2/3 of US would struggle to cover $1,000 crisis

[birdog1960]

http://www.epi.org/publication/top-ceos-make-300-times-more-than-workers-pay-growth-surpasses-market-gains-and-the-rest-of-the-0-1-percent/

what do they know? just liberal academics publishing in scholarly journals...

The reason why people can't have a productive debate on this issue is because they're asking different questions.

 

The right is asking how to improve the economics.

The left is asking how to enact social justice.

 

One is a question of math.

The other is one of fairness.

no. the piece linked above is an economic paper. fairness is a separate issue. the paper talks about the economic implications. you just don't agree with the conclusions or at least don't want to.

[Azalin]

wages basically have three options for growth, government mandate, labor scarcity, or pressure from collective bargaining -if earnings are increased organized labor can ask/apply pressure for a portion of that increase.

 

You left out gaining an increase in wage based on job performance. Until I took a union job, every raise I ever got was an incentive-based one. Reliability and job performance are everything in many jobs.

[TakeYouToTasker]

wages basically have three options for growth, government mandate, labor scarcity, or pressure from collective bargaining -if earnings are increased organized labor can ask/apply pressure for a portion of that increase.

Organized labor is on the way out in this country, and it's largely self inflicted. Unionized labor has priced itself out of the global market place.

[unbillievable]

A summary of that "economic" paper.

 

90% of the paper goes into how CEO compensation has gone up, along with the stock market.

 

A paragraph concluding that CEO salaries must be too high because it didn't match the rate of increased wages for other "top" jobs.

 

A conclusion that states that CEO salaries are bad because it is income earned by the 1% -which already have too much wealth .

 

For a scientific paper, it uses a lot of biased liberal logic.

[What a Tuel]

We all know there are a bunch of lazy !@#$ers out there, but even if you discount them there is still a very sizable chunk of the population who are apathetically content leading a life of economic mediocrity. Living a life working 30-40 hours a week, enough to pay the bills and for the occasional escape from it all, whether it be vacations, boozing, smoking out, what have you. Nothing wrong with that if that's the life you choose, but make no mistake for these people there is a lack of internal drive, risk taking and burning desire to advance themselves economically.

 

You either truly want it and do what it takes to get there or you don't.

 

Good post. Articulated better than I was doing, I think. Nothing wrong with it, they wish to be better off but don't "want" it, or the trade off of their own vices to advance themselves.

 

I don't think school, college degrees and such are for everyone. They just can't get into that. And the job world really demands a degree for most good jobs now. Sure, there are countless people that spend everything at the bar or waste it gambling or whatever, but I see a lot of people working day in and day out at low end jobs and working hard. They deserve health care and other benefits to smooth them over troubled times. They are important too

He didn't say that

 

It isn't about the people who spend everything at the bar, or have a gambling problem. Even the occasional vice can make someone complacent enough to not advance themselves economically. There's nothing wrong with it, but it is a choice.

[....lybob]

Organized labor is on the way out in this country, and it's largely self inflicted. Unionized labor has priced itself out of the global market place.

Which is why instead of these free trade agreements the US spends immense effort and resources to attain, we need to spend those efforts and resources on a new multinational labor protection pact between first world countries that would force companies headquartered under those countries to pay at least 50% of the wages to offshore labor and to have identical safety and environmental standards.

[IDBillzFan]

 

I partially agree with this, however I think a decent % of these folks aren't willing to either a) invest in the time to learn a new skill and/or b) willing to take the risk to leave their steady pay and sacrifice some of their mental escapes to save up the money in order to do that.

 

The other part of this equation...a crucial part...is to stop thinking that the best you can do is right in front of you. Sometimes -- in fact most times -- your best opportunities are in another city, in another state.

 

I've moved to eight different cities in four different states since the early 80s. While every move was a move up, it wasn't always a move for the better. When I moved from Florida to the Silicon Valley for a huge raise and promotion to my career, the guy who hired me was fired 60 days later and his replacement was shuffling the deck. Did I whine like birdog about how unfair life is? No. I threw out the widest net and got a great job near San Diego.

 

When you're stuck in a rut or crappy job and you really hate it, you only have to ask yourself three questions:

 

(1) Can you live with it? If the answer is 'yes,' then shut up. If the answer is 'no,' then ask yourself...

(2) Can you change it? If the answer is 'yes,' then get busy. If the answer is no, then ask yourself...

(3) Well...WTF are you waiting for?

 

Progressives don't understand #3 because they think their existence is a golden ticket to hand-out city. Which is why having a discussion on this topic is fruitless and frustrating.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Which is why instead of these free trade agreements the US spends immense effort and resources to attain, we need to spend those efforts and resources on a new multinational labor protection pact between first world countries that would force companies headquartered under those countries to pay at least 50% of the wages to offshore labor and to have identical safety and environmental standards.

