A question for Republicans

[Sunshine]

Says who? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For instance, getting a college degree might not worth the trouble anymore:
Is a college degree worthless? - 1 - education value - MSN Money

So what ?

The market will correct as necessary if allowed to do so.

The market will correct what? What if market does not need that many college graduates anymore? Market decides how many farmers, plumbers, nurses or CEO the economy needs given the level of technological development. 200 years ago the economy needed a lot of farmers. 50 years ago it needed a lot of blue collar workers and engineers. Now it needs nurses, waiters and jobs at Wall-Mart -- there is bigger share of low-paying jobs than it used to be.

This is how the market responds to the new technology during past 30 years -- by sending ever bigger share of the national income to the top.

I hate to burst your bubble, but food isn't out of style just yet. We STILL need farmers and plenty of them. We are stupid to think we can always depend on getting our food from third world countries. Upon moving home, I am pleased to see that 'cornfield county' continues to life up to its name!

 

[ilia25]

So what ?

The market will correct as necessary if allowed to do so.

The market will correct what? What if market does not need that many college graduates anymore? Market decides how many farmers, plumbers, nurses or CEO the economy needs given the level of technological development. 200 years ago the economy needed a lot of farmers. 50 years ago it needed a lot of blue collar workers and engineers. Now it needs nurses, waiters and jobs at Wall-Mart -- there is bigger share of low-paying jobs than it used to be.

This is how the market responds to the new technology during past 30 years -- by sending ever bigger share of the national income to the top.

By what mechanism does "The Market" decide how much of anything?

The way market decides on everything else -- by balancing supply and demand.

What happens when too much wealth is 'sent to the top', by your, ahem, interesting theory?

Even though economy grows, the real wages are stagnating for everyone except the rich.

 

[Sunshine]

The market will correct what? What if market does not need that many college graduates anymore? Market decides how many farmers, plumbers, nurses or CEO the economy needs given the level of technological development. 200 years ago the economy needed a lot of farmers. 50 years ago it needed a lot of blue collar workers and engineers. Now it needs nurses, waiters and jobs at Wall-Mart -- there is bigger share of low-paying jobs than it used to be.

This is how the market responds to the new technology during past 30 years -- by sending ever bigger share of the national income to the top.

By what mechanism does "The Market" decide how much of anything?

The way market decides on everything else -- by balancing supply and demand.

What happens when too much wealth is 'sent to the top', by your, ahem, interesting theory?

Even though economy grows, the real wages are stagnating for everyone except the rich.

And what are the 'wages' of the rich?

 

[ilia25]

So what ?

The market will correct as necessary if allowed to do so.

The market will correct what? What if market does not need that many college graduates anymore? Market decides how many farmers, plumbers, nurses or CEO the economy needs given the level of technological development. 200 years ago the economy needed a lot of farmers. 50 years ago it needed a lot of blue collar workers and engineers. Now it needs nurses, waiters and jobs at Wall-Mart -- there is bigger share of low-paying jobs than it used to be.

This is how the market responds to the new technology during past 30 years -- by sending ever bigger share of the national income to the top.

I hate to burst your bubble, but food isn't out of style just yet. We STILL need farmers and plenty of them.

200 years ago most people were working in the fields.

 

[ilia25]

So the more the government interferes in the market the more money that goes to the top, and you attribute that to...the market. Interesting...

There is no evidence whatsoever the government policies in the past 30 years contributed to the rising inequality.

Not that the lack of evidence ever stopped the rights from blaming everything on the government.

 

[ilia25]

By what mechanism does "The Market" decide how much of anything?

The way market decides on everything else -- by balancing supply and demand.

What happens when too much wealth is 'sent to the top', by your, ahem, interesting theory?

Even though economy grows, the real wages are stagnating for everyone except the rich.

And what are the 'wages' of the rich?

Growing fast?

 

[Sunshine]

The way market decides on everything else -- by balancing supply and demand.



Even though economy grows, the real wages are stagnating for everyone except the rich.

And what are the 'wages' of the rich?

Growing fast?

Answer the question, please. Or admit you don't know.

 

[ilia25]

And what are the 'wages' of the rich?

Growing fast?

Answer the question, please. Or admit you don't know.

Forgive me if I did not understand your question -- but are you asking me to repeat for 100th time that the wages of the top earners have multiplied several times over the past 30 years, while the wages in the middle have been stagnating?

 

[Listening]

Says who? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For instance, getting a college degree might not worth the trouble anymore:
Is a college degree worthless? - 1 - education value - MSN Money

So what ?

