The truth about wages: Obama's economy

[Chris]

Marx's theory of exploitation of workers by the rich just doesn't hold water. The problem is uncertainty brought on by government policies.

The truth about wages: Obama's economy (http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/4607486-74/obama-costs-businesses#ixzz2dYaZyutL)


The left and “progressives” love to blame wage stagnation on greedy businesses wanting to gobble a larger share of the pie. But it's actually a product of businesses' uncertainty about taxes, regulations and employee-benefit costs — which the Obama administration has exacerbated.

Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the nonpartisan, free-market Institute for Policy Innovation ( ipi.org ), notes that fresh U.S. Labor Department data show nongovernment, nonsupervisory workers' average hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, have fallen 0.9 percent since the recession ended in June 2009 — “since, well, President Obama's economic policies were put in place.”

Mr. Matthews says businesses “are reluctant to invest” — in pay raises or anything else — without knowing future costs of regulations imposed by a president whose love of regulations is rivaled only by FDR's. And with rising health-care costs, which ObamaCare will exacerbate, holding down wages helps offset rising overall costs for employee compensation.

Then there's uncertainty about taxes. This administration has imposed more new taxes than any other ever has — ObamaCare alone brings 21. And it wants to “reform” — which means increase — corporate taxation.

Businesses' response to these Obama policies — erring “on the side of financial caution” by holding on to their money in case it's needed — is the same as that of families “facing a number of unknown possible future costs,”

Matthews says. And with no indication that Obama will change his economic course, “expect the stagnant-wage trend to continue, at least for the next three years.”

[midcan5]

If there were a reward for irrelevant irrelevancies the right wing American will win it hands down. The connections in the above OP are beyond ridiculous. Marx connected to a drop in wages, imagine how narrowly ideological one's thinking would have to be to connect the two and the other off the wall assumptions. When your thinking is this poor, there's little hope for sense coming through anywhere.

For an understanding of jobs and wages check out the book quoted below. For an understanding of why some think such ridiculous nonsense check out 'Agnotology.' I haven't read it (yet), but the topic fascinates me. Every day one could find people who believe things that strike most of us as borderline crazy or just plain crazy. The OP above means all the criteria.

"What don't we know, and why don't we know it? What keeps ignorance alive, or allows it to be used as a political instrument? Agnotology—the study of ignorance—provides a new theoretical perspective to broaden traditional questions about "how we know" to ask: Why don't we know what we don't know?"


'Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance' by Robert Proctor, Londa Schiebinger


These guys cover job loss in America and take note, you never see them on conservative MSM. No need to wonder why.

"Pam Sexton, a market researcher and engineer with two college degrees, described her version of the American dream like this: "The American dream is that you can work hard and be rewarded for your hard work. You'll be able to have a home and family and prosper and have medical care and nor have to worry about expenses and bills. This is a country of opportunity." But Pam, along with thousands of others, lost her telecommunications job in 2009, and the dream died: "I feel like the last few years that's all disintegrated or evaporated." It is a refrain we've heard across the country." Ms Sexton lost her job because ATT shipped it to India. p246 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' Donald L. Barlett, James B. Steele

And the greatest irony is someone from the party that has fought minimum wage since forever, whining about wages. Kettle check out the nearest mirror. :laugh:

[Mainecoons]

As for your post:

3797

[Chris]

If there were a reward for irrelevant irrelevancies the right wing American will win it hands down. The connections in the above OP are beyond ridiculous. Marx connected to a drop in wages, imagine how narrowly ideological one's thinking would have to be to connect the two and the other off the wall assumptions. When your thinking is this poor, there's little hope for sense coming through anywhere.

For an understanding of jobs and wages check out the book quoted below. For an understanding of why some think such ridiculous nonsense check out 'Agnotology.' I haven't read it (yet), but the topic fascinates me. Every day one could find people who believe things that strike most of us as borderline crazy or just plain crazy. The OP above means all the criteria.

