He sort of looks clairvoyant now. doesn't he?

[Hoss]

...instead of looking like a crackpot when he was talking like this.  Hell, I was living in Texas during all this and I thought he was a little bit of a crackpot.

[heironymouspasparagus]

There have been a lot of people making the same rant for a long, long time.  The problem is the propaganda power that arrayed against the American people.  Just look how many constantly and continuously vote against their own best interest.  About half.

[nathanm]

...instead of looking like a crackpot when he was talking like this.  Hell, I was living in Texas during all this and I thought he was a little bit of a crackpot.

He, as with many others, is stuck in the 60s. His complaints only make sense in the context of our currency being pegged to gold.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Here's the real agenda as noted before, take from the poor and give to the rich.  Literally.  Eliminate credits on the poor and give them to the rich.
Come on, Oklahoma, can't let those guys one-up us, can we??


http://news.yahoo.com/study-michigan-among-states-raising-poors-taxes-000348787.html

[we vs us]

I'm with Hoss, though.  Goldbug or not, you have to give the man credit for laying out the obvious mechanism in play, which is price competition for labor.

I have this theory, see, and bear with me:  the 20th century was in part a struggle between two elements of the same system, capital and labor.  In the end, Capitalism and its champions won out over Communism/Socialism and its champions.  This happened for a variety of reasons, but suffice to say, now that capital has won a decisive and very ideological war, we no longer really talk about labor. Or rather, we talk about it in terms of how it relates to capital -- or to capital's modern form, the corporation. 

So we harp on Unions and their "unrealistic" attempts to exert pricing power over their labor.  Rather than see them for what they used to be seen as, which is taking a virtuous stand against Management, we now see them as a drag on not only the proper functioning of a company but also as somehow morally offensive, as if them standing up for the value of their work somehow devalues our own.  In this case, the underlying value is for the perceived proper functioning of the corporation, not the value of the union guys' work for it. 

Or we go round and round about the minimum wage -- last raised in 2007 to $7.25 an hour, but which still doesn't keep pace with the poverty line.  For all intents and purposes, it not only establishes minimum pay for workers but establishes a base cost for American labor. . . and since that cost hasn't kept up with inflation, our labor has been getting relatively cheaper for companies that use it.  And yet the argument against raising the rate again (as always) is that it will "kill small business,"  or in other words, impede capital. 

Or we harp on the unemployed, and insist that they take jobs that are far far underneath their former paygrade (I've seen it here over and over again:  "I don't care what you do,  at least you could flip burgers at McDonalds!") and insist that they drastically (and in all probability, permanently) devalue the price of their labor so that we won't have to pony up for extended UE benefits. 

Or we harp on illegals that come here to "steal American jobs," knowing full well that they do the jobs that Americans can't/won't/simply believe are too underpaid for what they require.  Our consumption economy is based on that cheap labor, and may actually rely on their labor pool's illegality as leverage to keep their wages down. 

What this all means is that the labor market is global, and workers everywhere -- skilled and unskilled -- will work for far cheaper than we will.  Hence there is tremendous downward pressure on our wages.  But, since capital won the ideological struggles of the 20th century, the only answer proferred is to drop the price of our labor to be in line with the rest of the world.  What does that mean?  It means underneath it all, there is no current solution to a declining standard of living for most workers in our country.  This used to be true just for the blue collar workforce but now it's hitting the white collar workforce, too. 

FWIW, i don't think that if labor had won the battles of the 20th century we'd be any better off.  The folks that were repping the communists and socialists were brutal and corrupt and genocidal and no doubt they'd still be doing that if they hadn't collapsed entirely.

[Red Arrow]

It means underneath it all, there is no current solution to a declining standard of living for most workers in our country.  This used to be true just for the blue collar workforce but now it's hitting the white collar workforce, too. 

The only long term path to fixing the declining standard of living is an increase in productivity.  Anything else is just inflation. 

[we vs us]

The only long term path to fixing the declining standard of living is an increase in productivity.  Anything else is just inflation. 

We've been increasing in productivity for decades now and pretty demonstrably seen nothing to show for it in terms of wage increases.  How could MORE productivity help us? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

The only long term path to fixing the declining standard of living is an increase in productivity.  Anything else is just inflation. 

What wevsus said... productivity has done NOTHING BUT INCREASE every day of every year for over 70 years.  Huge increases relative to overall performance of the economy.

And since the real wages of workers are in real terms declining, and the real returns to stockholders - nominally the owners of a company - have stagnated and in great part declined, and the 'tax take' of the government has declined in percentage of the size of the economy, one should be asking 'where is that money going'?

Well, we know where it is going - into the pockets of the richest of the rich!  Deep down inside you know that, but just can't seem to accept it consciously.

[Red Arrow]

What wevsus said... productivity has done NOTHING BUT INCREASE every day of every year for over 70 years.

In some areas yes, mostly highly skilled and technical.  Not in all.  Pushing a broom, for example, is probably about as productive has it has been for a long time.  Inflation and the progressive tax have eaten away some of the standard of living for most of us.

[Townsend]

I lost all respect for him when he took the Admiral out into the woods and tried to ditch him.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4123/saturday-night-live-joyride-with-perot

[Breadburner]

"You don't have to get kicked in the head to understand that"......

[Conan71]

Here's the real agenda as noted before, take from the poor and give to the rich.  Literally.  Eliminate credits on the poor and give them to the rich.
Come on, Oklahoma, can't let those guys one-up us, can we??


http://news.yahoo.com/study-michigan-among-states-raising-poors-taxes-000348787.html

I agree it sounds cruel, but it's not as simple as calling this stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.  Understanding context is important.  Michigan finds itself in a difficult position with one of the higher unemployment rates in the country. They have crumbling inner cities with many people living on welfare and unemployment benefits with no prospect of finding a good job.