That's absurd on so many levels.

 

First of all, those companies are private entities and do an immense service to the countries that are located in by providing their citizens with the lifestyle which today defines what a First World country is. Those companies do no owe the residents of the United States anything. Conversely the residents of the United States owe them everything that they have.

 

Secondly, doing this would decimate the Third World and emerging economies. Without the current incentives to invest there, those labor markets would go completely untapped, and there would be zero capital inflows.

 

Lastly, your suggestion, if implemented, would exponentially increase the domestic costs of good and services making everyone not sitting at the top of the economy much, much poorer.

Edited May 24, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[Azalin]

 

The other part of this equation...a crucial part...is to stop thinking that the best you can do is right in front of you. Sometimes -- in fact most times -- your best opportunities are in another city, in another state.

 

I've moved to eight different cities in four different states since the early 80s. While every move was a move up, it wasn't always a move for the better. When I moved from Florida to the Silicon Valley for a huge raise and promotion to my career, the guy who hired me was fired 60 days later and his replacement was shuffling the deck. Did I whine like birdog about how unfair life is? No. I threw out the widest net and got a great job near San Diego.

 

When you're stuck in a rut or crappy job and you really hate it, you only have to ask yourself three questions:

 

(1) Can you live with it? If the answer is 'yes,' then shut up. If the answer is 'no,' then ask yourself...

(2) Can you change it? If the answer is 'yes,' then get busy. If the answer is no, then ask yourself...

(3) Well...WTF are you waiting for?

 

Progressives don't understand #3 because they think their existence is a golden ticket to hand-out city. Which is why having a discussion on this topic is fruitless and frustrating.

 

This 100%. I've made five major moves and have lived in five different cities, each move in order to take a better job.

[....lybob]

That's absurd on so many levels.

 

First of all, those companies are private entities and do an immense service to the countries that are located in by providing their citizens with the lifestyle which today defines what a First World country is. Those companies do no owe the residents of the United States anything. Conversely the residents of the United States owe them everything that they have.

 

Secondly, doing this would decimate the Third World and emerging economies. Without the current incentives to invest there, those labor markets would go completely untapped, and there would be zero capital inflows.

 

Lastly, your suggestion, if implemented, would exponentially increase the domestic costs of good and services making everyone not sitting at the top of the economy much, much poorer.

1. Corporations are incorporated somewhere, I'm sorry if you don't like the nation state as the organizing principle of modern western society.

 

2. Third world countries would not lose all investment, foreign companies would still get their labor 50% off and companies often taut reasons other than labor costs as reasons for moving such as logistics or opening markets- plus indigenous companies could still make use of very cheap labor although they'd have a harder time marrying that ultra cheap labor to cutting edge design, technology, and manufacturing processes.

and oh yeah, circumstances don't matter as long as they have the right habits so any economy decimated will be sent "10 habits of the rich and successful" or "think and grow rich" or "rich dad poor dad" or one of the hundreds books of that ilk.

 

lastly, exponentially? are you sure? what exponential function are you using? are you calculating savings in transportation costs? have you included CEOs and other management getting less, have you thought about how if companies are not improving their bottom line by going for the cheapest labor they may have to turn their efforts towards greater productivity, increased energy efficiency, product quality and "R and D" ? wouldn't at least some offshore companies stay and pay a higher rate and wouldn't that allow those lucky few thirdworlders buy more goods and services or send their children to college? and wouldn't a labor squeeze allow workers in the first world countries to increase their pay somewhat offsetting higher prices?

[TakeYouToTasker]

1. Corporations are incorporated somewhere, I'm sorry if you don't like the nation state as the organizing principle of modern western society.

 

Strawman.

 

"Corporations incorporating somewhere" does not somehow magically confer credit for a business' growth and achievement on the country in which they are incorporated. It does not make those fortunate enough to have their standard of living raised by being born in the nation in which that country is incorporated because it is incorporated there be owed something by those businesses.

 

 

 

2. Third world countries would not lose all investment, foreign companies would still get their labor 50% off and companies often taut reasons other than labor costs as reasons for moving such as logistics or opening markets- plus indigenous companies could still make use of very cheap labor although they'd have a harder time marrying that ultra cheap labor to cutting edge design, technology, and manufacturing processes. and oh yeah, circumstances don't matter as long as they have the right habits so any economy decimated will be sent "10 habits of the rich and successful" or "think and grow rich" or "rich dad poor dad" or one of the hundreds books of that ilk.

The overwhelming majority of outsourcing and off-shoring is done for access to cheap labor, lower standards of labor, and fewer burdensome regulations. Logistics and opening markets comes years down the line once capital inflows drawn in with cheap labor have worked to modernize economies, and create consumers out of former agrarianites.

