R.I P. Middle Class (just my opinion)

[Robor]

I just like to point out idiocy when i see it. If all you have to add to a thread is someone mispelled one word you may as well not even contribute to the discussion at hand.

I took his reply as sarcasm to foolish ranting but I could be wrong. :sneaky:

 

[Robor]

I think what's missing is an electorate that actually wants a fiscal conservatism. I've said this before but it bears repeating: the masses want fiscal responsibility the same way they want to be thin - everyone desires the goal but few are willing to sacrifice to achieve it.

That's a great analogy!!! :thumbsup:

 

[blackangst1]

Considering Walmart is by far the biggest retailer not selling to them and remaining competitive would be difficult. As far as #2, I don't shop at Walmart. I'll gladly shop at Target or Walgreens even if the price is a little higher.

Why? They have the same made in China products, etc? I know its fashionable to not shop at WalMart, but Im curious your reasons.

 

[werepossum]

That's right. I'm advocating protectionism--tariffs, a zero dollar trade deficit, very little immigration, no work visas.

You say that it would hurt the lower classes but you haven't explained why. Why don't you explain how it would hurt the lower classes?

Yes, it's true that the price of goods and services would increase but so would wages and the number of job opportunities while the invisible back end costs would decrease. Instead of the wealthy being able to retain a larger percentage of workers' contributions to the act of wealth production, they would be forced by market forces to give their workers a larger percentage of it.

How exactly do the lower classes benefit from having to compete with illegal aliens and fifty-cents-an-hour-with-no-environmental-or-labor-regulations Chinese? The illegal aliens are putting downward pressure on wages and displacing the lower classes from non-agricultural jobs they might otherwise work at. Foreign outsourcing has displaced Americans from formerly middle class manufacturing jobs as well as displaced Americans from many knowledge-based college-education-requiring jobs and the H-1B and L-1 visas have displaced Americans from even more knowledge-based jobs. How does destroying the ladders of upward mobility help the lower classes?

How does merging the lower classes with the impoverished third world job markets help them? Doesn't it stand to reason that if you created one single global labor market devoid of barriers that wages and standard of living would have to average out--which means that your average American would end up with a third world standard of living? (This is just simple supply-and-demand logic. If you dramatically increase the supply of labor relative to capital then the price point--wages, compensation, and/or standard of living--must decrease.)

If you can convincingly explain it please let us know. Publish an op-ed in the newspapers to present it to the public and our politicians and media pundits will shout it out from the rooftops. Even intellectual capitalist extraordinaire George Reisman (author of Capitalism: a Treatise on Government) failed to explain it to Paul Craig Roberts in a debate that took place on the Ludwig von Mises discussion forum a couple years back.

Before you dogmatically retort, "Comparative Advantage", check out this essay that explains why Comparative Advantage is not an absolute and why international trade may not always be an instance of comparative advantage.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050520_hearing.htm

Trade barriers hurt the poor most because they most benefit from cheap goods. For the poor, it may be a choice between a cheap Chinese microwave or no microwave rather than a choice between an expensive American microwave or a cheap Chinese microwave.

That said, I too am in favor of tariffs and trade barriers. While they hurt the poor, they also reduce the number of poor by increasing the number of jobs with proportionally higher value added and therefore raising wages. Free trade forces us to compete with the very lowest paid workers of the whole world and therefore drives our wages down for anything that can be outsourced. Free and unrestricted trade is a losing proposition for those who are net importers, and the USA is the king of net importers. Those arguing that we can compete with anyone need only look at our trade imbalance; we cannot. If the other guy can work for 5% of your wage (not at all unusual globally), you have to be twenty times as productive (which is NOT going to happen) or start cutting your wage to match his. Eventually his wage may rise to meet ours - but his education and productivity will also be rising, and anyway by that time his country will own our companies and probably our homes, if not our country.

Illegal immigration hurts the poor terribly because they are forced to complete with hard-working people willing to work for little and live in deplorable conditions. It also helps us all by lowering labor costs, but things are still priced according to the market; illegal immigration merely lowers the bottom. And of course it helps the resource owners tremendously.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

ok, so the elimination of all those middlemen positions is brought about by an increase in taxes which lowers my net take home. How then is this an increase in my standard of living? Taking more money from me is an increase in my standard of living??

The amount you'd spend in taxes would end up being less than you would pay in premiums, resulting in a net savings.

Not having a job means your getting government cheese, that means someone else (One of those who you want to take money from to pay for your heath care) would have to pay for it.

So, if a man cant pay his own way in life you tell me what he is........ And we both know "disabled" is a bullshit answer in 99% of the cases....

