Fixing Inequality

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, exportation of jobs is a direct result of capitalism==> labor is treated as a mere commodity, and is priced accordingly. The cheapest stock is purchased when no regulation exists that prevents it. This isn't rocket science.

The best thing the government can do is abandon it's pro-corporate "low inflation" philosophy and adopt a pro-worker "full employment" philosophy. That should be apparent to everyone, but for some reason it isn't.

What should labor be treated as? Isn't capital treated as a "mere commodity" as well, and priced transparently to boot?
The Soviet Union had a full employment policy. Doubtless you'd like to go back to that.

Labor is EVERYTHING. Everything you see around you is created by labor--every road, every pencil, every magazine, every CD, EVERYTHING. All wealth is created by--and ONLY BY--the labor of productive workers. It would seem fundamental, then, that labor should decide how the resultant profit is distributed.

And eventually, that will be how things evolve economically; remember, feudalism used to be the prevailing economic practice.

ALSO, the former USSR was a military dictatorship that talked of socialism but practiced totalitarianism. That is indisputable.

Which in no way makes it not a commodity. It just makes it a very valuable one.

And those who labor decide how THEIR SHARE of the profit is distributed. Please understand that, while YOU are unequipped to perform any labor more intellectual than what could be performed by a well-trained chimp, that does not mean that that is the ONLY thing in the world that qualifies as labor. There is such a thing as a intellectual and emotional labor, consisting of the intelligence, foresight, and training to plan and guide an enterprise to profit, and the willingness to risk one's resources in putting it into action . . . and then hiring menial mouthbreathers like you to stand around the water cooler while on the clock and complain about how you're the ones who REALLY make the company work.

 

[Bombur]

So you are theorizing that if you can sell more product you can make more money? Wow, alert the media!
Productivity does not necessarily mean producing more. If you produce the same amount but use 70%of the resources you used to then you still increase profit. This btw is what has driven the growth in corporate profit over the last 5 years.

It is always strange when someone accidently argues my point for me then claims victory.

Im not sure you understand your own point, much less mine.
For most of Bush's tenure undemployment was in the 5% range, which is generally considered full employment. I dont know what you would term a robust labor market if not that.

Real wage growth and jobs that have more staying power than temp construction jobs would be a good start.

During Bush's term things seemed better than they were but the writing was on the wall for a big downturn.

The current economic problems are not just about Bush or Obama or even Clinton. Our entire dialogue concerning economics is wrong.

 

[Bombur]

What should labor be treated as? Isn't capital treated as a "mere commodity" as well, and priced transparently to boot?
The Soviet Union had a full employment policy. Doubtless you'd like to go back to that.

Labor is EVERYTHING. Everything you see around you is created by labor--every road, every pencil, every magazine, every CD, EVERYTHING. All wealth is created by--and ONLY BY--the labor of productive workers. It would seem fundamental, then, that labor should decide how the resultant profit is distributed.

And eventually, that will be how things evolve economically; remember, feudalism used to be the prevailing economic practice.

ALSO, the former USSR was a military dictatorship that talked of socialism but practiced totalitarianism. That is indisputable.

Which in no way makes it not a commodity. It just makes it a very valuable one.

And those who labor decide how THEIR SHARE of the profit is distributed. Please understand that, while YOU are unequipped to perform any labor more intellectual than what could be performed by a well-trained chimp, that does not mean that that is the ONLY thing in the world that qualifies as labor. There is such a thing as a intellectual and emotional labor, consisting of the intelligence, foresight, and training to plan and guide an enterprise to profit, and the willingness to risk one's resources in putting it into action . . . and then hiring menial mouthbreathers like you to stand around the water cooler while on the clock and complain about how you're the ones who REALLY make the company work.

Labor is unique in economics for a lot of reasons. Any analogy tends to have a weakness so why not just call it what it is?

 

[Bombur]

You are not stating facts.

You are stating theory.

You seem to know economics...you are well aware that economics is theory...and there are two very different theories...both with valid hypotheses but neither proven as fact.

In economics there are a lot of theories, not just two. I am not talking about theories about what we should or should not do. I am talking about things that relate to each other by definition. Income inequality relates to the labor market by definition. We know for a fact that certain things impact the labor market. We know for a fact that certain impacts to the labor market lead to increased unemployment and underemployment. I could go on but like I said before I am not even sure what facts are being questioned.

That is so vague as to be meaningless. Yes lots of thing affect the labor market. So what? Income inequality is not one of them though.

The labor market impacts income inequality. Obviously.

I already asked for a more direct question. Countering that by accusing me of being vague seems ridiculous to me.

