Fiscal Inequality (formerly Cable TV)

Quote:

Uh, no they are not. I work in the oil and gas industry and she is in the auto industry. I will never buy one of her products as I believe her firm was stolen from its rightful owners. We do not even live in bordering states. Sorry, no connection.

There is no isolation in macro-economics. You might want there to be, but there is a link. It may not concern you, but the butterfly in Kansas turns a a turbine in Maryland.

Quote: TheCesspit

There is no isolation in macro-economics. You might want there to be, but there is a link. It may not concern you, but the butterfly in Kansas turns a a turbine in Maryland.

We are in the same economic system, that is all. Otherwise there is no "link." A link would imply what one of us makes affects what the other of us makes. All the philosophy in the world can be brought out but it does not matter.

Quote: AZDuffman

We are in the same economic system, that is all. Otherwise there is no "link." A link would imply what one of us makes affects what the other of us makes. All the philosophy in the world can be brought out but it does not matter.

In that case, there is no trickle down effect? That tax cuts won't increase productivity and inward investment? That there is no marginal dollar effect where a dollar in the hands of the poor is worth more (and spent faster) than a dollar in the hands of the rich? Your just blowing away masses of economic theory and practice?

Right then, glad we have settled that.

There is an effect. It may be small, but it happens. What you are choosing to say is the effect doesn't matter to you. It being so marginal. But that's blinkered. The wealth accumulation into the hands of the few will have an effect, not least part of the 'want' generation who you believe (and I some what understand, even if I don't agree totally) they should get things based on desire rather than economic output. I see there is a pull as well as a push. The super super rich make those at the bottom want what they have, and some will think they -deserve- a piece of the overall pie with no justification... as how can one person need so much.

I am not saying we have lords and peasants again. I am saying massive disparities in economic power lead to societal problems. I would agree that local level bonus and share of the wealth creation is a way around it, as you suggest. I would suggest that if someone makes a 10 million wage, did they create all of the wealth in that wage themselves, or was some (or a lot of it) redistribution of the labour of others into their pay packet? That wealth creation occurs, but currently not all people creating the wealth are getting equitable distribution of that. And further, public systems are indeed creating situations where the some have nots depend (and demand) public assistance... and private companies benefit from that in keeping wages and hours low, leading to wealth creation being further concentrated into fewer hands.

If Joe Blow creates MegaCorp $10,000 of 'wealth' in a month, but only gets paid $1,000 and gets $500 of public assistance... then MegaCorp has taken $500 from the public purse into it's own coffers. Joe Blow then becomes welfare dependent (maybe, or maybe not, it depends on him) and MegaCorp's owners get $9000 dollars of new wealth (of course some gets paid to his manager, and so on), $500 of which is transferred from the public money. Of course some of that $9000 gets back in via taxes on wages, and others go to dividends, but if Mr MegaCorp's CEO gets a little bonus for profit, and he has 1000's of Joe Blows... he's making a big fat profit on under paying Joe.... he has no incentive to pay a fair market rate.

So whose to blame? The assistance programs and welfare? Megacorp? Both? Neither?

Both, I'd claim.

Quote: TheCesspit

In that case, there is no trickle down effect? That tax cuts won't increase productivity and inward investment? That there is no marginal dollar effect where a dollar in the hands of the poor is worth more (and spent faster) than a dollar in the hands of the rich? Your just blowing away masses of economic theory and practice?

Right then, glad we have settled that.

Uh, no you haven't "settled" anything with that statement. There is a trickle down effect. But it works because lower rates will allow Ms. Barra to invest more money or spend it for leisure, etc. At that point she might remodel her house. Or put in a pool. She has no need to buy a car, but if she did that would trickle. But my statement remains, her making more has zero to do with what I make.

Quote:

I see there is a pull as well as a push. The super super rich make those at the bottom want what they have, and some will think they -deserve- a piece of the overall pie with no justification... as how can one person need so much.

You do not have to be "super rich" to have others wanting what you have and think they deserve it. Anyone who has been panhandled knows this.

Quote:

If Joe Blow creates MegaCorp $10,000 of 'wealth' in a month, but only gets paid $1,000 and gets $500 of public assistance... then MegaCorp has taken $500 from the public purse into it's own coffers. Joe Blow then becomes welfare dependent (maybe, or maybe not, it depends on him) and MegaCorp's owners get $9000 dollars of new wealth (of course some gets paid to his manager, and so on), $500 of which is transferred from the public money. Of course some of that $9000 gets back in via taxes on wages, and others go to dividends, but if Mr MegaCorp's CEO gets a little bonus for profit, and he has 1000's of Joe Blows... he's making a big fat profit on under paying Joe.... he has no incentive to pay a fair market rate.

So whose to blame? The assistance programs and welfare? Megacorp? Both? Neither?

Both, I'd claim.

The one I blame is Joe for feeding at the public trough. Joe and Mega are in a private deal both accept. That Joe takes assistance is on him, nobody else.

I will say it again, if Joe wants to make what the CEO makes then Joe should try to get a job as CEO!

Joe will not do this because it is incredibly hard to rise in the ranks. First, you have to be good at sales. Next, you have to be able to sell what is in front of you and not just "what you believe in." Mary had to be willing to tell people what a great thing the Aztek was no matter how silly it actually was. Once you have mastered that you must get *other people* to be good at selling that same Aztek in front of them. All the way you have to work with what you are given, need five salesmen to make the goal? Tough, three is what you have, deal with it! You have to deal with working within an organization where it might take "an act of congress" to get what you need done done.

All this way you have to deliver profit. You have creditors to pay. Bondholders do not want excuses. "Business was bad? Screw you, pay me! NHTSA issued new regs? Screw you, pay me! Toyota has a new factory and better cars? Screw you, pay me!" Oh, and the workers expect to be paid as does everyone else! You design and bet on a car, that car doesn't do what it is supposed to do, coud be the end of the line for you. Plus 100 other little pitfalls as you climb the ladder.

