exactly the 47% type that Mitt Romney talked about.

 

[JSt0rm]

Japan has half our population in 1/20th the space.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Japan has half our population in 1/20th the space.

Obviously we could just plop another Tokyo or Los Angeles in the middle of South Dakota. Everyone knows this.

 

[JSt0rm]

Obviously we could just plop another Tokyo or Los Angeles in the middle of South Dakota. Everyone knows this.

We could if the economic conditions supported that growth.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well that explains (as if anyone needed an explanation) why you're so far in the tank for the progressive cause and Democratic candidates - your livelihood literally depends on transfer payments. Behold everyone, Jhhnn is exactly the 47% type that Mitt Romney talked about.

More desperate need to look down your nose with attributions pulled right out of your ass.

I'm 67 years old. We live modestly on low overhead, SS, my pension & whatever my wife makes from her attempt at being an independent businessperson.

The fact that so many people need transfer payments to provide for their families isn't the Gubmint's fault at all. It's a failure of trickledown economics.

 

[glenn1]

More desperate need to look down your nose with attributions pulled right out of your ass.

I'm 67 years old. We live modestly on low overhead, SS, my pension & whatever my wife makes from her attempt at being an independent businessperson.

The fact that so many people need transfer payments to provide for their families isn't the Gubmint's fault at all. It's a failure of trickledown economics.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to save face. Your wife doesn't buy it though, hypergamy is a real thing and someone on the government dole ain't going to have respect of a female partner.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

We could if the economic conditions supported that growth.

What economic conditions? How?

 

[Jhhnn]

Whatever you need to tell yourself to save face. Your wife doesn't buy it though, hypergamy is a real thing and someone on the government dole ain't going to have respect of a female partner.

So viciously desperate. So far off topic, too, apparently by necessity.

I wouldn't presume to know how you make a living or what you're worth but you def embody that FUGM attitude so favored among self important conservatives.

 

[JSt0rm]

What economic conditions? How?

Huh? Wtf are you arguing?