We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers

[Zebo]

Actually, soldiers are a great investment. We invade a country, plunder their wealth, breed with their women, then move on to a new country. How else did the Romans get so wealthy?

We don't do that anymore so it's a poor investment and unproductive. Back when we stole land from Indians and gave it FREE to impoverished Europeans you'd have a good argument tho.

Oh and reason Europeans were impoverished is similar right wing politics in Europe leading country today. We just called it Divine right of kings instead of free market economics. New veneer of “rationality” but it amounts to same thing. A handful of Elites are better than you and "earned" their position and are worthy of admiration and respect while those who own nothing but their bellies worthy of scorn. Old habits die hard. I think humans like suffering and not getting an equitable share of their labors. Idiots.

Need moonbeam on this one. self hate and all that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

We are?

Looks like it.

U.S. manufacturing remains the world’s largest manufacturer, despite an inaccurate report in today’s Financial Times that China has passed the United States. American manufacturing, in fact, is so large that if it were a self-standing economy, it would be the eighth largest in the world.

There are a number of errors in the data provided to the Financial Times by a private sector consultant. First, the report did not measure the physical quantity or volume of manufacturing, but rather measured current dollar output which is impractical due to price changes and exchange rate changes. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and its manufacturing component, Real Manufacturing Value-Added, are the correct ways to measure economic output, because they are adjusted to remove the effect of price and exchange rate changes and measure real output.

The United Nations Statistics Division compiles global data on manufacturing value-added, and its most recent data shows the United States continues to lead, with close to 21 percent of all global manufacturing output in terms of constant dollars (real manufacturing value-added in 2009). China is the second largest, with about 15 percent of global manufacturing. No official data are available for 2010 yet, but given the gap between the top two manufacturers, China will not have surpassed the United States in 2010.

...

 

[Imp]

Sadly this seems to be the case for anything govt related. I work for a tech firm that provides support contracts for large corporations/govt. Specifically I have a state govt and federal agency as a client. I have to tell you that ranging from healthcare, to manufacturing, to technology, to govt clients - the State govt in particular has some of the dumbest people I have ever encountered. Incompetent on so many levels, that at other private industries - I've seen one Manager level contact doing the same work/jobs of a Director, two managers, and one AVP. It's sad really.

Federal is a lot better at the management level but the low level workers are another story.

Not being able to fire people is a MASSIVE drain on our taxes.

Not from your country, but as a fellow loser guberment, unionized worker, you should know that we feel the exact same about private consultants. Our right-wing "state governor" a few terms back decided to cut "state" workers en masse. Now, with a lefty in office, workers have been added, but most work is still contracted out. A lot of work coming into us is half-assed, must be sent back to be re-done repeatedly while we foot the bill, contractors work to the letter of the contracts then ask for bonuses, etc.

I also have a coworker who got fired during the mass cull, and bid (and won) on government contracts at a premium of 3x her wages. Lot of companies are hiring unqualified, inexperienced people because they are overstretched, and just wanted to win another contract.

Then on the other hand, there are some people at work who are incompetent, don't show up for work or show up stoned, and the managers can't/won't do anything because of the union.

 

[werepossum]

We don't do that anymore so it's a poor investment and unproductive. Back when we stole land from Indians and gave it FREE to impoverished Europeans you'd have a good argument tho.

Oh and reason Europeans were impoverished is similar right wing politics in Europe leading country today. We just called it Divine right of kings instead of free market economics. New veneer of “rationality” but it amounts to same thing. A handful of Elites are better than you and "earned" their position and are worthy of admiration and respect while those who own nothing but their bellies worthy of scorn. Old habits die hard. I think humans like suffering and not getting an equitable share of their labors. Idiots.

Need moonbeam on this one. self hate and all that.

I'd say feudal Europe was much more similar to progressive politics. You had an all-powerful government with literally the power of life and death, that decided what part of your labor it wanted and took it off the top, expecting you to survive on whatever was left. Towns on the other hand were much more right wing; no welfare from the lord, but also far fewer restrictions on freedom.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Indoctrinated drivel...