The market will correct as necessary if allowed to do so.

The market will correct what? What if market does not need that many college graduates anymore? Market decides how many farmers, plumbers, nurses or CEO the economy needs given the level of technological development. 200 years ago the economy needed a lot of farmers. 50 years ago it needed a lot of blue collar workers and engineers. Now it needs nurses, waiters and jobs at Wall-Mart -- there is bigger share of low-paying jobs than it used to be.

This is how the market responds to the new technology during past 30 years -- by sending ever bigger share of the national income to the top.

The market didn't do that.

Even the most simple of economics students understands that when there is a profit being made, the market will knock it down. We have examples of that even today.

What helps push money to the top is when corporations with overpaid idiots at the top are protected by government regulation.

Why not let GM fail ? What a perfect market correction.

I was just watching last night as they discussed how they bundle toxic mortgages and sell them at auctions. If they were doing it one at a time, you and I could get a good deal. To get in this game is going to take tens of millions. There is lots of profit to be made and the government through it's actions is going to make rich people more rich.

Unfreaking believable.

 

[Big Fitz]

Growing fast?

Answer the question, please. Or admit you don't know.

Forgive me if I did not understand your question -- but are you asking me to repeat for 100th time that the wages of the top earners have multiplied several times over the past 30 years, while the wages in the middle have been stagnating?

aka, over an arbitrary point or manner that I decide, nobody deserves what they are paid.

 

[ilia25]

So what ?

The market will correct as necessary if allowed to do so.

The market will correct what? What if market does not need that many college graduates anymore? Market decides how many farmers, plumbers, nurses or CEO the economy needs given the level of technological development. 200 years ago the economy needed a lot of farmers. 50 years ago it needed a lot of blue collar workers and engineers. Now it needs nurses, waiters and jobs at Wall-Mart -- there is bigger share of low-paying jobs than it used to be.

This is how the market responds to the new technology during past 30 years -- by sending ever bigger share of the national income to the top.

The market didn't do that.

Even the most simple of economics students understands that when there is a profit being made, the market will knock it down.

Salary is not a profit. It is the price people are willing to pay for your services.

What helps push money to the top is when corporations with overpaid idiots at the top are protected by government regulation.

Bullshit. The companies want the best managers, hence high compensation. TARP actually required the companies to put the brakes on executive bonuses, that is why most companies were eager to pay back their loans asap -- and they did.

Why not let GM fail ? What a perfect market correction.

GM was in trouble not because it was paying too much to its CEO. And letting it fall would leave millions of blue collar workers w/o a job -- with no hope of getting them back.

 

[Listening]

Salary is not a profit. It is the price people are willing to pay for your services.

The people at the top didn't get rich on salary.

Get is straight.

 

[Listening]

GM was in trouble not because it was paying too much to its CEO. And letting it fall would leave millions of blue collar workers w/o a job -- with no hope of getting them back.

The market selected it for extinction and Obama, for the sake of votes, countered.

Had it failed, components of the business might have gone to individual investors who could have made some good money on a streamlined business.

The market can be bloody...but it works.

 

[Big Fitz]

GM was in trouble not because it was paying too much to its CEO. And letting it fall would leave millions of blue collar workers w/o a job -- with no hope of getting them back.

The market selected it for extinction and Obama, for the sake of votes, countered.

Had it failed, components of the business might have gone to individual investors who could have made some good money on a streamlined business.

The market can be bloody...but it works.

Actually, it is highly likely they'd be back at work in a year or so after GM was bought up by other companies expanding... like Ford. Their union broken, they'd be able to find work that wasn't AS good paying but close with a benefit contract as well. Of course, the dead weight of bad or old workers would be shed, making them more profitable. They may be making VWs, Fords or Toyotas... but they'd be back at work.

that's teh way the market works.

 

[ilia25]

Answer the question, please. Or admit you don't know.

Forgive me if I did not understand your question -- but are you asking me to repeat for 100th time that the wages of the top earners have multiplied several times over the past 30 years, while the wages in the middle have been stagnating?

aka, over an arbitrary point or manner that I decide, nobody deserves what they are paid.

Your preference to live the final income distribution to the market is just as arbitrary. The same is true for the flat tax. And your arbitrary preferences are in no way more ethical or more fair than of someone advocating a steeper progressive scale.

Actually, I suggest that you follow Adam Smith advice -- care about your own interests first. It is not in your interests to pay more taxes so a millionaire CEO could pay less.