So come on, Joe! If you want CEO money, try for the CEO job!

Quote: AZDuffman

Uh, no you haven't "settled" anything with that statement. There is a trickle down effect. But it works because lower rates will allow Ms. Barra to invest more money or spend it for leisure, etc. At that point she might remodel her house. Or put in a pool. She has no need to buy a car, but if she did that would trickle. But my statement remains, her making more has zero to do with what I make.

No. You said there is no link. The trickle down effect, beloved of the right wing politicians (and derided by most economists, left or right) is an example of the link you claim does not exist.

You can't deny there's an effect on wages in macro economics and then claim the trickle down effect works. Person's A income will affect the system overall, which affects other wages. The effect is minor, almost minuscule, but most macro economics is an accumulation of any number of small effects bubbling up.

Quote:

The one I blame is Joe for feeding at the public trough. Joe and Mega are in a private deal both accept. That Joe takes assistance is on him, nobody else.

I'm glad it's that easy to assign blame. Oh your unemployed? Your fault! Your to blame for taking public assistance! All the ills of the US system... your fault! If a company didn't take a tax break, they'd be derided by the share holders, but when someone takes a assistance that's available to them, they are to blame? Of course it is, they don't have the right -character-.

Quote: TheCesspit

I'm glad it's that easy to assign blame. Oh your unemployed? Your fault!

Pretty much. At 53 my brother lost his camera
store. Did he fret? He paid $2500 (a loan) and
went to truck driving school. That was 7 years
ago and he makes more than $50K a year now.

So yeah, unemployed? Be proactive or shut the
F up.. Winners win, losers bitch..

I don't believe it's a good thing. They're unstoppable so it doesn't matter. Think they're playing an advantage situation and everyone else has to play a negative expectation hoping to get lucky.

Quote: TheCesspit

Oh your unemployed? Your fault! Your to blame for taking public assistance! All the ills of the US system... your fault! If a company didn't take a tax break, they'd be derided by the share holders, but when someone takes a assistance that's available to them, they are to blame? Of course it is, they don't have the right -character-.

Sometimes it is your fault and sometimes not as much when you get unemployed. I have had to lay people off because business was bad, though they got laid off because they were my weakest employees. I have seen entire steel mills close and thousands get laid off. OTOH, lots of people lose jobs because they did not meet the requirements of the job. You might be a salesman but are not selling. You might not be producing to requirements. You might just be in the wrong job for you.

That being said, when you stay unemployed you have to re-invent yourself. Craftsmen used to make buggy whips. And the last guy making them probably made the best one out there. But then the automobile came and the business was gone. The whip-makers could not live on assistance waiting for something, they had to get off their tails and learn new skills.

I've been laid off like six times the last 7 years, five of those times I had a new offer before the week was out. Once before the freaking day was out. The other time was 2-3 weeks. While I do not expect that of most people I do expect they not just be on assistance, waiting for a "career not a job" and every other excuse.

I had no idea TheCesspit was so awesome! What he is saying makes a lot of sense to me.

Quote: FrGamble

I had no idea TheCesspit was so awesome! What he is saying makes a lot of sense to me.

Yeah, Cesspit is really shining, good argument.

I have said many times "a job provides a lot more than just a paycheck". Anyone in the worker bee class needs to know this. We have all heard the old saying "the value of a dollar, [pound]]. A job gives a person a sense of self worth, pride that you have earned your keep is honorable. Confidence in yourself that "you will be ok, you won't starve and if things don't work out how you planned, you will dust yourself off and get back up and do 'er again" is so valuable, and so important to your self esteem, there is no way to put a price on it.

I like a lot of young people [mostly] that come out of the military. I suggest it for youth with no direction. They come out physically fit, knowing they will have to adapt every day and apply themselves. They don't expect the keys to the board washroom the first day, and are willing to follow directions. They are respectful and actually want to give their employer a full days work for a full days pay. It is also "fair" for them to expect opportunity to advance if it is at all possible and they are capable and apply themselves.

I believe there is something in the bible about work? God expects us to work. It is a natural endeavor of life. Life should not be about money, it should be about spiritual pursuit of happiness, and money is a tool which can help in that pursuit, but it shouldn't be the goal itself.

When I was in my early twenties I had achieved a lot and already made a surprising amount of money. Through an incident which was not my doing, I was sued into bankruptcy. I was only allowed to have up to 3 hundred dollars interest in a vehicle, my work tools, and clothes. I lived in a '72 chevy impala for a short while. What a experience to give a young man. To go from being on top of the world to sleeping in the back seat. Those cars had large seats! Once I was done being sued, through considerable personal application, I climbed out of the back seat. To this day [obviously] I value that experience. What it did for me is give me the faith and experience that no matter what, I will get back up. Lost it all again, which I partly blame on Ronald Reagan, but that just taught me again that I am pretty unstoppable. I already knew you can not keep a good man down! My father taught me that, and also to believe in working hard.

A job helps you set a schedule, it helps my bowels be more regular, gives me a sense of self worth and also the ability to appreciate when another person earned what they have, and also the disdain for freeloaders. The skills learned from working a less than ideal job sometimes aren't realized when they are being acquired. Sometimes they are not even realized at all till later, when facing a different situation and skills can be cross-used. Letting your spawn stay in your basement for a short period is love, letting them live there lives there playing x-box is killing them. It destroys them as sure as giving barrels of rum to the natives. Part of being a parent is teaching your kids to not fear work. I have had some wonderful and humorous times while being paid. When they know that work won't kill them, they are ready to be grown up. Please encourage them not to make more children until they can support them. My .02