If the economy were booming and jobs were falling off of trees I'd tend to agree with you, but unfortunately that's not the case.

 

[shadow9d9]

There is no standard of living increase in socialized medicine unless your a worthless bag of flesh without a job. Sooo....why do you want the overall level of care to decline?

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. You really do know nothing about health insurance.

Try going out in to the world instead of staying in hick country please.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why? They have the same made in China products, etc? I know its fashionable to not shop at WalMart, but Im curious your reasons.

I know this is not directed at me but i dont shop at Walmart either. I ALWAYS goto Target. The prices are barely anymore expensive and the shopping experience is 1000% times better. Most Walmarts around here are dirty and crowded and lets not talk about the people you find in there LOL. I call Target "Milf Central". Always some hot soccer mom shopping to please my eyes

 

[soulcougher73]

The amount you'd spend in taxes would end up being less than you would pay in premiums, resulting in a net savings.

QTF. I wish more people would understand this. Taxes go up by $100/month. Monthly insurance premium of $300/month goes away. Just a rough example but you get the picture.

As well as the added benefit of knowing you helped others less fortunate lead a better life via UHC

 

[werepossum]

QTF. I wish more people would understand this. Taxes go up by $100/month. Monthly insurance premium of $300/month goes away. Just a rough example but you get the picture.

As well as the added benefit of knowing you helped others less fortunate lead a better life via UHC

You honestly think 2/3 of health insurance payments are overhead that the efficiency of government could eliminate? C'mon, there are valid reasons to favor single payer systems but no one is honestly that stupid.

 

[blackangst1]

I know this is not directed at me but i dont shop at Walmart either. I ALWAYS goto Target. The prices are barely anymore expensive and the shopping experience is 1000% times better. Most Walmarts around here are dirty and crowded and lets not talk about the people you find in there LOL. I call Target "Milf Central". Always some hot soccer mom shopping to please my eyes

And thats what it comes down to - experience. There are two WalMart super centers within 10 miles of me, and they are VERYdifferent stores. One is as you said dirty and crowded, the other is clean, organized differently, and the staff are friendlier. Target by my house, on the other hand, SUCKS. I wont shop there. It comes down to the general manager's handling of their store, and not corp policy IMHO.

 

[BoberFett]

Good points, but at the same time I think there's more to it. There's a whole fantasy involved from the Bottom to the Top. Military Might has gone to everyone's head and a paralyzing thinking of Invincibility has taken hold. Unfortunately that has led to a haphazard way of dealing with things.

Politicians have thrown any sense of Logic out in order to be Elected. Tax Cuts during a War and while Deficits exist for eg, that's just stupidity. The nation may be way ahead of anyone else, but many other Nations are catching up fast and positioning themselves on a much more solid foundation. At the same time US Deficits are actually being backed by those very same Nations catching up. It shouldn't take a Rocket Scientist to see the inherent danger in that situation, but the Invincibility factor seems to blind everyone.

"Entitlements", I think is the term when it comes down to the Individual Citizen. I think the correct term should be "Expectations". Expectations are born from the Ideal of the "American Dream". That involves basically 2 things, 1) That Hard Work will improve your Life and position in Life, and 2) That your Children will enjoy a better Life than you. Both those worked very well at times, especially Post-WW2-approx the '60's, but then the wheels began to fall off around the '70's. I'd blame the Vietnam War and the Oil Crisis the most for that, as both had deep psychological impacts on the American psyche that took a long time to overcome. Reagan was instrumental to overcoming those impacts, but he also introduced a Policy/Philosophy that simply can't be sustained in the longterm.

Getting back to Expectations, once the wheels fell off in the '70's, Individuals, Governments, and Institutions like Banks began looking for other ways to fulfill Expectations. That is where Credit comes into play and I think where things really started to get out of hand. A type of fantasy bubble was beginning to be formed about then from Top to Bottom of Society that would only increasingly get fantastical as time went on. Ideas such as Living within One's Means and simple Fiscal Prudence was thrown out the window a long time ago.

To get back to a more sensible Fiscal policy, I think Individuals and Banks need much more stringent limitations. Banks need to not allow themselves(either by their own Policy or Regulations) to Lend to Individuals who are too Indebted already and Banks need to be required to have more Cash/Assets compared to the amount of $ they have Lent out.

Governments need to take a more Keynesian Policy towards their Budgets. That is, to Operate at a Neutral or Surplus position during Economic Growth and only tolerate Deficits during Recessions. Due to some circumstances that may not always be possible, but this idea that "Deficits don't matter" is simply lunacy. They sometimes might be necessary, but they most certainly do eventually matter.

In short, the US is indeed vulnerable and if people don't start acting like it is, then one day the truth of that vulnerability will have tragic consequences.

