A question for Republicans

[ilia25]

Over what time frame did those increases supposedly take place?

Past 30 years.

How much of the decrease at the bottom was due to millions of illegals coming into the US and earning at the bottom of the pay scale?

Illegals comprise only 4% of the US population, clearly not enough to explain stagnating incomes in 80% of US households.

 

[logical4u]

Past 30 years.

How much of the decrease at the bottom was due to millions of illegals coming into the US and earning at the bottom of the pay scale?

Illegals comprise only 4% of the US population, clearly not enough to explain stagnating incomes in 80% of US households.

We can't find the illegals (to do legal action), how do you know how many there are? If many of them are working as slaves (no pay with identification forcibly taken from them), doesn't "no pay" drastically reduce the average wage?

 

[ilia25]

Our GDP is 21% higher per capita. Doesn't look like French transfers are making the French rich.

Social transfers are not making them less productive. The fact that Europeans prefer to have 6 week vacations and a shorter work week has nothing to do with social transfers.

I think it's clear that transfers make some Americans less productive.

Of course not. Social transfers, if done right, can increase the difference in the after-tax incomes between the poor and middle class. So the poor will be more motivated to work harder.

 

[ilia25]

Thanks for the link.

France has $36,500 GDP/Capita and works 1,453 hours per year. This equates to a GDP/Capita/Hour of $25.10. Americans, on the other hand, have $44,150 GDP/Capita but work 1,792 hours per year. Thus Americans only achieve $24.60 of GDP/Capita/Hour.

Our standard of living is 21% higher.
You can work less if you'd like.

The reason I have mentioned productivity was to refute the clam about more social transfers making everyone poor. They don't.

They do actually decrease overall economic activity. Those who had money, now taken can't invest and expand.

That is a total bullshit. A quick google search shows that US are lagging behind France and Germany by gross fixed investment as percentage of GDP:
List of countries by gross fixed investment as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Past 30 years.

How much of the decrease at the bottom was due to millions of illegals coming into the US and earning at the bottom of the pay scale?

Illegals comprise only 4% of the US population, clearly not enough to explain stagnating incomes in 80% of US households.

4% making minimum wage would drop the median household income.
So does increased divorce. And single parents.
How do you know what happened to 80% of households?
Where's your longitudinal study?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social transfers are not making them less productive. The fact that Europeans prefer to have 6 week vacations and a shorter work week has nothing to do with social transfers.

I think it's clear that transfers make some Americans less productive.

Of course not. Social transfers, if done right, can increase the difference in the after-tax incomes between the poor and middle class. So the poor will be more motivated to work harder.

Third generation welfare families are more productive because of welfare?

 

[ilia25]

How much of the decrease at the bottom was due to millions of illegals coming into the US and earning at the bottom of the pay scale?

Illegals comprise only 4% of the US population, clearly not enough to explain stagnating incomes in 80% of US households.

We can't find the illegals (to do legal action), how do you know how many there are? If many of them are working as slaves (no pay with identification forcibly taken from them), doesn't "no pay" drastically reduce the average wage?

If illegals are not counted in statistics, then they cannot distort it in any way.

 

[Liability]

Illegals comprise only 4% of the US population, clearly not enough to explain stagnating incomes in 80% of US households.

We can't find the illegals (to do legal action), how do you know how many there are? If many of them are working as slaves (no pay with identification forcibly taken from them), doesn't "no pay" drastically reduce the average wage?

If illegals are not counted in statistics, then they cannot distort it in any way.

WTF are you talking about? Census takers LOVE to "count" the illegal alien population. And they sure as shit do when they can find them. We also know that many illegals avoid being counted for fear of the "federales."

They skew the numbers as suits their purposes.

 

[ilia25]

I think it's clear that transfers make some Americans less productive.

Of course not. Social transfers, if done right, can increase the difference in the after-tax incomes between the poor and middle class. So the poor will be more motivated to work harder.

Third generation welfare families are more productive because of welfare?

Social transfers are not equal to welfare. What we need is a tax reform -- 80% households paying less in taxes and the top 20% paying more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course not. Social transfers, if done right, can increase the difference in the after-tax incomes between the poor and middle class. So the poor will be more motivated to work harder.

Third generation welfare families are more productive because of welfare?

Social transfers are not equal to welfare. What we need is a tax reform -- 80% households paying less in taxes and the top 20% paying more.

What are social transfers then? Definition?
How can 80% pay less?
Around 50% already pay zero.

 

[ilia25]

Third generation welfare families are more productive because of welfare?

Social transfers are not equal to welfare. What we need is a tax reform -- 80% households paying less in taxes and the top 20% paying more.

What are social transfers then? Definition?
How can 80% pay less?
Around 50% already pay zero.

We were talking specifically about taxes. 50% do not pay federal income tax, but they pay a lot of other taxes (payroll tax, for example) that we can eliminate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social transfers are not equal to welfare. What we need is a tax reform -- 80% households paying less in taxes and the top 20% paying more.

What are social transfers then? Definition?
How can 80% pay less?
Around 50% already pay zero.

We were talking specifically about taxes. 50% do not pay federal income tax, but they pay a lot of other taxes (payroll tax, for example) that we can eliminate.

That is a great way to make sure that Social Security can continue paying benefits.
Take those people who pay no income tax and eliminate their payments into Social Security.

You never did give me your definition of social transfers.

 

[Big Fitz]

The reason I have mentioned productivity was to refute the clam about more social transfers making everyone poor. They don't.