 

[bendog]

In economics there are a lot of theories, not just two. I am not talking about theories about what we should or should not do. I am talking about things that relate to each other by definition. Income inequality relates to the labor market by definition. We know for a fact that certain things impact the labor market. We know for a fact that certain impacts to the labor market lead to increased unemployment and underemployment. I could go on but like I said before I am not even sure what facts are being questioned.

Doesn't it basically come down to the gop of today simply finds anything other than tax cuts to be heresey in addressing income inequality, and the dems encompasing more of a big tent that has some groups favoring "re-unionizing", and public health groups, and protectionist (although Obama and Hill are free traders) , more progressive taxer, more public educ funding ....?

Free trade is a fine idea but it is a two way street. Imbalanced capital flows don't result in free trade.

Increases in productivity are great but as I have talked about in other posts they can be problematic in the short term. A period where demand contracts while productivity increases can be a big problem. Historically speaking the US has used debt to help prop up demand in the short term. Eventually demand has to grow on its own.

The tax code isn't great for US production or US labor and needs to be fixed. Politicians play politics.

Well, I was generally agreeing with you that it's hard to understand what various posters are advocating, and I agree that income inequality is, by definition, an affect of the labor market. Yes, demand and productivity fluctuate (though I think productivity will inevitably increase at a pretty constant yearly basis, though at fluctuating rates).

That's why I think Rabbi made an interesting, but probably unintentional, observation that medicare and social security (and medicaid) don't really affect corporate profits. As you post, even in recession, govts can deficit spend to increase demand by making sure oldsters still have grocery money, and people keep buying healthcare. And, we have other stimulus programs. And it's increasingly clear that INDUSTRY WILL COME TO SEE SOME VERSION OF OBAMACARE AS JUST ANOTHER ENTITLEMENT. No big deal because there's no direct link between the entitlement and profits. And the entilement inevitably increases workers' pay, or at least the pay for the working poor who don't have healthcare from their employer.

So, when you post 'eventually demand has to increase on its own' that cuts to the heart. What policy, beyond tax cuts, can the gop support? And, I think the track record is pretty clear than under either Reaganomics or the New Democrats of Clinton, tax cuts are ineffective to curbing income inequality. In fact, I'd agrue they are promoting it. That doesn't mean we want to disband BOA, but what's the econ downside to taxing AFTER PROFITS INCOME to essentially give workers a raise via healthcare and cheaper college? That's really what Krugman argues for in concience of a liberal. It hurts me to say so, but I think the guy's right. I mean you can go to far with progressive taxes, but we aint' near there yet.

 

[Bombur]

What is the difference between a decision and a system?
I swear you're making this up as you go along.

A decision is being made by one employer. A system involves ALL employers and ALL employees and ALL Consumers and ALL government and ALL trade and ALL capital flows etc.

The material point is that from a micro economic standpoint an employer has an economic incentive to lower labor costs which would lower demand, while also wanting to see an increase in demand for their product. This contradiction doesn't impact the micro economic transaction but it does impact the macro economic one. Often times people can only think of economics in terms of the micro economic transactions.

Another example of conflict is trade. It is good for the consumer to be able to buy cheap goods made in China. That trade with China can also hurt the labor market, especially in the short term or if they are cheating. That consumer may also be able to get a lower interest rate on a house because China is investing in USD. (The consumer and the laborer are the same person/group)

In both cases making the discussion only about one side creates an incomplete picture. Economics is about the entire system. If one part of it is unhealthy then the whole thing will start showing symptoms.

Ultimately unemployment numbers don't reflect everything that is going on in an economy. In the end you have to look closer.

 

[Mustang]

well?

SNIP:



by Peter Morici 15 Jan 2014 50 post a comment

Inequality is replacing the American dream, because the U.S. economy--thanks to Washington’s mismanagement--is underperforming.

America still produces one fifth of the world’s goods and services, but accounts for a much smaller share of global growth. Many U.S. products are no longer the best in class. Consequently, the economy can’t adequately employ many of its college graduates, and wages are stagnant or falling for ordinary folks.

America still has great strengths. High labor productivity, coupled with rising wages in Asia, makes American workers a good value for global investors. There is cheaper energy, thanks to the onshore oil boom, that should attract new factories, but the promised flood of new jobs has only been a trickle.

To put it simply, the bureaucratic quagmire created by complex and ineffective business regulations makes it easier to produce in Asia than in America. The highest corporate tax rates among major industrialized countries make the cost of investing here too high.

It is increasingly difficult to refine and efficiently move oil to California and the Northeast--gasoline costs too much in Monterrey as does heating oil in Massachusetts.

ALL of it here
Fixing Inequality

How stupid do the people at breitbart think the rest of us are? This thing is written as if the pursuit of cheap labor and ever higher profits had nothing to do with it. Big business, in partnership with the gov't officials whose campaigns were financed by their lobbyist money, worked together to sell the American worker down the river. Now they want to complain about regulations?