[/off the top of my head mutterings]

I take back what I said in another thread, this is a very insightful and intelligent response. Too bad this is an aberration and most of your posts consist of a single word.

 

[BoberFett]

You honestly think 2/3 of health insurance payments are overhead that the efficiency of government could eliminate? C'mon, there are valid reasons to favor single payer systems but no one is honestly that stupid.

Sadly this is what many Democrats believe. Just give the money to the government instead of a private company and costs will be cut in half.

Apparently they haven't been paying attention to the other programs run by the federal government. They bitch about the cost of the Iraq war, then think the same government that ran that boondoggle should run healthcare as well.

It's truly a bizarre mental condition.

 

[werepossum]

I take back what I said in another thread, this is a very insightful and intelligent response. Too bad this is an aberration and most of your posts consist of a single word.

That was indeed a very good and well-reasoned post, and I would have missed it. Sandorski comes off my ignore list. I can breeze past a lot of knee-jerk liberal foolishness for posts of that caliber. (Sorry, there are no actual, useful, tangible benefits to this, Sandorski.)

Dang, now I gotta go back and read all the Sandorski posts I ignored, see what else I missed.

 

[sandorski]

I take back what I said in another thread, this is a very insightful and intelligent response. Too bad this is an aberration and most of your posts consist of a single word.

That was indeed a very good and well-reasoned post, and I would have missed it. Sandorski comes off my ignore list. I can breeze past a lot of knee-jerk liberal foolishness for posts of that caliber. (Sorry, there are no actual, useful, tangible benefits to this, Sandorski.)

Dang, now I gotta go back and read all the Sandorski posts I ignored, see what else I missed.

Ah jeeze guys, shucks. ()

 

[dmcowen674]

I disagree. The masses won't turn off American Idol, get off the couch, and do anything.

Not true because they won't have a couch or TV to watch anymore.

 

[BoberFett]

Not true because they won't have a couch or TV to watch anymore.

So as long as the government provides a couch and an acceptably sized screen, the poor won't revolt? Sounds exactly like the kind of populace control the Democrats are trying to establish.

So tell me again, which major party hates the US? Oh yeah, both of them.

 

[blackangst1]

Not true because they won't have a couch or TV to watch anymore.

Not true. Obama will buy them one

 

[borosp1]

I'm not conveniently ignoring anything. It seems too many here are confusing the principles and theories or Reaganomics with how Reagan applied them. I certainly cant help it if the reader is incapable of realizing the differences between the belief of something and how it is applied now can I?

Reaganomics as a policy were (Per wiki) as follows....

1. reduce government spending,
2. reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. reduce government regulation of the economy,
4. control the money supply to reduce inflation.

As found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Now the fact the Reagan didnt strictly adhere to his own policies is another matter entirely.

Actually reducing Capital Gains taxes is Republicans #1 thing they want. Which if enacted will just spread the desperaty between the haves and have not even wider than it is today. The issue is that the rich don't live on income from there jobs but make money from investments (dividends) and that's why they want capital gains lowered! This doesn't help poor or middle class at all.

What need to happen is make wages for the upper earners in corporate America more in line with there work force. I dont understand how a CEO of any company should be paid 319X the average workers salary. What angers me more is that CEO's even if they do a bad job get golden paruchutes which the average worker is not alloted too.

Salaries for middle class has been stagnant for many years, but the upper earners has been growing tremendously over the past 2 decades. Just google what avg CEOs made 20 years ago vs the spread they make today.

"A new study just published by the Institute for Policy Studies shows the CEO’S at the top 20 TARP recipients earned an average of $13.8 million last year as they were presiding over the financial collapse. CEO’s in other parts of the economy earned an average of $10.1 million.

Making matters even tougher to choke down, the overall CEO-to-worker pay gap is enormous. S&P CEO’s in 2008 earned 319 times more than the average worker."

http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/2009/09/03/ceos-make-300-times-average-workers-salary/

 

[ebaycj]

You honestly think 2/3 of health insurance payments are overhead that the efficiency of government could eliminate? C'mon, there are valid reasons to favor single payer systems but no one is honestly that stupid.

I think that 2/3 of health insurance payments are overhead that *ANY SELF-INTERESTED MONOPOLY* could eliminate.

Unfortunately, Monopolies (in the business sense) are dangerous to the populace because they provide a necessary good, but can (and eventually will) exploit said populace, for the gain of a few, when left unchecked (as is the case in business monopolies), because the goods the Monopoly provides are necessary to the populace. Therefore, unregulated (and lightly regulated) monopolies that provide necessary goods should not (and in practice, are not) tolerated by the populace.

