Welcome To A New America!!!!! (For the better even)

[Crotale]

All I'm hearing is "the evil corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money." Gee, and here I thought that corporations provide jobs so that the workers can have money to live.

Tbh, since they provide no links to source data, I do not know where that website gets it figures and how they really are calculated. I'd have to search a more reliable source, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

[kiff]

Healthcare reform is a big topic these days. Oh noes, government healthcare is bad! This may be so, but how much worse is it than when my mother spends one night in a hospital for a sudden collapse, does one simple blood test, and the bill comes back in five figures? Fortunately she works two jobs and both have insurance, and the combined total covered it. Many don't have that luxury, and being hit with that sort of bill can absolutely be ruinous. Private industry has completely and utterly failed to provide acceptable healthcare.

and bureaucracy, social programs, drug comp lobbying and all of the fun legal/government crap has nothing to do with the high costs of medicine, right? yea, it's the fault of private industry. uhh huh...

 

[KaiserWarrior]

They cite the BLS, and you can see it for yourself.

Just picking one year (2004) out of the lot, I'm not going to sit here and do research for you:

Jan: 0.2
Feb: -0.1
Mar: -0.7
Apr: 0.2
May: -0.4
Jun: -0.8
Jul: 0.7
Aug: 0.3
Sep: 0.0
Oct: -0.4
Nov: -0.4
Dec: 0.5
Total: -0.9

That's percentage points, so in 2004 alone down almost 1%. And this has been the trend since the 60s, either mostly flat or somewhat down depending on exactly where you get your data.

A harvard-produced research paper, complete with citations, notes that over the last 25 years (from 2007), productivity has increased about 70% while average real wages have increased a mere 4%. So if the workers are being so much more productive but seeing almost no increase in their actual buying power, where's all that extra wealth going? Certainly not into the hands of the people that have actually earned it. Trickle-down is wrong at best, an intentional lie at worst.

Defending despicable, predatory lending practices with "just trying to make a buck" and trying to dismiss, out-of-hand, data that shows how ****ed up this economy has been for the non-wealthy for decades doesn't make the problems go away.

 

[Crotale]

I didn't scour the site, but all the links I saw appeared to be internal, which is why I balked at it. Seriously, if you think that "trickle down" economics is the biggest culprit here you are sadly mistaken. Sure, folks "may" be making less money when compared to inflation that that of yesteryear, but that is only one part of the problem and is only a symptom of a larger set of issues entirely.

I'm not defending anyone. You, on the other hand, appear to be arbitrarily pointing fingers at ONE source of the problem and claiming it to be the primary reason for our current economic situation.

I still stand by the fact that not only do we Americans have the ability to pay our bills if we are somewhat frugal with our paychecks, the fact that during GW Bush's first term, personal bankruptcies were at an all-time high and most were NOT due to overwhelming medical debt kinda says a lot about how we got into this mess. Sure, there is plenty of blame to throw around, and that is what kills me. Folks want to blame a specific group or organization for the sorry state of our economy, but there are toom any variables.

While I can agree that many fatcats got fatter while most of us got a little thinner, so to speak, blaming only the big corporations (to include financial corporations/entities) is truly the act of turning a blind eye at the government many seem to think is going to rescue us. What you and others fail to realize is that these fatcats would have less power over the workers and economy as a whole if the government did not allow favors. Ever heard of lobbyists and political action committees?

You want to assign blame on the housing situation? Where is your disgust for Barney Frank's involvement? That sumbitch took boatloads of campaign monies from Fannie/Freddie and their employees and as late as early 2008, he stated that both organizations were strong. There are plenty of other politiicnas who did the same from both sides of the aisle. Like I said, there is plenty of blame to go around, but to dismiss supply side economics as a failure is ludicrous.

I know of no one that ever said trickle down in and of itself is an economic utopia. On the opposite side of that, I'd like to see proof that trickle up economics is a viable alternative, for that is how the government appears to be setting us up. Tax the hell out of corporations and the wealthiest Americans and give away the store to everyone else. Well, at least in appearance. Sad fact is that I would bet that my personal taxes will rise in the next few years, and I am in that middle class bracket.

While most of us net less money each week than we did some years ago, our quality of life has improved greatly. When poorer Americans can afford some of the same "luxuries" that only the middle or upper class could afford only a decade ago says tons more than those numbers you love.