They do actually decrease overall economic activity. Those who had money, now taken can't invest and expand.

That is a total bullshit. A quick google search shows that US are lagging behind France and Germany by gross fixed investment as percentage of GDP:
List of countries by gross fixed investment as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

an ascinine non-sequiter. what does the scale of our economy have to do with how much Singapore reinvests back into themselves. They're a goddamn CITY! Why not try to compare the entire US to just New York?

that was foolish of you.

 

[ilia25]

What are social transfers then? Definition?
How can 80% pay less?
Around 50% already pay zero.

We were talking specifically about taxes. 50% do not pay federal income tax, but they pay a lot of other taxes (payroll tax, for example) that we can eliminate.

That is a great way to make sure that Social Security can continue paying benefits.
Take those people who pay no income tax and eliminate their payments into Social Security.

You never did give me your definition of social transfers.

I mean make the rich paying for the social sequirity.

That's what I mean by social transfers -- reducing an excessive inequality by reducing taxes for the poor and middle class and taxing the rich instead.

 

[ilia25]

They do actually decrease overall economic activity. Those who had money, now taken can't invest and expand.

That is a total bullshit. A quick google search shows that US are lagging behind France and Germany by gross fixed investment as percentage of GDP:
List of countries by gross fixed investment as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

an ascinine non-sequiter. what does the scale of our economy have to do with how much Singapore reinvests back into themselves. They're a goddamn CITY

Like we needed another proof that you are full of crap.

 

[Liability]

The most disturbing thing about the modern American liberal is that no matter how demonstrably odious the current liberal Democrat President might constantly prove himself to be, they are unable to offer a peep of protest.

Dutiful sheep.

So, I guess the Question for Democratics is:

Why no balls?

 

[theunbubba]

I am saying that $1100 gain is NOT equal to $100 loss. Not even after you decide to call them both "aggregate". And the sum of them is not zero either.

So stop talking nonsense.

In one example you say that my gain is a loss somewhere else in the economy in another you say only some of my gain is a loss somewhere else in the economy.

make up your mind.

Of course it's the later -- only some of your gain is someone else's loss (on average). I never said othervise.But if that some is 90%, or even 50%, then the results are not much different from that of the zero sum game.

It would lead to more inequality and the question remains -- do you want to live as part of tiny superrich elite surrounded by the poor. Is this what America should become?

And if the answer is "no", then we need more social transfers -- like it is done in most adwanced countries, BTW.

I see you're one of those people who believes that the economy is a finite pie already determined in it's size and limited to what exists now.
So where did the economy come from? Did it come into being on it's own ? did God create it as it is today? Or did it grow from a smaller agricultural economy in a form of evolution?

I love showing you finite [one pie] economists where your folly lies. Just because I made money doesn't mean I deprived anybody of anything.

The difference between you and me is that you want to divide what you think is a single pie. I want to make more pies. It's the difference between Liberal statism and Republican capitalism.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

I see you're one of those people who believes that the economy is a finite pie already determined in it's size and limited to what exists now.
So where did the economy come from? Did it come into being on it's own ? did God create it as it is today? Or did it grow from a smaller agricultural economy in a form of evolution?

I love showing you finite [one pie] economists where your folly lies. Just because I made money doesn't mean I deprived anybody of anything.

The difference between you and me is that you want to divide what you think is a single pie. I want to make more pies. It's the difference between Liberal statism and Republican capitalism.

You are correct, always make more pies....

The 15 trillion is going to make the "The Great Machine" stumble if it is not stopped, but the machinery of what we are and do remains. The beauty of a Constitutional Federal Republic. Good post and glad you are here.

Robert

 

[ilia25]

In one example you say that my gain is a loss somewhere else in the economy in another you say only some of my gain is a loss somewhere else in the economy.

make up your mind.

Of course it's the later -- only some of your gain is someone else's loss (on average). I never said othervise.But if that some is 90%, or even 50%, then the results are not much different from that of the zero sum game.

It would lead to more inequality and the question remains -- do you want to live as part of tiny superrich elite surrounded by the poor. Is this what America should become?

And if the answer is "no", then we need more social transfers -- like it is done in most adwanced countries, BTW.

I see you're one of those people who believes that the economy is a finite pie already determined in it's size and limited to what exists now.

And I see you are one of those people who can't read. I know that the economy more than doubled in size since 70s. So the real income of every household should have doubled as well since then.

Except it didn't. The median household income remained essentialy flat. All that additional economic growth vent into rising incomes of the rich.

So yes, the whole pie is getting bigger -- but not the size of the pieces that most Americans are getting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course it's the later -- only some of your gain is someone else's loss (on average). I never said othervise.But if that some is 90%, or even 50%, then the results are not much different from that of the zero sum game.

It would lead to more inequality and the question remains -- do you want to live as part of tiny superrich elite surrounded by the poor. Is this what America should become?

And if the answer is "no", then we need more social transfers -- like it is done in most adwanced countries, BTW.

I see you're one of those people who believes that the economy is a finite pie already determined in it's size and limited to what exists now.

And I see you are one of those people who can't read. I know that the economy more than doubled in size since 70s. So the real income of every household should have doubled as well since then.

Except it didn't. The median household income remained essentialy flat. All that additional economic growth vent into rising incomes of the rich.

So yes, the whole pie is getting bigger -- but not the size of the pieces that most Americans are getting.

Where is your longitudinal study?