And, if you think about it, it is not in the interest of the CEO either.

 

[Big Fitz]

Your preference to live the final income distribution to the market is just as arbitrary.

No, it is a reasoned acceptance of the economic facts of life as universal as gravity when it comes to the ability for a society to survive.

The same is true for the flat tax. And your arbitrary preferences are in no way more ethical or more fair than of someone advocating a steeper progressive scale.

No, it is ethically and rationally based. I'm not picking some number out of the air and calling it 'enough' like you seem to want to. I'm looking at what treats people as equally as possible given the laws of scarcity and economics. You claim that progressive scales are fair because someone can 'afford' to pay it. This is nothing more than discrimination against achievement. The most equally fair tax would be to say everyone must pay a flat 10k every year to fund the government. Every dime after that is yours. There's an arbitrary number for you. It is the same on the rich and the poor. But this is called a recessive tax because it does hurt the poor worse because they struggle to make even twice that at times, but to a football player, they make 5 times that in a single game. So what's the most equitable solution? A single tax rate for everyone based on percentage of income. If you make 1 dollar or 1 million, you pay the same percentage, and it is the same bite out of your income proportionally as it is for everyone else. That is about as fair as you can get without dropping it and going strictly to consumption taxes which would be good if they repealed the income tax amendment.

Actually, I suggest that you follow Adam Smith advice -- care about your own interests first.

Will you? I doubt it. I concern myself with protecting my interests from fools like you by speaking out for others whom your kind attack with envy.

It is not in your interests to pay more taxes so a millionaire CEO could pay less.

If you lessened the tax burden on the rich and stopped redistributing wealth, it would benefit me greatly. You don't see the long game. That's blatantly obvious. It is not in YOUR interest to see that they pay more than you either, does it? The zero sum economy theory is dead. Disproven every day by the market.

And, if you think about it, it is not in the interest of the CEO either.

Nice projection, but wrong.

 

[ilia25]

GM was in trouble not because it was paying too much to its CEO. And letting it fall would leave millions of blue collar workers w/o a job -- with no hope of getting them back.

The market selected it for extinction and Obama, for the sake of votes, countered.

Yes, for the sake of most voters. Like 99.9% of them.

Had it failed, components of the business might have gone to individual investors who could have made some good money on a streamlined business.

Or they could just shut it down.

The market can be bloody...but it works.

Anyone you has studied the economy knows that's not true. The market could run a perfectly working economy into the ground. This is one example:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snX4Wf7PGts]Deflationary Spiral - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Listening]

Or they could just shut it down.

Horse hocky on the 99%. Many people opposed the bail out.

But we'll never really know because PBO just could not resist a chance to pay back the unions for their continued support.

I know I'll walk before I will ever drive a GM.

 

[Big Fitz]

GM was in trouble not because it was paying too much to its CEO. And letting it fall would leave millions of blue collar workers w/o a job -- with no hope of getting them back.

The market selected it for extinction and Obama, for the sake of votes, countered.

Yes, for the sake of most voters. Like 99.9% of them.

Had it failed, components of the business might have gone to individual investors who could have made some good money on a streamlined business.

Or they could just shut it down.

The market can be bloody...but it works.

Anyone you has studied the economy knows that's not true. The market could run a perfectly working economy into the ground. This is one example:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snX4Wf7PGts]Deflationary Spiral - YouTube[/ame]

ah yes, the isolated universe model.

Small neglected detail. There is not just 'one' market out there, and every market is a commodity unto itself as well to be bought, traded, grown and absorbed, just like any other.

 

[Listening]

GM was in trouble not because it was paying too much to its CEO. And letting it fall would leave millions of blue collar workers w/o a job -- with no hope of getting them back.

The market selected it for extinction and Obama, for the sake of votes, countered.

Had it failed, components of the business might have gone to individual investors who could have made some good money on a streamlined business.

The market can be bloody...but it works.

Actually, it is highly likely they'd be back at work in a year or so after GM was bought up by other companies expanding... like Ford. Their union broken, they'd be able to find work that wasn't AS good paying but close with a benefit contract as well. Of course, the dead weight of bad or old workers would be shed, making them more profitable. They may be making VWs, Fords or Toyotas... but they'd be back at work.

that's teh way the market works.

Agreed !

The demand for cars didn't go away because top heavy and overpriced GM went away. Someone would fill that gap and they would do it using the same number of workers.

Probably in the south where there are no unions but people still make a good living.