 

[KaiserWarrior]

They can't afford those luxuries. That quality of life is being purchased with credit, not actual money. This is the problem.

This is why the numbers matter. People are physically making less than they were in decades previous. They have less purchasing power. They can afford less than before. This is indisputable, this is what the numbers show.

What has happened, and this is why I blame those lovable financial giants that apparently can do no wrong (It's all the government's fault!), is that financial institutions have created a class of debt-slaves that did not exist in generations prior. The illusion of a higher quality of life is manufactured through credit. These people cannot afford the high standard of living they are used to, so they go into debt to fund it. Were they to completely cut off all debt, that supposedly high standard of living would drop dramatically.

Minimum wage is somewhere around $5.00, give or take depending on the state in question. Working a full-time job at that level (assuming you can even get full-time at Minimum Wage, which is quite unlikely) provides $10,400 a year. Let's double that to $20,800, and say this person works two full-time jobs at minimum wage, for an 80-hour work week.

In Atlanta, a small, one-person studio apartment runs $700 a month. Then you factor in minimalist utilities with no frills at about $300 a month (power, water, heat/air) That's $1000 a month just to have a roof and water/lights, we've not yet counted food, clothing, vehicle costs to get to work, child expenses, any medical mishaps, or anything. Already this person is expending over 57% of their earnings just to not sleep in a box at night and to be warm in the winter. We haven't even added a family to the mix, this is just for the one person.

This is what the real wage numbers mean. This is the lack of purchasing power the average worker has these days. This is why debt is such a problem -- because in order to not live in poverty and squallor in the most advanced nation on earth while spending absurd amounts of their lives working, they have to lease their lives to debtors.

 

[Crotale]

So, what you are saying is that it is the credit card companies who are at fault and that their customers have no personal responsibility in this mess? You have got to be out of your mind if you think this. While I'm all for making it more difficult for bait and switch tactics that many of these credit companies offer, I still maintain that there must also be personal responsibility expected from their customers. If there wasn't a demand, then these companies would either be out of business or looking for another way to get business. And on the same note, if people want to have a higher quality of life without planning and working for it, they shouldn't go looking down avenues they cannot afford.

Oh, and there is no need to rag on my ass about the cost of living, as I live in Vegas and it isn't cheap to live here. Although a person can find "reasonable" accommodations, I see of lot of folks renting and /or buying in higher cost areas of the valley.

I don't have the time for too much research today, but found this link to be interesting. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

There are a lot of factors involved in the real average income levels. You have to also look at the percentage of unemployed workers, of which were significantly fewer (percentage wise) in 1964 than in 2009. Oddly enough, that one site you referred to based its data on 1982 dollars as a median point, a point in which we had the highest unemployment rates.

 

[Kazimira]

OK I have to say something here. It is the credit card companies fult for exploiting people and it's just to easy to exploit people.

This saying still rings true. A person is smart, people are stupid.

The credit card companies just over a larger time than most and a much longer planned stratagay used mob mentalaty to get us all doing what they want.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Maybe the average wage is down 10% because more people had actual jobs than in 1964

I'd say you can't really blame trickle down economics for our current problems. I'm sure that trickle down economics, the way it is designed, works just fine (company has more money, hires more people... it's not always about giving people raises). Once you mix government programs into that and consider the number of people who find it easier to not work now than they did 20 years ago, I think you have a formula for a real problem.

I know someone in my in-laws neighborhood who lives in a $400,000 house but gets welfare checks every month and both the husband and the wife work at low paying part time jobs for supplemental income. I'm sure this kind of thing happens a lot more than you would think. Americans are dang freaking lazy people in general, and if they can figure out a way around the 40-hour workweek without much of a cut in pay, they will do it.

Is it right? Probably not. But our government plans for, acknowledges and supports these people. Heck, you and I support these people. But it's never going to change, not the way things currently are.

Also, it's pretty silly to say that the whole Republican Party was telling unemployed people they need to "try harder". Talk about a fallacy of blame...

 

[Capt.Toilet]

Saw today where Chrysler just went into bankruptcy and I just want to understand something here. The government gives them billions to get back on their feet, they can't and they end up filing for bankruptcy. So where the **** did that money go children?

