The GOP's Absurd Plan for the Economy: Lowering YOUR Wages

[dreamdancer 0]

the machine demands cheaper cogs...

Quote

Tim Fernholz and Jim Tankersley wrote in the National Journal, the GOP report “makes the party’s ... case that fiscal consolidation (read: spending cuts) can spur immediate economic growth and reduce unemployment.”

The paper calls for cuts that are “large, credible, and politically difficult to reverse once made,” and offers a typical conservative fantasy about shuttering entire federal agencies. But topping the list of what should be on the Republicans' chopping block is “decreasing the number and compensation of government workers,” which the staffers say will spur job creation because “a smaller government workforce increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.”

“Labor costs,” of course mean “wages” – Americans' paychecks. So, a central plank in the GOP's economic recovery plan is to flood the market with yet more unemployed people in order to drive wages (which have stagnated for an extended period) further down.

http://www.alternet.org/news/150400/the_gop%27s_absurd_plan_for_the_economy%3A_lowering_your_wages/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,990]

>the machine demands cheaper cogs.

Yep. A good solution - stop being a cog. I mean, who really wants to be a mindless drone?

[DaVinci 0]

I fail to see how you think controlling costs to save money is a bad idea?

Are you one of those that makes 40k, but spends 50k a year?

Common sense tells most people that that situation is not sustainable.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

From 1947 to 1975, our output per worker hour grew by more than 75 percent. At the very same time, the real wages of the average worker rose by nearly the same amount. The rise of productivity and the rise in real wages turned our working people into the largest, most vibrant middle class in the history of the world. This dramatic upward movement in material conditions gave America its supreme bragging rights in the Cold War. No one could deny that democratic capitalism delivered the goods to working people, not just to elites.

Until it didn’t.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/150343/the_real_story_of_our_economy%3A_why_our_standard_of_living_has_stalled_out/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[DaVinci 0]

You can blame that on:

* automation ( - demand)
* computers (- demand)
* outsourcing (- demand)
* population increase (- demand)
* Women entering the workforce (+ supply)
* immigration (+ supply)


Unless you are willing to:
* close the border
* start a one child policy like China
* ban automation
* Stop outsourcing (increasing the cost of goods)

You are not going to do anything.... Studies have shown production in the US is up... We make more now than we did in the 70's. But automation has removed the need for many low skill jobs.

Those jobs are not coming back.

Further, unions back then drove up wages that CAUSED the push to automate and hurt the American ability to compete on a global market.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I fail to see how you think controlling costs to save money is a bad idea?

Are you one of those that makes 40k, but spends 50k a year?

Common sense tells most people that that situation is not sustainable.

MMMMMM TRICKLE MMMMMMMMMM

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

MMMMMM TRICKLE MMMMMMMMMM

You think that spending more than you make is a good idea?????

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

MMMMMM TRICKLE MMMMMMMMMM

You think that spending more than you make is a good idea?????

Then why have you supported those who thought it was a great idea.... since it became fashionable as trotted out by Ronnie Raygun???

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Then why have you supported those who thought it was a great idea.... since it became fashionable as trotted out by Ronnie Raygun???

Deficit spending happened a long time before Reagan.

Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791.

...

The buildup and involvement in World War II plus social programs during the F.D. Roosevelt (because of the Great Depression) and Truman presidencies in the 1930s and '40s caused a sixteenfold increase in the gross public debt from $16 billion in 1930 to $260 billion in 1950.

To try and blame it on on party, or one person is not based in fact.

[pirana 0]

Wages in the US are going to go down, if not by management decision, then by market pressures. There is almost nothing that can stop it. Access to labor is now as global as capital. In a measure that truly reflects real wages - buying power - the US is going to suffer while the rapidly developing countries gain. Bleeding of jobs and buying power will only stop when a certain equilibrium is attained.

Our efforts should focus on making the road to that equilibrium a controlled deceleration instead of a train wreck. All of our politicians (at least at the federal level) know this. If they are not smart enough to know it, then they certainly have some experts advising them and quietly telling them the truth behind closed doors. Don't expect people who rely on votes to keep their job to tell you this.