"What don't we know, and why don't we know it? What keeps ignorance alive, or allows it to be used as a political instrument? Agnotology—the study of ignorance—provides a new theoretical perspective to broaden traditional questions about "how we know" to ask: Why don't we know what we don't know?"


'Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance' by Robert Proctor, Londa Schiebinger


These guys cover job loss in America and take note, you never see them on conservative MSM. No need to wonder why.

"Pam Sexton, a market researcher and engineer with two college degrees, described her version of the American dream like this: "The American dream is that you can work hard and be rewarded for your hard work. You'll be able to have a home and family and prosper and have medical care and nor have to worry about expenses and bills. This is a country of opportunity." But Pam, along with thousands of others, lost her telecommunications job in 2009, and the dream died: "I feel like the last few years that's all disintegrated or evaporated." It is a refrain we've heard across the country." Ms Sexton lost her job because ATT shipped it to India. p246 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' Donald L. Barlett, James B. Steele

And the greatest irony is someone from the party that has fought minimum wage since forever, whining about wages. Kettle check out the nearest mirror. :laugh:





Marx connected to a drop in wages, imagine how narrowly ideological one's thinking would have to be to connect the two and the other off the wall assumptions. When your thinking is this poor, there's little hope for sense coming through anywhere.

I agree, so why are you connecting the two? I did not. I simply opened by saying the standard liberal/progressive Marxist exploitation theory doesn't explain the drop in wages. So it's your poor thinking, midcan--you must be a liberal/progressive.




For an understanding of jobs and wages check out the book quoted below.

IOW you haven't a clue, and other than the above faux paus, nothing to contribute. Where is the beef?



Oops, missed this another faux paus:


And the greatest irony is someone from the party....

Sorry, but I don't belong to any party.

[lynn]

Wages are down because we lost most of the base of the employment tree when manufacturing and production left this country. All service jobs were able to pay more when we had abundance of workers employed in manufacturing and production that utilized the services of those types of establishments. Automation and the technical age further eroded the base of the employment tree.

How long do think America can survive on a service oriented job base? How long can we survive when a college education is too expensive and out of reach for the average high school graduate? In 2011 we had 45 million workers that earned under $25,000 according to the IRS. How can anyone afford the american dream earning that?

There is a big incentive for the ACA mandate to be successful is they need a lot of low wage earners so they become dependent on those subsidies so its not an accident that wages are being lowered for this reason. At this particular point in history, people are starting to wake up to the fact that our government's actions are useless to the American people and we would be better off without them. They need more people dependent on government and this mandate is going to make this work for them.

[zelmo1234]

I think it all comes back to how each wing approaches problems

Liberals have a deep desire for equality, and when they see people hurting they apply the principles of sympathy!

The biggest thing that they attempt is to take from those who have and create programs that give it to those that do not!

The problem is that these programs create the need for business to build capital to shelter against these taxes and regulations and this creates unemployment, high unemployment makes wages go stagnate, or drop because the unemployment has created a glut of qualified workers.

Because of this liberals see it as an unfair business practice, for 2 reasons. #1 They do not understand that business owners need to have a lot more capital and a lot less debt in times of low economic growth and high taxes #2 Because they come from a basis of compassion they tend to wear their hearts on their sleeves and they are angry with those that will not lower their lifestyle to help others as the liberals see fit!

Because of this and their compassion they try to legislate higher wages by increasing the minimum wages.

Conservatives on the other hand don't want people to be poor either, but we know that you can't legislate wages high enough to get people out of poverty!

So they approach problems with empathy!

Conservatives understand that the only way to get the middle class growing and thriving, it through economic growth and low unemployment

We understand that the laws of supply and demand work and when you have 2 jobs for every qualified worker, the people that are qualified get paid more money

We also understand that higher taxes take money out of the economy before putting it back in thus less money is put into the economy!

Conservatives also realize that a business exists to make money for the owners or the stock holders? Not as a charity to provide jobs and benefits, those are side effects, and the best way for those salaries and benefits to get larger is for the company to make more profits

The problems is that instead of working it out like once happened in the USA, each side spend time and money to demonize that other, and the loosers are the people that both sides are trying to help!