Then I saw a little news blurb about how Visa is going to hike up interest rates because around 50% of their install base use debit? So the people who had to use credit cards BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE(not talking about the ones who use it because they are stupid) are getting bum raped because of this. All I have to say is

 

[hal]

Personally, I am all for social support through higher taxes. Our country can't function as it is because of our low taxes and now it really needs to help out those that have lost a lot.

Yes they're definitely too low because we're spending $3,600,000,000,000.00 this year. That's about double the revenue generated by taxes. Double everyone's taxes - sounds awesome.

Oh wait! Maybe the government can spend a little less of our money? I know that's kinda radical.

The Republican party told them they didn't try hard enough and that everything bad in their life was their own fault, and that the infallible, perfect FREE MARKITZ had no hand in it, no responsibility, and that nobody should pay taxes to help people in that position. "Government waste", they called it. You're a "welfare queen" if you hold some small expectation that an advanced society such as ours would actually lend a helping hand rather than tell you to go **** yourself and rot in a ditch.

Show me where the Republican Party said all of those things, please.

Trickle-down is wrong at best, an intentional lie at worst.

The whole trickle-down theory is a red-herring for people who want to argue that tax cuts should target only middle to low income taxpayers.

Here's a few things to chew on:

1. The government takes way too ****ing much of our money.
2. The government spends it wastefully.
3. The government is a REALLY POOR steward of social programs. Witness the 3 trillion dollar deficit that the Social Security program finds itself in.

 

[KaiserWarrior]

Personal responsibility for overspending plays into it, no one can question that.

...

I hold industry responsible for making a shameless attempt to get people in debt, profit off of the interest payments until they inevitably default, and then repo the assets to recover the initial outlay. It is predatory, and it should be criminal.

Are people responsible for taking the bait? Of course. But there are those who simply say "caveat emptor" and make no attempt to assign any blame to the loan sharks making the bad offers. They are just as culpable.

So, what you are saying is that it is the credit card companies who are at fault and that their customers have no personal responsibility in this mess?

Seriously, stop covering your eyes and shouting "lalalalalalala".

I also provided you with a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, using its own measures, to show the same stagnation of real wages. But I guess it's easier to just ignore it and question the validity of the original source anyway.

No wonder you people don't think this is a problem. You outright refuse to consider it even when confronted with evidence that it exists.

"Let's just cut taxes for the wealthy! That will solve our problems!"

"Here's decades worth of wage data showing that that doesn't do jack **** for the vast majority of people, as it's what we've been doing and their real wages have not increased. It only helps the already wealthy get even moreso while everyone else stagnates."

"Oh then it must still be the government's fault!"

 

[BillyBadAss]

Yes they're definitely too low because we're spending $3,600,000,000,000.00 this year. That's about double the revenue generated by taxes. Double everyone's taxes - sounds awesome.

Oh wait! Maybe the government can spend a little less of our money? I know that's kinda radical.

We have some of the lowest taxes in the world. So low that the country can not support itself. You should be a patriot and help out your country and country men and pay more taxes. If American Companies weren't so greedy and on average the CEO makes about 400 times the lowest paid worker there would be more money to pay the employees to offset higher taxes. Capital greed and short sightedness is what is killing America. Just to note the average wage of a CEO in Japan is only 11 times the lowest paid worker.

 

[kiff]

We have some of the lowest taxes in the world. So low that the country can not support itself.

you mean so the government can grow itself and increase our debt. lowest taxes in the world and we're the top super power.... yea, let's fix that...

You should be a patriot and help out your country and country men and pay more taxes.

yea, let's spread the wealth around. gee, where have we heard that before. Before Obama that is...

 

[Crotale]

Seriously, stop covering your eyes and shouting "lalalalalalala".

I also provided you with a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, using its own measures, to show the same stagnation of real wages. But I guess it's easier to just ignore it and question the validity of the original source anyway.

No wonder you people don't think this is a problem. You outright refuse to consider it even when confronted with evidence that it exists.

"Let's just cut taxes for the wealthy! That will solve our problems!"

"Here's decades worth of wage data showing that that doesn't do jack **** for the vast majority of people, as it's what we've been doing and their real wages have not increased. It only helps the already wealthy get even moreso while everyone else stagnates."

"Oh then it must still be the government's fault!"

