Rant against the Chrysler "Detroit" Ad...

[WhipperSnapper]

Your post is a paranoid rant. China does far more harm than good, even with their occasional IP theft. Outsourcing resulting in lost American jobs is a well known canard at this point, as evidenced by the cold hard numbers that have seen the U.S. average just above 6% unemployment since outsourcing went into full effect in the early 1980's. If that scares you then I'm sorry, but you're just a fearful individual.

Do you believe the government's massaged unemployment numbers? Also, remember, the unemployment percentage doesn't tell us about the quality of the jobs people have. What if the jobs that were sent overseas ended up being replaced by lower quality retail service jobs? In your view, are decades of high trade deficits good for the nation's financial health?

 

[First]

Wages improve every decade and hours stay around 34-36 per week, so if they were replaced with lower "quality" jobs it's not being shown in hourly figures or real dollars. The numbers aren't massaged either, there's plenty of U1-U6 employment data out there, it's not a secret and the methodology is quite sound.

 

[Throckmorton]

Wages improve every decade and hours stay around 34-36 per week, so if they were replaced with lower "quality" jobs it's not being shown in hourly figures or real dollars. The numbers aren't massaged either, there's plenty of U1-U6 employment data out there, it's not a secret and the methodology is quite sound.

Real wages are declining

 

[Throckmorton]

We in the middle and lower classes are worse off than we were in the 70s, while the rich are more than twice as rich.

 

[Infohawk]

The matrix was invented by Westerners but its IP was stolen and now we live in a Chinese Matrix...

 

[First]

Your chart is hand-picked data that uses an arbitrary metric (1979 "level" means nothing) and shows no granularity at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

Data Total gain Percent gain 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 1973 1970 1967
20th percentile $3,982 28.4% $17,984 $19,142 $17,601 $16,484 $16,580 $17,006 $16,306 $15,548 $16,457 $15,615 $15,844 $15,126 $14,002
Median (50th) $9,980 29.9% $43,318 $44,853 $42,294 $39,613 $39,679 $40,678 $38,510 $36,811 $38,649 $36,155 $37,700 $35,832 $33,338
80th percentile $34,602 62.6% $86,867 $87,341 $81,719 $77,154 $74,759 $75,593 $71,433 $66,920 $68,318 $63,247 $64,500 $60,148 $55,265
95th percentile $65,442 73.8% $154,120 $155,121 $144,636 $134,835 $126,969 $127,958 $119,459 $111,516 $111,445 $100,839 $102,243 $95,090 $88,678

 

[Brigandier]

Many years ago this was a thriving, happy planet - people, cities, shops, a normal world. Except that on the high streets of these cities there were slightly more shoe shops than one might have thought necessary. And slowly, insidiously, the number of the shoe shops were increasing. It's a well-known economic phenomenon but tragic to see it in operation, for the more shoe shops there were, the more shoes they had to make and the worse and more unwearable they became. And the worse they were to wear, the more people had to buy to keep themselves shod, and the more the shops proliferated, until the whole economy of the place passed what I believe is termed the Shoe Event Horizon, and it became no longer economically possible to build anything other than shoe shops. Result - collapse, ruin and famine. Most of the population died out. Those few who had the right kind of genetic instability mutated into birds who cursed their feet, cursed the ground and vowed that no one should walk on it again.

I believe this may be what is happening.

 

[Craig234]

If you're concerned about corporations partnering with countries like China as the expense of the American people's interests, and corrupting the government to help:

Then fight to get rid of the corruption of our political system with unlimited funds from the corporate interests to guarantee someone who represents them over the American people is elected, to serve the interests of these corporations for whom the prosperity of the American middle class is an excessive cost they want to cut.

I recall you have support the 'right', those who support the corporate agenda, and opposed progressives, who support the American people against the corporatocracy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

If you're concerned about corporations partnering with countries like China as the expense of the American people's interests, and corrupting the government to help:

Then fight to get rid of the corruption of our political system with unlimited funds from the corporate interests to guarantee someone who represents them over the American people is elected, to serve the interests of these corporations for whom the prosperity of the American middle class is an excessive cost they want to cut.

I recall you have support the 'right', those who support the corporate agenda, and opposed progressives, who support the American people against the corporatocracy.

loliberals... When something is identified as "bad" the first thing to do? Turn to the gov't.... even if the problem IS the gov't. loliberals

 

[soulcougher73]

I agree with the OP. However, while congress and the President may be the only ones who can address the problem, I do not agree they are the source of the problem. Corporate America has led us down that path and continues to destroy American jobs in pursuit of a profit.

Someone has to inact the laws the corporations want in order to get what they want. So yes it is also the congress and presidents problem as well for allowing them to be bullied by profit.

 

[Throckmorton]

Your chart is hand-picked data that uses an arbitrary metric (1979 "level" means nothing) and shows no granularity at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

Data Total gain Percent gain 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991 1988 1985 1982 1979 1976 1973 1970 1967
20th percentile $3,982 28.4% $17,984 $19,142 $17,601 $16,484 $16,580 $17,006 $16,306 $15,548 $16,457 $15,615 $15,844 $15,126 $14,002
Median (50th) $9,980 29.9% $43,318 $44,853 $42,294 $39,613 $39,679 $40,678 $38,510 $36,811 $38,649 $36,155 $37,700 $35,832 $33,338
80th percentile $34,602 62.6% $86,867 $87,341 $81,719 $77,154 $74,759 $75,593 $71,433 $66,920 $68,318 $63,247 $64,500 $60,148 $55,265
95th percentile $65,442 73.8% $154,120 $155,121 $144,636 $134,835 $126,969 $127,958 $119,459 $111,516 $111,445 $100,839 $102,243 $95,090 $88,678

How much of those pitiful gains are due to more women working?