Welcome to the globalization of the workforce and the commoditization of practically everything. How you liking those low prices now?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,990]

>Our efforts should focus on making the road to that equilibrium a
>controlled deceleration instead of a train wreck.

That's an important insight, and applies to things beyond wage equalization. Oil consumption, overall energy prices, water rights - a lot of things are going to be changing in the near future, and we will be a lot better off if they happen over twenty years, as opposed to having people fight tooth and nail to ensure nothing changes until the big collapse comes.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Then why have you supported those who thought it was a great idea.... since it became fashionable as trotted out by Ronnie Raygun???

Deficit spending happened a long time before Reagan.

Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791.

...

The buildup and involvement in World War II plus social programs during the F.D. Roosevelt (because of the Great Depression) and Truman presidencies in the 1930s and '40s caused a sixteenfold increase in the gross public debt from $16 billion in 1930 to $260 billion in 1950.

To try and blame it on on party, or one person is not based in fact.

What was the deficit at when Ronnie brought us HIS version of a balanced budget in 1981 again????

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Wages in the US are going to go down, if not by management decision, then by market pressures. There is almost nothing that can stop it. Access to labor is now as global as capital. In a measure that truly reflects real wages - buying power - the US is going to suffer while the rapidly developing countries gain. Bleeding of jobs and buying power will only stop when a certain equilibrium is attained.

Our efforts should focus on making the road to that equilibrium a controlled deceleration instead of a train wreck.

Right. I've been noticing a collision coming between first and developing worlds for years (ex - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2873232;search_string=wages%20cost%20of%20living;#2873232).

Wages and the costs of living in real terms are going to decrease here while they increase there.

Eventually we'll have a more uniform, industrialized world where the standard (and cost) of living is higher elsewhere and lower here. We just need to figure out how to keep that as reasonable as it can be - with the worlds' poor becoming like our own (less than 2% of us lack refrigeration and color TVs) and our middle class not living 10 to a room.

Covering the symptoms with band-aids like immigration limits and import tariffs affect how we'll get there but won't stop it, and may make things worse - is it better for companies to hire immigrants here where they need to pay enough to support our costs of living, or to expand to foreign countries where semi-skilled labor is $150 a month and college educated people cost $5000 a year?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Eventually we'll have a more uniform, industrialized world where the standard (and cost) of living is higher elsewhere and lower here.

Certainly the divide will get smaller. However, much of the developing world acts at a considerable disadvantage to us when they have to fight terrible infrastructure. As bad as traffic might be in NYC or the Bay Area, it's not remotely like even some of the more viable developing nations (ex: Costa Rica) where tech manufacturing is being done. And then you have countries where paved roads are special.

Then move on to water/power supplies, and the inefficiency of blatant sexism.

But the sad thing is that we've giving up many of these advantages ourselves. Kids continue to drop out of high school at a 1 in 4 rate. We neglect our freeways. A sad portion of our stimulus spending was on infrastructure. We continue to build the most advanced weapons, but our recent wars haven't been against a superpower when this matters. Aside from the drones, what new weapon has really helped?

[lawrocket 3]

Considering that the last time the national debt was paid off was under Andrew Jackson, I think it's pretty fallacious to attribute the start of it to Reagan. All the more so considering the Reagan had a Congress that was the opposite political party.

Here's are some circumstances where blaming a President is, at least, plausible (though I know that the President cannot spend a dime without Congressional approval):
Clinton - 1/93-1/95
Bush - 1/01-1-07
Obama - 1/09-1/11

These are circumstances when the President was of the same Political Party that controlled the House of Representatives (where all spending is originated), The only time when the budget was even close to balanced was during Clinton with a GOP Congress.

Which leads me to believe we may actually see some progress now...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

MMMMM TRICKLE MMMMMMMMM

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Further, unions back then drove up wages that CAUSED the push to automate and hurt the American ability to compete on a global market.

you seem quite happy with wages going up for the rich but not the average worker - strange...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

MMMMM TRICKLE MMMMMMMMM

Trickle down implies taking money and giving it to the rich.

I don't agree with that..