WTF? Dude, the real wage numbers do not indicate that ALL wages have decreased in relation to inflation. It is an average, is it not? Sure, many workers' wages have not increased much, such as minimum wage earners, but again, that is on the low end of the spectrum. Another consideration is the fact that you have more high schoolers in the work force than you ever could have imagined back in 1964.

What you are saying is that employers should by default have been paying out higher wages to combat the effects of inflation? Or, are you saying that the inflation is mostly artificial? Sure, wage rates have not always kept up with inflation, but that is how an economy works.

Seriously dude, you might want to chill a bit before you have a heart attack. Attacking me for not agreeing with you is not going to fix things. I'm curious, who here said "cut taxes on the wealthy?" I think you are confusing the comments some have made about NOT raising taxes on anyone, and some of us have noted that the Administration has expressed the desire to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and lower taxes on the poorest. Honestly, the poorest "taxpayers" pay almost no income taxes at all, while the wealthiest pay much higher percentages than even their middle class counterparts.

You know, even if you redistributed all the wealth on an average, you would simply be putting more households in a lower income bracket than they currently reside in and you not would be raising the income status of the poorer American wage earners. The side result would be the government owning all the supply and trade channels. Hmm, sounds like the former Soviet Union to me.

 

[BillyBadAss]

you mean so the government can grow itself and increase our debt. lowest taxes in the world and we're the top super power.... yea, let's fix that...

yea, let's spread the wealth around. gee, where have we heard that before. Before Obama that is...

Yeah! We are so rich, like a college girl and all her credit cards. Look at all we can buy! Oh wait? We are expected to pay for that.

Nice memory. I forgot how awesome FDR was.

 

[hal]

We have some of the lowest taxes in the world. So low that the country can not support itself. You should be a patriot and help out your country and country men and pay more taxes. If American Companies weren't so greedy and on average the CEO makes about 400 times the lowest paid worker there would be more money to pay the employees to offset higher taxes. Capital greed and short sightedness is what is killing America. Just to note the average wage of a CEO in Japan is only 11 times the lowest paid worker.

Income taxes may be low (relative to some other countries) for a large percentage of people, but not for the top few million taxpayers. Also, our corporate taxes are among the highest. Don't forget about payroll taxes, sales taxes, phone taxes, school taxes, internet taxes, car taxes, license taxes, luxury taxes, license fees, air taxes, water taxes, and feet taxes.

You're right. We're not doing our part.

Far be it from us to expect the government to waste less of our money.

You know what? You don't like how a business is run? Go start one yourself and run it anyway you like. Go talk to Ben and Jerry. It's called freedom. It's great.

 

[hal]

Let's just cut taxes

I couldn't agree more.

 

[BillyBadAss]

You know what? You don't like how a business is run? Go start one yourself and run it anyway you like. Go talk to Ben and Jerry. It's called freedom. It's great.

Actually I am in the process of doing just that. Also, Been and Jerry only make 80 times the lowest paid employee. So what's your point. Freedom is one thing. Bleeding a company dry in true neo-con greedy fashion "dat dim dere be da Amerkin way" and then asking for a Democrats help to bail yourself out doesn't cut it.

 

[SnaKe-Fu]

asking for a Democrats help to bail yourself out doesn't cut it.

??

 

[dragonfliet]

WTF? Dude, the real wage numbers do not indicate that ALL wages have decreased in relation to inflation. It is an average, is it not? Sure, many workers' wages have not increased much, such as minimum wage earners, but again, that is on the low end of the spectrum. Another consideration is the fact that you have more high schoolers in the work force than you ever could have imagined back in 1964.

What you are saying is that employers should by default have been paying out higher wages to combat the effects of inflation? Or, are you saying that the inflation is mostly artificial? Sure, wage rates have not always kept up with inflation, but that is how an economy works.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but a SIGNIFICANTLY higher proportion of the US has graduated High school than in the 1960's as well as a significantly higher proportion of the US has attained a Bachelors degree or higher.

But you're really going to argue that there are more high schoolers in the work force which is driving this down? Ask your parents if they had a part time job when they were young, because working isn't something new to this generation.

People in this country in general are better educated (which incurs debt, I might add) and paid lower. Do you know why? Here's a hint: it isn't due to high school kids working, it's because of the increasing gap of executives making absurd amounts of money. Why pay your workers for the essential jobs they do when you can pay yourself? Why, it's the American way.

~Jason