The party of no-

[swake]

No, I'm just sharing what she told me. 

Then how in the world is she planning on filling 80 positions. That just makes no sense.

[nathanm]

Then how in the world is she planning on filling 80 positions. That just makes no sense.

Gaspar seems to know a lot of people who have no sense. It's really quite emblematic of the decline of business in our country, although I thought most of that dysfunction was confined to the really large companies.

[Gaspar]

Then how in the world is she planning on filling 80 positions. That just makes no sense.

Well, she called a recruiter, and she called several of her clients/vendors (me being one of them). 

I can tell you from first-hand experience, I'm sure she had over 80 qualified resumes on her desk by the end of the day (that was Friday).  Talked to her this morning and she is now hiring an temp HR person (that I referred to her), so I assume she's not having any trouble. LOL!

I'm not clear why this would not make sense?

[Gaspar]

Gaspar seems to know a lot of people who have no sense. It's really quite emblematic of the decline of business in our country, although I thought most of that dysfunction was confined to the really large companies.

Most of the people I know are senseless. 

[Gaspar]

As long as we're a quasi-imperial power, deficits really don't matter. Make no mistake, we are imperialist, just in a different way than previous imperialist powers. We have duped the rest of the world into thinking it's good for them to give us stuff for essentially worthless future dollars. As long as we've got the biggest stock market and the biggest reserve currency, we're golden.

Hate your country much?

This is why I'm not too terribly upset that the Eurozone is going down in flames.

No compassion?

Right now, we use resources so far in excess of our proportion of the world population, it would make just about anybody sick if they knew about it.

We could always be more like India?

Unless we want to find ourselves with a declining standard of living, we have to continue to hoodwink the rest of the world into thinking our excess consumption is to their benefit. (I'm channeling Brzezinski here)

But isn't that what your proposing?  A lower standard of living? 

[nathanm]

Hate your country much?

No compassion?

We could always be more like India?
But isn't that what your proposing?  A lower standard of living? 

I'm proposing no such thing. Read my post. Identification is not a call for change.

[Conan71]

It depends on how you look at it. From where I sit, it's another tax cut. Why? Because the law that was passed under Bush was a temporary tax cut and now we're extending it. The only reason I care in the least about what tax rate anybody pays is that increased income inequality is making our financial system much less stable, and the stability of our financial system is precisely the thing that makes us the economic powerhouse we are.

Personally, I think all the austerity talk is BS. I was wrong when I called Cheney an idiot for saying deficits don't matter, because I couldn't at the time think of a situation in which that was the case. (unimaginative, I guess)

As long as we're a quasi-imperial power, deficits really don't matter. Make no mistake, we are imperialist, just in a different way than previous imperialist powers. We have duped the rest of the world into thinking it's good for them to give us stuff for essentially worthless future dollars. As long as we've got the biggest stock market and the biggest reserve currency, we're golden. This is why I'm not too terribly upset that the Eurozone is going down in flames.

Right now, we use resources so far in excess of our proportion of the world population, it would make just about anybody sick if they knew about it. Unless we want to find ourselves with a declining standard of living, we have to continue to hoodwink the rest of the world into thinking our excess consumption is to their benefit. (I'm channeling Brzezinski here)

Please explain how "income inequality" destabilizes financial markets and how raising taxes purports to close that gap.  According to the liberals on this board, wages for the middle class are relatively flat. Higher taxes have never managed to close that gap with the exception of creating government positions with better pay and benefits than the private sector.  Somewhere this myth started that the middle class is impoverished by the wealthy and held down intentionally to make the rich more wealthy. 

You've got an emerging world power in China and they are buying loads of our debt. It may not matter at the moment, but it will in the not too distant future no matter what label you put on the U.S.  It's no secret our excesses are ludicrous.  The rest of the world already knows this and it's fine with them they are making hay while the sun is shining.  We will consume ourselves into a hole and when it's time to dig out I hate to see who is holding the note.

[nathanm]

Please explain how "income inequality" destabilizes financial markets and how raising taxes purports to close that gap.  According to the liberals on this board, wages for the middle class are relatively flat. Higher taxes have never managed to close that gap with the exception of creating government positions with better pay and benefits than the private sector.  Somewhere this myth started that the middle class is impoverished by the wealthy and held down intentionally to make the rich more wealthy. 

You've got an emerging world power in China and they are buying loads of our debt. It may not matter at the moment, but it will in the not too distant future no matter what label you put on the U.S.  It's no secret our excesses are ludicrous.  The rest of the world already knows this and it's fine with them they are making hay while the sun is shining.  We will consume ourselves into a hole and when it's time to dig out I hate to see who is holding the note.