 

[ShawnD1]

Wages improve every decade and hours stay around 34-36 per week, so if they were replaced with lower "quality" jobs it's not being shown in hourly figures or real dollars. The numbers aren't massaged either, there's plenty of U1-U6 employment data out there, it's not a secret and the methodology is quite sound.

Another thing is that countries are compared based on purchasing power rather than dollars. This is to account for the effects of unions, free trade, taxes, etc. While the US has lost a significant percentage of its manufacturing, average Americans are still wealthy compared to other countries. Food is cheaper in the US, manufactured products are cheaper in the US, fuel is cheaper in the US. $30,000 US goes a lot farther in the US that it does in Canada, and a hell of a lot farther than it does in France. People in a US book store get paid $10 per hour and a book might cost $5. People with the same job in France get $20 per hour but the books are $20.


USA is still near the top
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

 

[BoberFett]

Come on, I know sucking down those unemployment checks is hard on your libertarian soul, but now you're telling me the federal government's $14T deficit has created millions of jobs? I guess you'll come to terms on your own time.

So what you're saying now is that government spending does NOT create jobs? This is certainly contrary to everything you Dumbocrats have been telling us for the past few years.

 

[Steeplerot]

loliberals...Turn to the gov't.... loliberals

And to think, this poster used to be the one of the most efficient mouthpieces of GOP talk radio propaganda, and now to be reduced to this....Get this man some talking points..stat!

 

[Tangerines]

Who gives a shit what some dumb, thrice divorced college dropout thinks?

 

[BoberFett]

So does government spending create jobs or not? I'm all atwitter waiting for the answer.

 

[Throckmorton]

Everybody knows government spending creates jobs, it's just that Republicans and Libertarians deny it. Government has had to create jobs to make up for all the jobs being outsourced and lost to foreign countries.

 

[First]

How much of those pitiful gains are due to more women working?

Individual income is included in the BLS paper, so you don't need to look at family incomes to see real wages have increased very substantially since the 70's.

 

[First]

So what you're saying now is that government spending does NOT create jobs? This is certainly contrary to everything you Dumbocrats have been telling us for the past few years.

I can't help what the voices are telling you in your head. It's pretty well known that gov't spending creates some jobs, as in a relatively minimal amount compared to private sector job creation, and in reality gov't probably saves more saves jobs than creates them out of thin air the way startups do. But to say the $14T deficit is the main reason unemployment has averaged low 6% since 1980, well, that's just jumping the sharp and inordinately stupid. I wouldn't expect anything less kiddo!

 

[BoberFett]

I can't help what the voices are telling you in your head. It's pretty well known that gov't spending creates some jobs, as in a relatively minimal amount compared to private sector job creation, and in reality gov't probably saves more saves jobs than creates them out of thin air the way startups do. But to say the $14T deficit is the main reason unemployment has averaged low 6% since 1980, well, that's just jumping the sharp and inordinately stupid. I wouldn't expect anything less kiddo!

So you don't believe that the concept of pulling demand forward applies to the labor market? Are you a young earther too?

Edit: As a followup question, if government deficit spending isn't spent on wages, then what is it spent on?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

And to think, this poster used to be the one of the most efficient mouthpieces of GOP talk radio propaganda, and now to be reduced to this....Get this man some talking points..stat!

ah yes, I remember many of those conversations... but it was before your current user name but I can't say who you really are lest I get slapped down. You miss SF?

 

[First]

So you don't believe that the concept of pulling demand forward applies to the labor market? Are you a young earther too?

What does this obfuscation have to do with your original statement that 6% for 30 years is due to deficit spending? Spending in isolation doesn't create jobs, if that's what you're getting at.

Edit: As a followup question, if government deficit spending isn't spent on wages, then what is it spent on?

Gov't deficit spending is spent on all sorts of things other than wages of course, come on. Services and administrative costs outside of labor are pretty high in bureaucracy, obviously. Besides, we had some of the most aggressive gov't spending in history between 2000 and 2010, a period that didn't exactly historically differ too far off the norm for other 10 year periods. Gov't spending is entirely dependent on where it's spent. To prop up industries temporarily, almost exclusively during a bust, is OK if said industry poses a systemic risk, like the auto bailout that probably did save 750K-1M jobs. But those are rare occurrences, the exception, and should never be used in perpetuity. And they weren't used like that between 1980 and 2008.

 

[Bowfinger]

ah yes, I remember many of those conversations... but it was before your current user name but I can't say who you really are lest I get slapped down. You miss SF?

I know you aren't much for Shades of Grey, but you probably shouldn't point with a dirty finger.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

speaking of dirty fingers bowfinger.... oh wait... I can't say that either... oh well

 

[Bowfinger]

speaking of dirty fingers bowfinger.... oh wait... I can't say that either... oh well

No, do tell. Send me a PM if you must. I've never been banned, not even for a day, so I've never had to start a second account. However, I'd be fascinated to hear your theories on my alter egos.

Off topic, but perhaps you're thinking of another forum where someone co-opted one of your alter egos. As I remember it, you eventually found out that was Conjur, however. Speaking of whom, whatever happened to Conjur? Good times.