 

Without First World capital, those areas of the world will remain tribal wastelands ruled by warlords.

 

 

 

lastly, exponentially? are you sure? what exponential function are you using? are you calculating savings in transportation costs? have you included CEOs and other management getting less, have you thought about how if companies are not improving their bottom line by going for the cheapest labor they may have to turn their efforts towards greater productivity, increased energy efficiency, product quality and "R and D" ? wouldn't at least some offshore companies stay and pay a higher rate and wouldn't that allow those lucky few thirdworlders buy more goods and services or send their children to college? and wouldn't a labor squeeze allow workers in the first world countries to increase their pay somewhat offsetting higher prices?

I was speaking hyperbolicly, but then, you already knew that.

 

Also, on what planet do you believe businesses are not already straining themselves to take advantage of cost saving energy efficiency, innovation to lead their industries, and employee efficiency?

 

In what alternate reality do you feel firms will devote more capital towards the things that make them the most money when they have less capital in total?

[GG]

 

I've moved to eight different cities in four different states since the early 80s. While every move was a move up, it wasn't always a move for the better. When I moved from Florida to the Silicon Valley for a huge raise and promotion to my career, the guy who hired me was fired 60 days later and his replacement was shuffling the deck. Did I whine like birdog about how unfair life is? No. I threw out the widest net and got a great job near San Diego.

Is that when you got the Radio Shack job in the mall?

[....lybob]

Strawman.

 

"Corporations incorporating somewhere" does not somehow magically confer credit for a business' growth and achievement on the country in which they are incorporated. It does not make those fortunate enough to have their standard of living raised by being born in the nation in which that country is incorporated because it is incorporated there be owed something by those businesses. Since when does the Nation State have to be owed to rule? do they only make rules for those who owe them?

 

 

 

 

The overwhelming majority of outsourcing and off-shoring is done for access to cheap labor, lower standards of labor, and fewer burdensome regulations. Logistics and opening markets comes years down the line once capital inflows drawn in with cheap labor have worked to modernize economies, and create consumers out of former agrarianites.- well since offshoring began in the 1960s they must have created some consumers, and don't companies really go over seas because first world workers are lazy and have bad habits?

 

Without First World capital, those areas of the world will remain tribal wastelands ruled by warlords. Maybe some places but I rate this as hyperbolic

 

 

 

I was speaking hyperbolicly, but then, you already knew that. Yep

 

Also, on what planet do you believe businesses are not already straining themselves to take advantage of cost saving energy efficiency, innovation to lead their industries, and employee efficiency? Strain harder

 

In what alternate reality do you feel firms will devote more capital towards the things that make them the most money when they have less capital in total? I've heard that having less focuses the mind and that people really don't give their all until failure will lead to death (metaphorically)

[TakeYouToTasker]

Since when does the Nation State have to be owed to rule? do they only make rules for those who owe them?

 

To be both legitimate and prosperous, a nation state must act in a way attracts investment and encourages wealth creation and capital formation. Your preferences undermine those things.

 

 

 

- well since offshoring began in the 1960s they must have created some consumers, and don't companies really go over seas because first world workers are lazy and have bad habits?

Yes, they have. You should take careful note of these impacts in the Asian economy from the 1960's until now.

 

 

 

Maybe some places but I rate this as hyperbolic

In Third World economies? It's not hyperbolic at all.

 

 

 

Strain harder

 

This demonstrates exactly how little you know about business. I'm sure you'll be able to breathe underwater just fine if only you try just a little bit harder to grow gills.

 

 

 

I've heard that having less focuses the mind and that people really don't give their all until failure will lead to death (metaphorically)

Businesses aren't going into business to lose money or diminish profits. These businesses will simply either shutter their doors, or they will relocate to an area of the world who treats their money better.

Edited May 24, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

Is that when you got the Radio Shack job in the mall?

 

The mall job wasn't Radio Shack. It was Hotdog On a Stick. I was in charge of lemonade production because sales were flat. Then it hit me...just because sales were flat didn't mean the people making the lemonade had to be.

 

And, well, the rest is history.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

The mall job wasn't Radio Shack. It was Hotdog On a Stick. I was in charge of lemonade production because sales were flat. Then it hit me...just because sales were flat didn't mean the people making the lemonade had to be.

 

And, well, the rest is history.

You opened a Hooters equivalent lemonade stand?

[Joe Miner]

You opened a Hooters equivalent lemonade stand?

The Fresh Squeeze

[TakeYouToTasker]

The Fresh Squeeze

God's own work.

[birdog1960]

some faces to go with the rhetoric: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/feeling-let-down-and-left-behind-with-little-hope-for-better.html?_r=0

[IDBillzFan]

some faces to go with the rhetoric: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/feeling-let-down-and-left-behind-with-little-hope-for-better.html?_r=0

 

What is your point with this post?