On the one hand, the state has to balance it's budget yet they are not cutting any benefits which are common to low income earners like Medicaid regardless of cost increases to pay for those programs so they are in effect making the people who utilize the programs the most pay in a little more:

He said earlier this year that the state needed to make cuts to balance the budget and noted no cuts were being made in Medicaid programs providing health care to low-income working families. He also has said the business tax cuts will create employment opportunities.

Right, wrong, or otherwise, Michigan has got to attract new businesses and industries or else unemployment and under-employment will continue to grow.  Unfortunate as it is, tax cuts are the crack that companies seek out when it comes to deciding where to locate.  Businesses bring income which will, in turn, decrease unemployment and get more people back to work.  I'm not going to go into a whole discussion on how the economy works, if you haven't gotten it yet at your age, then you aren't going to get it.

What is one of the first things companies look at when deciding where to locate or relocate?  The tax situation.  That's simply the way it is.  If there were not 47 other states in the continental U.S. also throwing out tax incentives for businesses to locate there, then Michigan wouldn't need to throw such incentives out there.  Personally, I think I would condition any tax breaks to corporations that they need to create "x" amount of jobs in a given amount of time, based on their current sales and profit figures.  If they don't produce additional jobs then they don't get credits and they must pay back any given during that time-frame.

I do agree that tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts helps a few at the top.  However, specifically tying tax cuts to hiring quotas or incentives, I find perfectly acceptable because it positively ties the cuts to what the desired action of tax cuts is supposed to be: creating jobs.

And no, that's not RWRE logic, that's how you put people to work without bankrupting the government.

[heironymouspasparagus]

In some areas yes, mostly highly skilled and technical.  Not in all.  Pushing a broom, for example, is probably about as productive has it has been for a long time.  Inflation and the progressive tax have eaten away some of the standard of living for most of us.

What???...   WHAT???

You're a mechanical engineer for crying out loud - you've been working in it for how many years??  

Even pushing a broom (and/or mop) has had huge increases in productivity!  See those cabinet size machines they run around WalMart to sweep/mop at the same time??

And even pushing the shopping carts in from the parking lot has had massive improvements in productivity.  Same thing - the little powered carts!!

Come on, Red...listen to some NPR once in a while so you can start to break that cycle of Fox...


I was taught in Econ 101 (University of Tulsa - Dr. Steib) that inflation has two sources;  too many dollars chasing too few goods - which we really don't experience much anymore.  And deficit spending by the government.  So, since we don't have too many dollars chasing, it has to be a whole lot of deficits.  Like we have enjoyed for the last 30 years - to get to the many trillions of debt we enjoy today!

[Red Arrow]

Even pushing a broom (and/or mop) has had huge increases in productivity!  See those cabinet size machines they run around WalMart to sweep/mop at the same time??

Not everyone gets to use them

And even pushing the shopping carts in from the parking lot has had massive improvements in productivity.  Same thing - the little powered carts!!

I've seen them but the last time I saw someone rounding up carts, there was no powered cart.  Must have been broken

Come on, Red...listen to some NPR once in a while so you can start to break that cycle of Fox...

I listen to things other than Fox.

I was taught in Econ 101 (University of Tulsa - Dr. Steib) that inflation has two sources; 

You call yourself an engineer and believe everything an econ professor said?  Either that or you skipped class.   I didn't go to TU for my Bachelors so I do not know of Dr Steib. I guess you believe that if we could magically double (intentional exaggeration) the salary of everyone for no reason other than to be nice, that prices would not rise because of it.  Higher prices buying the same thing as lower prices.  Maybe economists don't call that inflation.  What do they call it?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not everyone gets to use them

I've seen them but the last time I saw someone rounding up carts, there was no powered cart.  Must have been broken

I listen to things other than Fox.

You call yourself an engineer and believe everything an econ professor said?  Either that or you skipped class.   I didn't go to TU for my Bachelors so I do not know of Dr Steib. I guess you believe that if we could magically double (intentional exaggeration) the salary of everyone for no reason other than to be nice, that prices would not rise because of it.  Higher prices buying the same thing as lower prices.  Maybe economists don't call that inflation.  What do they call it?

Not everyone gets to use the biggest 100 ton hydraulic press for metal work either, but the small manual stuff makes sense in certain circumstances.  Same with carts.  Come on....

Grad school.  This was late 70's, early 80's so he either may have gone or retired by now.  As for raising wages, well we have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that sending all the manufacturing to China to get "cheaper labor" did NOTHING to reduce prices here.  It is the old Harvard MBA pogrom of "whatever the market will bear".  

You raise salaries because of other increases due to inflation AND increases in productivity.  The goal is to keep people employed and financially improving so that they can continue to buy the stuff the business makes.  Peter Drucker explains it well...try a diet of Drucker instead of Fox for a while.  That is one of the obligations of a corporation and capitalism - it is one of the reasons that particular entity was CREATED by Man, rather than just miraculously appearing out of the mud one day.  It is an artifice designed to advance and leverage the effort of human beings to make improvements to the general welfare and the human condition.  If it is not going to do that, then there is absolutely NO reason for its existence.

If what you say is true, then what is the rationale for raising all the CEO pay?  By the orders of magnitude they have increased it in recent history!  Certainly not justified by ANY concept of increased productivity by same CEOs.  See how all that Fox stuff falls apart when it encounters the real world...