[Chris]

Wages are down because we lost most of the base of the employment tree when manufacturing and production left this country. All service jobs were able to pay more when we had abundance of workers employed in manufacturing and production that utilized the services of those types of establishments. Automation and the technical age further eroded the base of the employment tree.

How long do think America can survive on a service oriented job base? How long can we survive when a college education is too expensive and out of reach for the average high school graduate? In 2011 we had 45 million workers that earned under $25,000 according to the IRS. How can anyone afford the american dream earning that?

There is a big incentive for the ACA mandate to be successful is they need a lot of low wage earners so they become dependent on those subsidies so its not an accident that wages are being lowered for this reason. At this particular point in history, people are starting to wake up to the fact that our government's actions are useless to the American people and we would be better off without them. They need more people dependent on government and this mandate is going to make this work for them.


Right, but those jobs were driven out by overregulation and overtaxation. Turn America into a haven for business and they will return as well as foreign investors. See the Cato Institute/Fraser Institute "Economic Freedom of the World" or the Heritage Foundation "Index of Economic Freedom" for evidence this is the right path.

[Agravan]

Right, but those jobs were driven out by overregulation and overtaxation. Turn America into a haven for business and they will return as well as foreign investors. See the Cato Institute/Fraser Institute "Economic Freedom of the World" or the Heritage Foundation "Index of Economic Freedom" for evidence this is the right path.

The problem there is that liberals believe that the more they tax a business, the more tax revenue they will see. They are convinced that business will keep paying whatever taxes liberals decide to impose. they have no clue as to why, the more they raise taxes, the less revenue they end up with. their solution is to raise taxes yet again, thereby driving even more business overseas. Just like one guy said once, if these businesses are leaving to lower tax countries, they should go, because some patriotic business man will be happy to take up the slack and pay more in taxes. Totally clueless.

[Dr. Who]

Right, but those jobs were driven out by overregulation and overtaxation. Turn America into a haven for business and they will return as well as foreign investors. See the Cato Institute/Fraser Institute "Economic Freedom of the World" or the Heritage Foundation "Index of Economic Freedom" for evidence this is the right path.

But let's examine what is really driving the overtaxation. Here is how the annual budget is spent:
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/WhereOurTaxDollarsGo-f1_rev4-12-13.jpg
One quarter of the entire budget is spent on defense and servicing the debt run up by defense. 21% is spent on a schizophrenic healthcare system. 12 percent is spent on a social welfare system that is rife with inefficiency and abuse. Next to nothing is spent on education, science or medical research. Am I unique in wondering whether an increase in spending on education would produce a resultant and likely greater decrease in social welfare or that perhaps more medical research might reduce healthcare spending by eliminating the disease that drives the healthcare costs or more scientific spending might find new forms of cheap energy which would reduce the costs of business and the general cost of living?

[Mainecoons]

How could increasing wasteful Federal spending on education help when half the college grads already can't get jobs in their fields?

Education has never been the problem. Excessive taxation and regulation and just too damn much government has been the problem. And the broken medical system on top of that.

[jillian]

How could increasing wasteful Federal spending on education help when half the college grads already can't get jobs in their fields?

Education has never been the problem. Excessive taxation and regulation and just too damn much government has been the problem. And the broken medical system on top of that.

you're conflating concepts. using funds effectively, which i'd think most would agree should be the goal, is different from eviscerating our public education system.

as for jobs, well, perhaps the right should stop intentionally sabotaging the recovery just out of spite? *shrug*

but i can tell you none of the issues in education have to do with "over-regulation" and "taxes" which has nothing to do with the issue you open with, except as a means of re-stating the same old same old randian propaganda.

trickle down is still voodoo economics and is a lie.

[Mainecoons]

Our public education system is already a mess, mostly because of the Federal government. It needs to be paid for and run at the local level and it needs to be de-unionized.