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Further, unions back then drove up wages that CAUSED the push to automate and hurt the American ability to compete on a global market.

you seem quite happy with wages going up for the rich but not the average worker - strange...

The rich are usually the rich because they pay themselves because instead of simply working for someone else they created a jobs for themselves,. I take it that the "workers" you discuss are the ones who had jobs created for them and took no risks.

No, I don't have a problem with a rich person paying himself or herself everything he or she can. I have no problem with a worker asking for everything he or she can get, either. I have no problem with an employer saying "no." I have no problem with a worker saying, "then I'm going elsewhere."

Do you have problems with any of these scenarios?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Here's are some circumstances where blaming a President is, at least, plausible (though I know that the President cannot spend a dime without Congressional approval):
Clinton - 1/93-1/95
Bush - 1/01-1-07
Obama - 1/09-1/11

These are circumstances when the President was of the same Political Party that controlled the House of Representatives (where all spending is originated), The only time when the budget was even close to balanced was during Clinton with a GOP Congress.

Which leads me to believe we may actually see some progress now...

I think it is erroneous to place blame on individual leaders. Long term, they really don't have that much influence. Our economic situation is rooted in the consumption revolution of the 50's. We did not get in this situation because of bankers or dot-commers or real estate speculators. Those are all just symptoms. We got this way because our expectations are seriously flawed for our future role in a truly worldwide economy. Each of those events/symptoms represent desparate attempts to continue the building and accumulation of wealth. Each has been followed by the rude awakening that the wealth created was false wealth.

It's not that the economy is broken, it is that expectations in the US are out of line with reality. I was initially an Obama supporter because I thought we were going to see a radically different approach and a reshaping of expectations and perceptions. If he ever really intended to be different than the same old game - his plan changed once he got in office. He, and all the other politicians are either incompetent or flat out lying when they talk about a 1 or 2 year recovery. If nothing else, given the changes occurring in the rest of the world, how can anyone evenly seriously consider that we will "recover" to some previous peak level of economic dominance. It's absurd.

The best case scenario is a controlled decceleration. The measures for success for that are going to be very different than the old ones like he-who-dies-with-the-most-toys-wins.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,990]

>Trickle down implies taking money and giving it to the rich.

That would be trickle up.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

MMMMM TRICKLE MMMMMMMMM

Trickle down implies taking money and giving it to the rich.

I don't agree with that..

Uh Jerry.. have you actually been keeping track of where the bulk of the wealth has gone over the last 30 years???? The worst part of that it has been done with the BELIEF that some of that wealth would be allowed to TRICKLE back down to the peasants... uh huh... yeah right... that does not happen in thousands of years.. why should it start now in the modern age??? Only the GOAT FUCK STUPID can believe in that stupidity after its been shown not to work in practice... but go ahead and keep your beliefs in the VOO DOO DOO.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

have you actually been keeping track of where the bulk of the wealth has gone over the last 30 years????

Yes. The Federal Government and state government. Trillions of dollars per year. We're talking between 1/4 and 1/3 of the economy going TO the government.

I have a problem with that. The government redistributes it to whom it selects as winners.

Where has the bulk of the wealth gone? Well, everybody, it seems, has been better off. Obviously, there are those who are unemployed. We know that the private wealth in the US dropped by $17.5 trillion between 2007 and 2009. A statistic like that puts you in a bind:
(1) Either the wealthy took a helluva lot bigger of a hit during the recession because they've got all the wealth; or
(2) Everybody took a big hit during the recession because the wealth is pretty spread out.

I haven't heard tales of how only the wealthy have struggled, which provides a pretty damned strong inference (in my opinion) that there's plenty of welth everywhere.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Ah.. another TRUE BELIEVER...

Nope... none of that MILITARY INDUSTRIAL complex got a dime from all that GOVERNMENT LARGESSE...

No one on Wall Street made out like thugs....

I would say the 1%ers did pretty damn good from 1980 on

[Butters 0]

Quote

What was the deficit at when Ronnie brought us HIS version of a balanced budget in 1981 again????

If I remember correctly, you voted for Ronald Reagan.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch