pirana 0 #76 April 4, 2011 QuoteQuotethat didn't keep up with productivity increases... (the rich took that extra money) The facts do not (once again) support your position. The facts do support that since the early 70's productivity has increased, wages have been flat, and corporate profits have skyrocketed." . . . 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #77 April 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote 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. . The government IS the people of the USA. The federal government has become the lackey of lobbyists representing groups with common specific interests. Blocks that are large, organized, and have lots of cash to spread around pretty much get what they want - via their lobbyists." . . . 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #78 April 4, 2011 QuoteThe facts do support that since the early 70's productivity has increased, wages have been flat, and corporate profits have skyrocketed. And all of that has been covered in post #5 of this thread. None of that was because of the GOP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #79 April 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe facts do support that since the early 70's productivity has increased, wages have been flat, and corporate profits have skyrocketed. And all of that has been covered in post #5 of this thread. None of that was because of the GOP. post 5 is just a bit of union bashing...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #80 April 4, 2011 Quote post 5 is just a bit of union bashing... Ah, so you can't respond to the salient points, so you took this route huh? Quote 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #81 April 4, 2011 as i said - just a bit of union bashing...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #82 April 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotethat didn't keep up with productivity increases... (the rich took that extra money) The facts do not (once again) support your position. The facts do support that since the early 70's productivity has increased, wages have been flat, and corporate profits have skyrocketed. Correlation does not imply causality. Specifically the rich having more money does not cause the middle and lower classes to have less. The labor market has grown to include a lot more people many of whom live places with substantially lower costs of living that can accommodate lower labor costs. While the global middle class is expanding and able to afford more than the essentials, members making $10 to $20 a day aren't radically increasing the market for goods made with expensive American labor. With total production capacity growing substantially faster than demand wages must go down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #83 April 5, 2011 so why aren't the wages of the rich going down with the rest of us mmmmmm?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #84 April 5, 2011 Quoteso why aren't the wages of the rich going down with the rest of us mmmmmm? Because they take their compensation in stock options and the like. Tax planning. Seriously - if you're that clueless on this stuff, you really need to quit starting threads on economic matters.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #85 April 5, 2011 QuoteThe top 1 percent’s share of national income has doubled over the past three decades (from 10 percent in 1981 to well over 20 percent now). The richest one-tenth of 1 percent’s share has tripled. And they’re doing better than ever. According to a new analysis by the Wall Street Journal, total compensation and benefits at publicly-traded Wall Street banks and securities firms hit a record in 2010 — $135 billion. That’s up 5.7 percent from 2009. Yet, remarkably, taxes on the top have plummeted. From the 1940s until 1980, the top tax income tax rate on the highest earners in America was at least 70 percent. In the 1950s, it was 91 percent. Now it’s 35 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are now paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II. The estate tax (which only hits the top 2 percent) has also been slashed. In 2000 it was 55 percent and kicked in after $1 million. Today it’s 35 percent and kicks in at $5 million. Capital gains – comprising most of the income of the super-rich – were taxed at 35 percent in the late 1980s. They’re now taxed at 15 percent. If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits. http://www.alternet.org/economy/150497/why_we_must_raise_taxes_on_the_rich%2C_asap%21/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #86 April 5, 2011 So, you admit that you don't understand what 'taking their compensation in stock options and the like' means. Again - if you're that clueless on this stuff, you really need to quit starting threads on economic matters.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #87 April 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe facts do support that since the early 70's productivity has increased, wages have been flat, and corporate profits have skyrocketed. And all of that has been covered in post #5 of this thread. None of that was because of the GOP. Never said it was. Production increases have been squeezed out of our (US) processes by corporations in response to overseas competition. In an unfortunate twist (for US laborers), the profits resulting from that increased production have been invested in further automation and overseas facilities - kind of a snowball effect gone berzerk. It goes like this: Faster faster you fools you fools. Ah, well done - now here is your pink slip." . . . 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #88 April 5, 2011 Quoteso why aren't the wages of the rich going down with the rest of us mmmmmm? Because the wages of US laborers are competing against overseas wages - a losing battle for US labor. The productivity is a separate issue. Though the US has done well to increase productivity - it has largely came via automation. The earnings of capital on the other hand increase on both fronts - from the increaased US production AND shipping jobs overseas. Capital is having it's cake and eating it too; labor is left with the crumbs. Basically, it is a race to the bottom for labor costs, and consequentially for the laborers that represent those costs. As was mentioned in a different thread, if you don't have some capital in the game - you are fucked. The best way out of the game is to refocus expectations. My advice to young people entering is to either get mean and ruthless if you think you have the stomach for the corporate game; or develop a skill that must be procurred locally. Artisans, craftsmen, tradesmen, etc are pretty immune to exportation of their services - though the price of their services will see downward pressure. For unskilled labor, the beating has only just begun." . . . 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #89 April 5, 2011 what do you think of the recent labour strikes in china that have forced up wages there?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #90 April 5, 2011 Quoteas i said - just a bit of union bashing... You have said it... That does not make it true. Fact is you are unable to counter the other parts of that post so you state an opinion that has nothing to do with the meat of the post. Typical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #91 April 5, 2011 QuoteNever said it was. Might want to follow the whole conversation. The OP claimed it was: "The GOP's Absurd Plan for the Economy" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #92 April 5, 2011 >Because they take their compensation in stock options and the like. Tax planning. Yes, they do. AND their salaries are going up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #93 April 5, 2011 Quote>Because they take their compensation in stock options and the like. Tax planning. Yes, they do. AND their salaries are going up. 27% in 2010: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2011-03-31-ceo-pay-2010.htm"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #94 April 5, 2011 Quoteso why aren't the wages of the rich going down with the rest of us mmmmmm? They're investing in the companies which are profiting from lower labor costs and bigger markets (a little bit from a small fraction of the two billion people in China and India is still a lot of money) and collecting their dividends + capital gains. They also don't have competition for their day jobs in lower cost areas. Most of us use local doctors and lawyers. The guys getting funded by American venture capitalists aren't going to outsource their C-level positions to people in other countries. People at the top want the next level of management nearby instead of on another continent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