 

[Bombur]

Doesn't it basically come down to the gop of today simply finds anything other than tax cuts to be heresey in addressing income inequality, and the dems encompasing more of a big tent that has some groups favoring "re-unionizing", and public health groups, and protectionist (although Obama and Hill are free traders) , more progressive taxer, more public educ funding ....?

Free trade is a fine idea but it is a two way street. Imbalanced capital flows don't result in free trade.

Increases in productivity are great but as I have talked about in other posts they can be problematic in the short term. A period where demand contracts while productivity increases can be a big problem. Historically speaking the US has used debt to help prop up demand in the short term. Eventually demand has to grow on its own.

The tax code isn't great for US production or US labor and needs to be fixed. Politicians play politics.

Well, I was generally agreeing with you that it's hard to understand what various posters are advocating, and I agree that income inequality is, by definition, an affect of the labor market. Yes, demand and productivity fluctuate (though I think productivity will inevitably increase at a pretty constant yearly basis, though at fluctuating rates).

That's why I think Rabbi made an interesting, but probably unintentional, observation that medicare and social security (and medicaid) don't really affect corporate profits. As you post, even in recession, govts can deficit spend to increase demand by making sure oldsters still have grocery money, and people keep buying healthcare. And, we have other stimulus programs. And it's increasingly clear that INDUSTRY WILL COME TO SEE SOME VERSION OF OBAMACARE AS JUST ANOTHER ENTITLEMENT. No big deal because there's no direct link between the entitlement and profits. And the entilement inevitably increases workers' pay, or at least the pay for the working poor who don't have healthcare from their employer.

So, when you post 'eventually demand has to increase on its own' that cuts to the heart. What policy, beyond tax cuts, can the gop support? And, I think the track record is pretty clear than under either Reaganomics or the New Democrats of Clinton, tax cuts are ineffective to curbing income inequality. In fact, I'd agrue they are promoting it. That doesn't mean we want to disband BOA, but what's the econ downside to taxing AFTER PROFITS INCOME to essentially give workers a raise via healthcare and cheaper college? That's really what Krugman argues for in concience of a liberal. It hurts me to say so, but I think the guy's right. I mean you can go to far with progressive taxes, but we aint' near there yet.

I thought you were just kind of asking for my two cents. I didn't think I was contradicting you really.

 

[bendog]

Free trade is a fine idea but it is a two way street. Imbalanced capital flows don't result in free trade.

Increases in productivity are great but as I have talked about in other posts they can be problematic in the short term. A period where demand contracts while productivity increases can be a big problem. Historically speaking the US has used debt to help prop up demand in the short term. Eventually demand has to grow on its own.

The tax code isn't great for US production or US labor and needs to be fixed. Politicians play politics.

Well, I was generally agreeing with you that it's hard to understand what various posters are advocating, and I agree that income inequality is, by definition, an affect of the labor market. Yes, demand and productivity fluctuate (though I think productivity will inevitably increase at a pretty constant yearly basis, though at fluctuating rates).

That's why I think Rabbi made an interesting, but probably unintentional, observation that medicare and social security (and medicaid) don't really affect corporate profits. As you post, even in recession, govts can deficit spend to increase demand by making sure oldsters still have grocery money, and people keep buying healthcare. And, we have other stimulus programs. And it's increasingly clear that INDUSTRY WILL COME TO SEE SOME VERSION OF OBAMACARE AS JUST ANOTHER ENTITLEMENT. No big deal because there's no direct link between the entitlement and profits. And the entilement inevitably increases workers' pay, or at least the pay for the working poor who don't have healthcare from their employer.

So, when you post 'eventually demand has to increase on its own' that cuts to the heart. What policy, beyond tax cuts, can the gop support? And, I think the track record is pretty clear than under either Reaganomics or the New Democrats of Clinton, tax cuts are ineffective to curbing income inequality. In fact, I'd agrue they are promoting it. That doesn't mean we want to disband BOA, but what's the econ downside to taxing AFTER PROFITS INCOME to essentially give workers a raise via healthcare and cheaper college? That's really what Krugman argues for in concience of a liberal. It hurts me to say so, but I think the guy's right. I mean you can go to far with progressive taxes, but we aint' near there yet.

I thought you were just kind of asking for my two cents. I didn't think I was contradicting you really.

I didn't think we disagreed. I was just trying help clarify what was being discussed.

I'm not trying to push anything. It's labor markets.

But, i think it's clear that if we want to addresse income inequity, either cause it's moral or it creates more demand, we have to look at how can we do without making biz less profitable. For example, my biggest criticism of Obamacare is taxing employers for not paying for healthcare. I don't have an ideological purity problem with taxing the profits of the shareholders, but don't make the price of the subway sandwich higher.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only ones responsible for 'fixing inequality' are those who feel that they are not getting what they want or deserve...

The government is not there to take more from one to either give to you or have you pay a reduced rate for the same services, every time you have a tear in your eye because it makes you feel bad that you are not getting as much as the next guy

Income inequality on a personal level has nothing to do with changes in income inequality at a macro economic level.

The government has the responsibility to regulate trade.

Methinks someone needs to explain the word "regulate" to you, Punkin. It doesn't mean what you apparently believe it does.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The best way to fix inequality is by getting people back to work which means fixing the labor market. Throwing money at "job creators" doesn't work. It just creates a corrupt and over reaching government.

And now you're going to tell us what YOU mean by "throwing money at job creators", yes?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Inequality is endemic to the species. Without it there would be no "dream"...only sameness. Embrace it and strive to come out on top. That's what God intended.

Doesn't god say help the poor?

Yup. He does NOT, however, say, "Form a government bureaucracy and take people's money against their will and give it to the poor so that they become incapable of taking care of themselves".

Contemplate why He didn't say that, and get back to us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The utopia believers will always think that 'inequality' can be fixed by government.. it is a myth they fully believe

Frankly, the idea that "inequality can be fixed" is a myth they fully believe.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The utopia believers will always think that 'inequality' can be fixed by government.. it is a myth they fully believe

Actually it is not really a hope in a utopia but a fear of dystopia that would result from 4 more decades of unchecked growth in income inequality.

Although you probably don't even know what the income inequality problem is.

I am waiting in fascination for you to explain it. I am not, however, waiting for you to explain it in any actual expectation that it will happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Inequality is endemic to the species. Without it there would be no "dream"...only sameness. Embrace it and strive to come out on top. That's what God intended.

It is the degree of income inequality that is problematic, not the fact that there is some.

Yup, still waiting for something of real substance . . . waiting in vain, that is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Inequality is endemic to the species. Without it there would be no "dream"...only sameness. Embrace it and strive to come out on top. That's what God intended.

It is the degree of income inequality that is problematic, not the fact that there is some.

It would be a problem IF we had true poverty like there is in India. We don't. Our poor are inordinately comfortable. They don't go without. They don't suffer the misery of poverty but the misery of envy.

Leftists have trouble understanding that it's not the "income inequality" that's the problem, but the REASONS for it that (sometimes) are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It leads to more dependence on government which is inefficient. It leads to more people out of work or underemployed which is inefficient. It leads to problems with communities that implode in on themselves as jobs go away. It leads to more people in prison. It leads to problems with our education system. I can go on but I hope you get the point.

For ones like you wish to allow dependence on government.. instead of eliminating programs that lead to that very dependence, rather than having people keep to their own responsibilities and be forced to work them out all on their own.. this is not a job for the federal government, in any way, shape, or form

You do realize all this extreme inequality just leads to bigger government right?

No, all this extreme leftism does.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do realize all this extreme inequality just leads to bigger government right?

No.. ones like you that think that government's job is to try and fix inequality in outcome help to bring about bigger government... government cannot create equalized outcome without more and more limitations on freedom and more and more power... this has been tried and has (and will) failed every time

The goal is not equalized outcome.

HTH

"The goal"? I guess that would depend on WHOSE goal we're talking about, now wouldn't it? You didn't think everyone actually had the same goal, or the same plan for getting to it, did you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is the irony intentional?

There was no irony.
You planning on explaining why you think income inequality is a problem that demands a gov't solution or should we just take your word?

It is inefficient and left unchecked it will undermine our Democracy. Possibly to the point of revolution.

Is that enough of a reason?

In other words, just take your word for it because you have this daydream of what "could" happen that you find fascinating.

How about instead, you actually provide us with a post longer than three sentences that actually explains what's wrong with American income inequality and why? "Because it's bad, and something bad will happen because of it, because I say it will" does not get it done.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is inefficient and left unchecked it will undermine our Democracy. Possibly to the point of revolution.

Is that enough of a reason?

you gave a reason but did not explain how that reason is applicable.

Please explain how it is inefficient and how it will undermine our democracy.

It is inefficient because it leads to unemployment, underemployment, people in jail, slower growth in demand and therefore supply, more volatility which slows growth long term, increases likelihood and dependence on government aid, destroys communities and harms children(future producers), and more.

As for Democracy being undermined, just look at how important money is now in our democratic process and how people are becoming frustrated. Now imagine how many more years of growing income inequality it will take to break the US. 5 decades? 10 decades?

Growing income inequality is simply unsustainable.

Once again, "It is bad because I say it is, because I say that bad things will happen because of it, I can't prove or even explain HOW those bad things are an inevitable result of it, but they are, so you should just believe me."

You should stop talking because your talking will cause earthquakes to happen in Africa. Is that a good enough reason for you to never post again?