You fucking teabaggers need to remove your heads from your ass and stand up to your puppet master charlatans. While you serfs fight to your last breath defending your moneyed masters wealth, they tower above you all pissing on you!

Sure America could use more manufacturing, but tearing down government employees isn't the answer. You depraved teabaggers have already vilified teachers. You've teared down that occupation with the level of your local meth house. WHATS NEXT?! Firemen, then the police? After that then you'll probably get after the old. Then comes the solider...

Or did we forget that was a government job to? You teabaggers are a sorry lot. I can't wait to see your faces when your Republican masters leave you depraved fools when you're all used up. Don't fucking cry then. Don't you dare fucking cry!

Looks like you forgot to take your meds. You're foaming at the mouth again.

 

[wuliheron]

Actually, soldiers are a great investment. We invade a country, plunder their wealth, breed with their women, then move on to a new country. How else did the Romans get so wealthy?

They also invested in the local infrastructure. Since 99% of the wealth is actually owned by 1% of the population its often trivial to raise the living standards of the locals by building a few roads and whatnot and imposing a system of government that redistributes the wealth a bit so they can collect taxes later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

 

[Rock Hydra]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576219073867182108.html

Damned good read. More Americans now work for government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined.



If you cannot see the problems inherent in this situation, then congratulations, your lobotomy was a smashing success! Cue squeals about the sensationalist right wing corporate media conspiracy and complaints about the evil rich . . .

Indeed. This is planned, and outlined in elitist memoirs and publications. NAFTA? GATT? SPP?

 

[dmcowen674]

Need moonbeam on this one.

Haven't seen his posts lately, something happen to him?

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Of course so many in this country are risk averse about their career when they and their families' literal life depends on it. Very few private career paths offer security with the ever increasing production efficiencies that occur. That by definition means less reliance on labor. And that's before what labor demand that does exist is filled by outsourcing. It's not really a good article at all, just a government & union hit piece that doesn't address the crux of the issue of why we are heading in this direction. Slamming shut the little job security that exists here is not going to fix the underlying problem, which is, as the article pretty dismissively states, "in recent years only government agencies have been hiring."

This ^^. The economy and job market is not the same as it was decades ago. And in today's economy with many companies still hoarding cash and generally not in a hiring mood, it shouldn't be surprising that some people are willing to trade a lucrative but uncertain career for job security & benefits *shrug*.

 

[Robor]

Great job preempting the pathetic libtards not getting it. haha idiots!

LOL... Looks like Spidey has a tea bagging buddy. How cute. :wub:

 

[Robor]

FYI manufacturing jobs did not get outsources, they got more productive.

We are making more stuff in this country than ever before dollar wise. It just takes a lot less people to make it than 30 years ago.

Tell that to these people

 

[MotF Bane]

LOL... Looks like Spidey has a tea bagging buddy. How cute. :wub:

Haven't seen you in a while.

Don't mind comptr, he's insane.

 

[senseamp]

Sounds like government jobs pretty much grew inline with population growth, it's the manufacturing jobs that corporations outsourced overseas that are missing.
The biggest takers are the Wall Street Journal's main readership.

 

[werepossum]

This ^^. The economy and job market is not the same as it was decades ago. And in today's economy with many companies still hoarding cash and generally not in a hiring mood, it shouldn't be surprising that some people are willing to trade a lucrative but uncertain career for job security & benefits *shrug*.

The problem isn't that there are too many people who want government jobs, but rather that there are too many government jobs out there.

 

[her209]

Lol! Why this is bad went right over the leftists heads. Lobotomy successful.

Says the guy with a wife working for government.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The problem isn't that there are too many people who want government jobs, but rather that there are too many government jobs out there.

And if those jobs weren't there?

 

[werepossum]

And if those jobs weren't there?

Government would be doing less stuff and the private sector would have more money to do more stuff.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Government would be doing less stuff and the private sector would have more money to do more stuff.

So it's mainly been an issue of lack of capital that's been preventing private sector hiring over the past few years?

 

[werepossum]

So it's mainly been an issue of lack of capital that's been preventing private sector hiring over the past few years?

That's one issue. Our government load makes it necessary to have high corporate taxes, our high national debt competes with the private sector for credit, and our policies have discouraged manufacturing and other wealth-producing jobs from being created in this country.

Some of these factors are not practically solvable. Reducing environmental protections, or safety regulations, have direct adverse effects. But two of these factors are solvable. Government needs to be smaller, and needs to spend less - and just as importantly not spend more than it takes in - so that it consumes less of the wealth that is created and is less competition for the private sector. The other of course is our policy toward domestic jobs versus outsourced; until we stop rewarding companies for moving production, we'll continue to lose wealth-producing jobs.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

That's one issue. Our government load makes it necessary to have high corporate taxes, our high national debt competes with the private sector for credit, and our policies have discouraged manufacturing and other wealth-producing jobs from being created in this country.

Some of these factors are not practically solvable. Reducing environmental protections, or safety regulations, have direct adverse effects. But two of these factors are solvable. Government needs to be smaller, and needs to spend less - and just as importantly not spend more than it takes in - so that it consumes less of the wealth that is created and is less competition for the private sector. The other of course is our policy toward domestic jobs versus outsourced; until we stop rewarding companies for moving production, we'll continue to lose wealth-producing jobs.

I'm quite aware such rightwing talking points. But answer me this. Say you were a small business owner. You run a restaurant. And like most small businesses your volume has been down over the past few years. It's declined to the point where maybe you've even had to lay off staff. You've scaled back to the point where you're just barely breaking even, if that. But suddenly your taxes are halved. You're sitting on this additional capital you didn't have before. And let's pretend that's it's a substantial amount despite just barely remaining profitable. What do you do with it? Do you hire more staff back on? Expand your kitchen with new appliances? Build on an addition to seat more people?

 

[werepossum]

I'm quite aware such rightwing talking points. But answer me this. Say you were a small business owner. You run a restaurant. And like most small businesses your volume has been down over the past few years. It's declined to the point where maybe you've even had to lay off staff. You've scaled back to the point where you're just barely breaking even, if that. But suddenly your taxes are halved. You're sitting on this additional capital you didn't have before. And let's pretend that's it's a substantial amount despite just barely remaining profitable. What do you do with it? Do you hire more staff back on? Expand your kitchen with new appliances? Build on an addition to seat more people?

If my business is down then I probably don't need staff, so I'd look at relocating or remodeling, or expanding my product offerings, whichever I saw as my main weakness. Assuming my investment pays off, then I'll get more trade and then I'll need more staff. There are however situations where staff hires are first in line - for instance, if my chef sucked and I could suddenly afford better, or specialized staff like a desert chef or a sushi chef, or someone able to expand my product line (and hopefully my appeal) by preparing, say, Greek or Mexican or Thai food in addition to my normal offerings.

Created jobs are also indirect. For instance, if my expenses were suddenly cut I'd buy new computers and upgrade my AutoCAD. Unfortunately very few of the parts would be domestically produced, but the assembly personnel, Autodesk people, etc. would be money plowed back into the economy - and more importantly, the private sector. And my company would be more productive.

And if you really believe these are right wing talking points, why not advocate for Communism?

 

[her209]

I'm quite aware such rightwing talking points. But answer me this. Say you were a small business owner. You run a restaurant. And like most small businesses your volume has been down over the past few years. It's declined to the point where maybe you've even had to lay off staff. You've scaled back to the point where you're just barely breaking even, if that. But suddenly your taxes are halved. You're sitting on this additional capital you didn't have before. And let's pretend that's it's a substantial amount despite just barely remaining profitable. What do you do with it? Do you hire more staff back on? Expand your kitchen with new appliances? Build on an addition to seat more people?