I'm not confused at all. Anyone who thinks that removing the Federal government from its unconstitutional involvement in public education is eviscerating it is not only confused, they are deluded.

[Chris]

The problem there is that liberals believe that the more they tax a business, the more tax revenue they will see. They are convinced that business will keep paying whatever taxes liberals decide to impose. they have no clue as to why, the more they raise taxes, the less revenue they end up with. their solution is to raise taxes yet again, thereby driving even more business overseas. Just like one guy said once, if these businesses are leaving to lower tax countries, they should go, because some patriotic business man will be happy to take up the slack and pay more in taxes. Totally clueless.



IOW, the problem is liberalism. Agree.

[Chris]

But let's examine what is really driving the overtaxation. Here is how the annual budget is spent:
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/WhereOurTaxDollarsGo-f1_rev4-12-13.jpg
One quarter of the entire budget is spent on defense and servicing the debt run up by defense. 21% is spent on a schizophrenic healthcare system. 12 percent is spent on a social welfare system that is rife with inefficiency and abuse. Next to nothing is spent on education, science or medical research. Am I unique in wondering whether an increase in spending on education would produce a resultant and likely greater decrease in social welfare or that perhaps more medical research might reduce healthcare spending by eliminating the disease that drives the healthcare costs or more scientific spending might find new forms of cheap energy which would reduce the costs of business and the general cost of living?



And you know people like myself, mainecoons, and others would like to see nothing better than to reduce the budget of the Dept of Offense. The US needs to stop politicking the world. The military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about is just another example of crony crapitalism.

[Chris]

you're conflating concepts. using funds effectively, which i'd think most would agree should be the goal, is different from eviscerating our public education system.

as for jobs, well, perhaps the right should stop intentionally sabotaging the recovery just out of spite? *shrug*

but i can tell you none of the issues in education have to do with "over-regulation" and "taxes" which has nothing to do with the issue you open with, except as a means of re-stating the same old same old randian propaganda.

trickle down is still voodoo economics and is a lie.



Trickle down is Keynesian economics. It is a lie.



Randian propaganda?


The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past--and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own efforts.

Cited in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, by Harry Binswanger, p.137 , Jan 1, 1988



Government doesn't create wealth-producing jobs.


Government has no incentive to be efficient.




Maine said education is not the problem



Confused much?

[Rebel Son]

How about I make it short, the problem is big government who controls everything from what you eat to what you say, or at least listens to your conversations to your wife and friends.

Big brother IS watching.

[lynn]

But let's examine what is really driving the overtaxation. Here is how the annual budget is spent:
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/WhereOurTaxDollarsGo-f1_rev4-12-13.jpg
One quarter of the entire budget is spent on defense and servicing the debt run up by defense. 21% is spent on a schizophrenic healthcare system. 12 percent is spent on a social welfare system that is rife with inefficiency and abuse. Next to nothing is spent on education, science or medical research. Am I unique in wondering whether an increase in spending on education would produce a resultant and likely greater decrease in social welfare or that perhaps more medical research might reduce healthcare spending by eliminating the disease that drives the healthcare costs or more scientific spending might find new forms of cheap energy which would reduce the costs of business and the general cost of living?


I am beginning to wonder about healthcare spending since over 60 million people work for a employer who is self insured. This means that the employer is taking all of the risk and is paying for medical claims for their employees to the insurance company that is administering to it. I would think that we would be hearing by now from these self-insured employers that cost have become unsustainable. Haven't heard a peep out of them from the media.

When I spoke of education, I was referring to the high cost of college education that makes it hard for people to afford a college education and still survive while trying to pay it back. The government does pay a percentage towards all public education and colleges too and each state pays the rest. If colleges were fully financed by the government that 2% would obviously be much higher.

[Dr. Who]

I am beginning to wonder about healthcare spending since over 60 million people work for a employer who is self insured. This means that the employer is taking all of the risk and is paying for medical claims for their employees to the insurance company that is administering to it. I would think that we would be hearing by now from these self-insured employers that cost have become unsustainable. Haven't heard a peep out of them from the media.

When I spoke of education, I was referring to the high cost of college education that makes it hard for people to afford a college education and still survive while trying to pay it back. The government does pay a percentage towards all public education and colleges too and each state pays the rest. If colleges were fully financed by the government that 2% would obviously be much higher.

Clearly if self-insured employers are paying the cost of insurance themselves, but only paying negotiated admin costs to insurance companies, they are not the paying additional sums insurance companies charge that form the basis for their profits. Thus it would seem that healthcare itself is not so unaffordable.

How much the government advances to the various states could in fact make a difference in the quality of education delivered to the least well funded districts in the various states. It is no guarantee of employment, but at least would provide the tools to support employment whether self directed or in the employ of existing business. It's a pity that the cost of a decent education is beyond the reach of so many citizens unless they indebt themselves for a number of years thereafter, particularly when society benefits from an educated workforce and more than ever, some form of post-secondary education will be required. I think that additional funding to both would be money better spent than on a bloated military budget.

[zelmo1234]

you're conflating concepts. using funds effectively, which i'd think most would agree should be the goal, is different from eviscerating our public education system.

as for jobs, well, perhaps the right should stop intentionally sabotaging the recovery just out of spite? *shrug*

but i can tell you none of the issues in education have to do with "over-regulation" and "taxes" which has nothing to do with the issue you open with, except as a means of re-stating the same old same old randian propaganda.

trickle down is still voodoo economics and is a lie.

OK MRS Jillian, please tell me how you grow and economy from the middle out or the bottom up?

Thank You in advance? Please not where the money will come from?

[Chris]

OK MRS Jillian, please tell me how you grow and economy from the middle out or the bottom up?

Thank You in advance? Please not where the money will come from?



If she knew her economics she would cite Keynes who is the source of trickle up, down and out.

[jillian]

OK MRS Jillian, please tell me how you grow and economy from the middle out or the bottom up?

Thank You in advance? Please not where the money will come from?

we have already proven countless times that investment in the middle class makes the economy grow.

please show how trickle down hasn't been a massive failure.

think carefully.

[Chris]

please show how trickle down hasn't been a massive failure.

think carefully.



As a Keynesian policy it has been as massive a failure as trick up. So too will be Obama's new combination of up and down which we ought to call in and out inasmuch as we'll all be screwed by his middle class squeezebox.



we have already proven

Then it ought to be easy for you to give the proof in syllogistic form. Then again there are no proofs in economics.

[zelmo1234]

we have already proven countless times that investment in the middle class makes the economy grow.

please show how trickle down hasn't been a massive failure.

think carefully.

I like investing in the middle class! I do it each and every day! So we agree.

You dodged the question? how do you do it, and where does the money come from!

As for Trickle down. you have Carter that was a bottomeup president the conomy was in shambles.

In 1983 Reagan finally got his tax cuts through the democratic congress.

Each President: Reagan, Bush #1, Clinton, And Bush #2 practiced trickle down economics, (growing the economy through tax cuts, and investment in the economy)

It was in fact the largest sustained period of non wartime growth in American History!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

Your turn?

[zelmo1234]

Funny I posted the facts on that trickle down that did not work???

And asked for some information in return? and Pooooof!!!!! Gone!

So I asked Jillian but will expand it to get her some help.

How is it that you grow the economy from the bottom up and / or the middle out? and where does the money come from?

[midcan5]

The right keeps repeating the same myths about regulation and taxation, you'd think by now they get a new shtick. For those who are not puppets pulled by corporate strings check out book quoted below for a bit of reality. ('The Betrayal of the American Dream' Bartlett and Steele)

"....382 pages and describes in detail how other nations discriminate against U.S. services and products. Here's a snapshot:


The European Union: After many years of negotiations, the European Union maintains "significant barriers" to U.S. products, "despite repeated efforts to resolve them."