Since we cannot trust corporate monopolies (or even non-profit monopolies, if such a thing existed, or was made to exist), the only monopoly that can be trusted AT ALL, is the government, due to the populace being able to express their opinions by voting.

 

[piasabird]

We dont have to outsource jobs just let the illegal immigrants have all the jobs. This is called slave labor. However, importing cheap labor is nothing new. The only purpose now for immigration is to import cheap labor and to reduce education costs. This in effect dumbs down American and gives people no hope. It enslaves people to the government.

Paulson's assistant was managing the 700 billion TARP fund and he quit to go build a cabin in the mountains. He was destroyed by the Pigs that live in DC. He saw that there were nothing but filthy animals in our capital and he left.

Here is an interesting article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120402016.html

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I took his reply as sarcasm to foolish ranting but I could be wrong. :sneaky:

i like to inject some humor into P&N and lighten the place up from time to time.

 

[Zebo]

Actually reducing Capital Gains taxes is Republicans #1 thing they want. Which if enacted will just spread the desperaty between the haves and have not even wider than it is today. The issue is that the rich don't live on income from there jobs but make money from investments (dividends) and that's why they want capital gains lowered! This doesn't help poor or middle class at all.

What need to happen is make wages for the upper earners in corporate America more in line with there work force. I dont understand how a CEO of any company should be paid 319X the average workers salary. What angers me more is that CEO's even if they do a bad job get golden paruchutes which the average worker is not alloted too.

Salaries for middle class has been stagnant for many years, but the upper earners has been growing tremendously over the past 2 decades. Just google what avg CEOs made 20 years ago vs the spread they make today.

"A new study just published by the Institute for Policy Studies shows the CEO’S at the top 20 TARP recipients earned an average of $13.8 million last year as they were presiding over the financial collapse. CEO’s in other parts of the economy earned an average of $10.1 million.

Making matters even tougher to choke down, the overall CEO-to-worker pay gap is enormous. S&P CEO’s in 2008 earned 319 times more than the average worker."

http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/2009/09/03/ceos-make-300-times-average-workers-salary/

You're informed. Capital gains treated separately is the biggest unfairness in the tax code period. I have shown before how a engineer making 60K a year pays more taxes than someone living on unearned income or capital gains of 120K. No need to do it again but you'd think it would be opposite or at least equitable since one has to toil for wages while other doesnt..

Don't forget about deductions either allowing shared use of tax free items by proprietor.

Edit and your link does not even include options. How much greater would gap be if they included that? I mean after all Bill Gates in never paid himself more than $400,000 to escape income tax. Instead, even to this day, when cashing out options at $100,000,000 a pop every few months he pays 15% flat (minus expenses and deductions we all get), No SS, No Medicare, No unployment, etc like every working person has to.

 

[blackangst1]

You're informed. Capital gains treated separately is the biggest unfairness in the tax code period. I have shown before how a engineer making 60K a year pays more taxes than someone living on unearned income or capital gains of 180K. No need to do it again but you'd think it would be opposite or at least equitable since one has to toil for wages while other doesnt..

Don't forget about deductions either allowing shared use of tax free items by proprietor.

What is your reasoning behind wanting to tax someone on (probably) already taxed money that was invested? If he/she made a wise investment and gained a return, why should the government get part of it?

 

[dmcowen674]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebo
You're informed. Capital gains treated separately is the biggest unfairness in the tax code period. I have shown before how a engineer making 60K a year pays more taxes than someone living on unearned income or capital gains of 180K. No need to do it again but you'd think it would be opposite or at least equitable since one has to toil for wages while other doesnt..

Don't forget about deductions either allowing shared use of tax free items by proprietor.

What is your reasoning behind wanting to tax someone on (probably) already taxed money that was invested? If he/she made a wise investment and gained a return, why should the government get part of it?

=================================================
Why should the rich get a pass while the working stiff get stiffed more?

 

[blackangst1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebo
You're informed. Capital gains treated separately is the biggest unfairness in the tax code period. I have shown before how a engineer making 60K a year pays more taxes than someone living on unearned income or capital gains of 180K. No need to do it again but you'd think it would be opposite or at least equitable since one has to toil for wages while other doesnt..

Don't forget about deductions either allowing shared use of tax free items by proprietor.

What is your reasoning behind wanting to tax someone on (probably) already taxed money that was invested? If he/she made a wise investment and gained a return, why should the government get part of it?

=================================================
Why should the rich get a pass while the working stiff get stiffed more?

Because one should get a benny for making wise investment choices, not punished. And its not just the rich who benefit. Any retired person with an income other than SS probably gets capital gains. I think you forgot middle income people have retirements and investments too.