I'd hold onto the cash and wait to see if demand picks up. Why hire staff that will just stand around doing nothing when there's not that many patrons needing to be waited on.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

If my business is down then I probably don't need staff, so I'd look at relocating or remodeling, or expanding my product offerings, whichever I saw as my main weakness. Assuming my investment pays off, then I'll get more trade and then I'll need more staff. There are however situations where staff hires are first in line - for instance, if my chef sucked and I could suddenly afford better, or specialized staff like a desert chef or a sushi chef, or someone able to expand my product line (and hopefully my appeal) by preparing, say, Greek or Mexican or Thai food in addition to my normal offerings.

Created jobs are also indirect. For instance, if my expenses were suddenly cut I'd buy new computers and upgrade my AutoCAD. Unfortunately very few of the parts would be domestically produced, but the assembly personnel, Autodesk people, etc. would be money plowed back into the economy - and more importantly, the private sector. And my company would be more productive.

And if you really believe these are right wing talking points, why not advocate for Communism?

Well for one thing I'm not a Communist.

And the point I'm trying to lead you to, the one you and every other rightwinger seems to ignore, is that demand, especially consumer demand, matters. Hell, it drives everything. Tax cuts, especially concentrated for businesses and the rich, won't magically produce job growth- there is a mechanism to it. Tax cuts likely will spur business expansion and job growth if there is a capital limitation impairing it (high taxes or high interest rates) and there is demand to support the business expansion. But these assumptions largely aren't the case in the current recession, especially the second one. Hell, the businesses that have continued to make money, and gather capital, have done so with less employment AND less business volume. This just further shows that a lack of demand is THE problem, and tax cuts do not directly address this. In fact, using lower taxes as an impetus to reduce government spending is about the worst thing you can possibly do since 1) the government is such a large consumer and 2) it employs large numbers of consumers. Weakening consumer employment security and lowering government spending just compounds the problem, it won't magically make private sector jobs reappear. Having strong consumption driving demand will, and if private business won't support it (because they are doing the "economically prudent" thing by sitting on their capital), and consumers can't afford it (because they are either unemployed or maxed out in debt), that just leaves one more player in the game to even have a working economy.

 

[her209]

Well for one thing I'm not a Communist.

And the point I'm trying to lead you to, the one you and every other rightwinger seems to ignore, is that demand, especially consumer demand, matters. Hell, it drives everything. Tax cuts, especially concentrated for businesses and the rich, won't magically produce job growth- there is a mechanism to it. Tax cuts likely will spur business expansion and job growth if there is a capital limitation impairing it (high taxes or high interest rates) and there is demand to support the business expansion. But these assumptions largely aren't the case in the current recession, especially the second one. Hell, the businesses that have continued to make money, and gather capital, have done so with less employment AND less business volume. This just further shows that a lack of demand is THE problem, and tax cuts do not directly address this. In fact, using lower taxes as an impetus to reduce government spending is about the worst thing you can possibly do since 1) the government is such a large consumer and 2) it employs large numbers of consumers. Weakening consumer employment security and lowering government spending just compounds the problem, it won't magically make private sector jobs reappear. Having strong consumption driving demand will, and if private business won't support it (because they are doing the "economically prudent" thing by sitting on their capital), and consumers can't afford it (because they are either unemployed or maxed out in debt), that just leaves one more player in the game to even have a working economy.

Also, if hiring additional employees brought in more money than what it was costing the company to employ them, i.e., a net positive, the company would have hired them regardless of the tax cuts. On the other hand, if the employees were a net negative, then why would a company intentionally hurt their bottom line? To quote a Republican line, "Its not a charity."

 

[fskimospy]

Also, if hiring additional employees brought in more money than what it was costing the company to employ them, i.e., a net positive, the company would have hired them regardless of the tax cuts. On the other hand, if the employees were a net negative, then why would a company intentionally hurt their bottom line? To quote a Republican line, "Its not a charity."

Tax cuts lower the marginal cost for hiring an employee. When you look across the entire economy of America, a few thousand dollars can easily change the calculation from a hire that is not worth it to a hire that is.