Actually, in the era of higher taxes, we had less income inequality. Yes, correlation is not causation and all that, but it is pretty striking. Greater income equality is good for the economy (up to a point) because it increases the size of the market. The larger the market, the better it works. Conversely, as the wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, there is less use for it, people get put out of jobs, and eventually it all ends up in the hands of a few people. You can see this in effect in a lot of third world countries, and early industrial societies. This effect was one of the prime causes of the rise of socialist thinking in the late 1800s. It's basic capitalist economics. Tax policy may not, in fact, be the best way to correct the problem, but it is a problem that needs to be examined more closely and not just swept under the rug.

China isn't doing anything until they get their internal problems under control. Their export-based economy and artificially devalued currency is leading to rampant inflation over there. They recently implemented domestic price controls. I'm no more worried about them than Reagan was about the Soviets in their waning days. Even better, China simply can't afford to cut us off. We're their biggest market, since their domestic market is so sorely underdeveloped. If they cut us off, they'll throw millions out of work and spark a revolt. It's simply not a realistic scenario. And even if they do, bully for us. The pain will be short term, and we'll get a larger manufacturing base out of the deal.

In all this, you have to remember that we control the currency, so we control the world markets. We can't go hog wild just at the moment because the Euro is still in play, but that doesn't seem like it's going to last too long at the rate they're going.

Yeah, hell has indeed frozen over, I'm talking like a neocon.

[Gaspar]

I'm proposing no such thing. Read my post. Identification is not a call for change.

My bad, I thought that was a litany of things you would like to Change.

[Conan71]

Actually, in the era of higher taxes, we had less income inequality. Yes, correlation is not causation and all that, but it is pretty striking. Greater income equality is good for the economy (up to a point) because it increases the size of the market. The larger the market, the better it works. Conversely, as the wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, there is less use for it, people get put out of jobs, and eventually it all ends up in the hands of a few people. You can see this in effect in a lot of third world countries, and early industrial societies. This effect was one of the prime causes of the rise of socialist thinking in the late 1800s. It's basic capitalist economics. Tax policy may not, in fact, be the best way to correct the problem, but it is a problem that needs to be examined more closely and not just swept under the rug.

China isn't doing anything until they get their internal problems under control. Their export-based economy and artificially devalued currency is leading to rampant inflation over there. They recently implemented domestic price controls. I'm no more worried about them than Reagan was about the Soviets in their waning days. Even better, China simply can't afford to cut us off. We're their biggest market, since their domestic market is so sorely underdeveloped. If they cut us off, they'll throw millions out of work and spark a revolt. It's simply not a realistic scenario. And even if they do, bully for us. The pain will be short term, and we'll get a larger manufacturing base out of the deal.

In all this, you have to remember that we control the currency, so we control the world markets. We can't go hog wild just at the moment because the Euro is still in play, but that doesn't seem like it's going to last too long at the rate they're going.

Yeah, hell has indeed frozen over, I'm talking like a neocon.

Income inequality results because there are a couple of classes of people in a free market economy: those who create jobs for themselves and others and those who work for people who create jobs.  That's how it works.  If people are concerned about disparity in income, they can refuse to work or figure out a way to become one of the creators. 

It's a far better system than one where the government creates the jobs and pre-determines the worth of each worker.  Free markets allow workers to shop their worth and hopefully increase their income.  It also allows workers the freedom to eventually start their own business and become one of those who provides jobs.  There's a reward for creating productivity and it's in the form of higher income. 

"Income disparity" is a term dreamed up by university eggheads and political idealists who have never created a job in their entire life.  They live in a theoretical world with little basis in reality.  When a government moves to raise taxes and claim more of the rewards of that productivity under the guise of re-apportioning wealth, leveling the playing field, or income redistribution it's punitive and the government is yet again trying to determine what each person should be allowed to earn.  As a libertarian thinker, this in itself is the major issue I have with a tax increase.  It's authoritarianism.  Understanding that our government has needs and they have to be paid for is a whole other issue, but that's not the reason stated in wanting to let these cuts expire.  Saying we need to pay down the debt has been a secondary and more recent purpose stated in needing to let the cuts expire. 

The biggest problem you have now economically is with lower demand, companies and individuals aren't doing what's been done in the past: getting ahead on expansion and improvements while it's cheaper to do so.  If the majority of millionaires and CEO's see the current government as anti-business, these people simply will continue to sit on piles of cash.  Especially if they think increased productivity and output with their money will result in them paying higher taxes on it than they will pay with passive investment or simply doing nothing more than camping out in treasury bills. 

[swake]

Well, she called a recruiter, and she called several of her clients/vendors (me being one of them). 