Japan: "The U.S. Government has expressed concern with the overall lack of access to Japan's automotive market, as well as with specific aspects of Japan's regulatory system that limit the ability of U.S. automobile and related companies to expand business in the Japanese market,"


China: "Many U.S. industries complain that they face significant nontariff barriers to trade .... These include regulations that set high thresholds for entry into service sectors ... and the use of questionable ... measures to control import volumes."


What's most troubling about the 2011 report is that it contains nothing new; every year the report reads the same as the year before. The types of barriers change, but the obstacles remain, with the same result-many of our products cannot be sold in other countries.


What can be done?" Quoted here: p253 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' Bartlett and Steele


As you read above think free market or free trade.


http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-and-publications/2013/NTE-FTB


"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy' [see also http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/827 ]

[Mainecoons]

I'm not sure I understand why you think that we don't understand that their is a fair trade problem. In fact, I see conservatives like Pat Buchannan talking about it all the time.

Unrestrained free trade and allowing trade discrimination against the U.S. is another one of those things brought to us by the Demicans and the Republicrats.

[Chris]

The right keeps repeating the same myths about regulation and taxation, you'd think by now they get a new shtick. For those who are not puppets pulled by corporate strings check out book quoted below for a bit of reality. ('The Betrayal of the American Dream' Bartlett and Steele)

"....382 pages and describes in detail how other nations discriminate against U.S. services and products. Here's a snapshot:


The European Union: After many years of negotiations, the European Union maintains "significant barriers" to U.S. products, "despite repeated efforts to resolve them."


Japan: "The U.S. Government has expressed concern with the overall lack of access to Japan's automotive market, as well as with specific aspects of Japan's regulatory system that limit the ability of U.S. automobile and related companies to expand business in the Japanese market,"


China: "Many U.S. industries complain that they face significant nontariff barriers to trade .... These include regulations that set high thresholds for entry into service sectors ... and the use of questionable ... measures to control import volumes."


What's most troubling about the 2011 report is that it contains nothing new; every year the report reads the same as the year before. The types of barriers change, but the obstacles remain, with the same result-many of our products cannot be sold in other countries.


What can be done?" Quoted here: p253 'The Betrayal of the American Dream' Bartlett and Steele


As you read above think free market or free trade.


http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-and-publications/2013/NTE-FTB


"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy' [see also http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/827 ]



Everything you just cited are not examples of free markets but managed markets, markets managed by governments to the detriment of their own people.

Nice doublespeak though.

And your links deadend nowhere.

[lynn]

Clearly if self-insured employers are paying the cost of insurance themselves, but only paying negotiated admin costs to insurance companies, they are not the paying additional sums insurance companies charge that form the basis for their profits. Thus it would seem that healthcare itself is not so unaffordable.

How much the government advances to the various states could in fact make a difference in the quality of education delivered to the least well funded districts in the various states. It is no guarantee of employment, but at least would provide the tools to support employment whether self directed or in the employ of existing business. It's a pity that the cost of a decent education is beyond the reach of so many citizens unless they indebt themselves for a number of years thereafter, particularly when society benefits from an educated workforce and more than ever, some form of post-secondary education will be required. I think that additional funding to both would be money better spent than on a bloated military budget.

Bingo! You are right about healthcare is actually affordable providing that we go by the fee schedules and not the sticker price of charges. I also agree that we spend too much on our military budget. In reality though, I don't see that decreasing since our military dept has much more power then what people realize.

[Chris]

Aren't fee schedules a form of price fixing? That always results in increasing demand and thereby scarcity.

[Rebel Son]

Aren't fee schedules a form of price fixing? That always results in increasing demand and thereby scarcity.

Lets go with a different angle and possibly a different end.

You have chickens, they lay eggs, you buy feed to support the chickens welfare. Are the chickens a product of yours and would this constitute a forced welfare society? In theory since a chicken is an owned product ........then the result could be sent to a kitchen like Campbells or progressive ,,,,,,,possibly a better tasting product.

Are the people of the American republic a product of a welfare society?

[Chris]

Hmmm, no, welfare is a product of government.