I can tell you from first-hand experience, I'm sure she had over 80 qualified resumes on her desk by the end of the day (that was Friday).  Talked to her this morning and she is now hiring an temp HR person (that I referred to her), so I assume she's not having any trouble. LOL!

I'm not clear why this would not make sense?

Must be a really bottom barrel job then.

[nathanm]

"Income disparity" is a term dreamed up by university eggheads and political idealists who have never created a job in their entire life.  They live in a theoretical world with little basis in reality.  When a government moves to raise taxes and claim more of the rewards of that productivity under the guise of re-apportioning wealth, leveling the playing field, or income redistribution it's punitive and the government is yet again trying to determine what each person should be allowed to earn.  As a libertarian thinker, this in itself is the major issue I have with a tax increase.  It's authoritarianism.  Understanding that our government has needs and they have to be paid for is a whole other issue, but that's not the reason stated in wanting to let these cuts expire.  Saying we need to pay down the debt has been a secondary and more recent purpose stated in needing to let the cuts expire. 

The biggest problem you have now economically is with lower demand, companies and individuals aren't doing what's been done in the past: getting ahead on expansion and improvements while it's cheaper to do so.  If the majority of millionaires and CEO's see the current government as anti-business, these people simply will continue to sit on piles of cash.  Especially if they think increased productivity and output with their money will result in them paying higher taxes on it than they will pay with passive investment or simply doing nothing more than camping out in treasury bills. 

And why do we have lower demand? Because there are fewer people to buy things!

And no, income inequality is not some magical thing dreamed up by academics. In 1950, the average CEO was paid somewhere around 4.5 times the average salary of the rest of the workers in the business. Today, it's closer to 50 times. (those are approximate recollections from memory, I don't have the time to look up the actual figures right now) It's not about class, it's about greed in certain segments of society. The self-same greed that leads to companies focusing on this quarter instead of next year or three years from now. The same sort of BS that ran GM into the ground and left us with the banks and AIG teetering on the brink and/or falling over it.

Let's put it this way. Say you sell things. Say you do really well at it. So well, that you amass half the wealth of the country. With what shall the rest of us buy your things? To whom will you sell? The rest of the world, who is by and large even worse off than we are? That's why income inequality matters. Not necessarily because of fairness or anything like that, but because it harms the economy as a whole. In this case, it just so happens that fairness and economic sense happen to intersect.

[Conan71]

Anecdotal:  in our sales office, we're down one of our junior members.  It's still an important slot, and we're starting to see the lack of that position show up in our revenue.  We've been without it for a couple of months now, and while it's been posted and we've received a lot of resumes, my direct boss has limited his search to 1) people who had prior hotel sales experience or 2) people who are currently employed in hotel sales and can be stolen away.  So he's not looking at hiring, say, a laid off sales coordinator from HSBC who might have "sales" experience but not in hotels.  Even though this is a junior position we're hiring for, he's much more interested in hiring a person who is currently hired and can be stolen, probably for more money than someone who might be unemployed and have similar skills but not exact matches and be hired for relatively cheap. 

This has been an emblematic example for me as to what the structurally unemployed are facing out there. Not just a job market with not enough open slots, but a job market where, even if the slots were open, you're not a valued enough worker to fill them.

Exactly what I was saying about this being an employer's market.  If someone is working for a competitor and has been there for awhile, they are most likely a good employee.  You do two things here: a) you save the money on training and time for a  learning curve of training someone into a new industry they know little or nothing about and b) this person represents less of a risk of being a lazy employee.  There's also a "c)": they can simply leave the job open and expect more output from you and others in the sales office which will increase profit at least temporarilly if bookings can be kept the same.  Generally it's counter-intuitive to let sales people go and understaff a sales department, except when overall demand is down then it becomes prudent.

[Gaspar]

Must be a really bottom barrel job then.

I'm sure it's below you.

[we vs us]

Exactly what I was saying about this being an employer's market.  If someone is working for a competitor and has been there for awhile, they are most likely a good employee.  You do two things here: a) you save the money on training and time for a  learning curve of training someone into a new industry they know little or nothing about and b) this person represents less of a risk of being a lazy employee.  There's also a "c)": they can simply leave the job open and expect more output from you and others in the sales office which will increase profit at least temporarilly if bookings can be kept the same.  Generally it's counter-intuitive to let sales people go and understaff a sales department, except when overall demand is down then it becomes prudent.

There's no doubt it's an employers' market, and they have all the leverage when hiring.  I've come to understand, however, that what makes you employable right now in history is chiefly that you've been recently or are currently employed.  Everything else flows from there.