So you want better paying jobs?

[Boss]

simply making labor more expensive could create better paying jobs due to capital investment to improve productivity.

Increasing cost of labor does not increase capital available for investment.

no, but it does provide incentive to lower costs through productivity.

Except, it doesn't.

They lower costs by laying people off and maintain productivity by delegating it to others. You have better paying jobs but fewer of them and more demanding. IF the demand for their product or service warrants increase in productivity they may choose to invest in new technology but this also generally results in fewer jobs, better pay but more technical skill required.

Why would capitalists prefer obsolete methods merely to use inexpensive labor? i believe capitalist may prefer to re-tool to achieve gains from productivity using the latest technologies available.

Obsolete methods? ...So you assume the instant a new technology is available, all previous technology is obsolete? Inexpensive labor? You just said we raised the cost of labor.

A capitalist believes in making a profit, it doesn't matter what your silly ass believes. A smart capitalist (which you have no chance of ever being) looks at return on investment (ROI) and if it is to his advantage to "re-tool" he will. You see, when NEW technology first comes out it is generally very expensive. Therefore, it's not always a good idea. Especially when increased productivity is not the issue. Raising labor cost results in the capitalist eliminating jobs and consolidating responsibility to maintain production levels. Raise the cost too much and it results in outsourcing labor to China.

 

[danielpalos]

simply making labor more expensive could create better paying jobs due to capital investment to improve productivity.

Increasing cost of labor does not increase capital available for investment.

no, but it does provide incentive to lower costs through productivity.

Except, it doesn't.

They lower costs by laying people off and maintain productivity by delegating it to others. You have better paying jobs but fewer of them and more demanding. IF the demand for their product or service warrants increase in productivity they may choose to invest in new technology but this also generally results in fewer jobs, better pay but more technical skill required.

Why would capitalists prefer obsolete methods merely to use inexpensive labor? i believe capitalist may prefer to re-tool to achieve gains from productivity using the latest technologies available.

Obsolete methods? ...So you assume the instant a new technology is available, all previous technology is obsolete? Inexpensive labor? You just said we raised the cost of labor.

A capitalist believes in making a profit, it doesn't matter what your silly ass believes. A smart capitalist (which you have no chance of ever being) looks at return on investment (ROI) and if it is to his advantage to "re-tool" he will. You see, when NEW technology first comes out it is generally very expensive. Therefore, it's not always a good idea. Especially when increased productivity is not the issue. Raising labor cost results in the capitalist eliminating jobs and consolidating responsibility to maintain production levels. Raise the cost too much and it results in outsourcing labor to China.

That isn't the problem since the public sector can create incentives and disincentives for the private sector based on tax preference.

The goal is to provide a social safety net on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and a form of minimum wage that simply clears our poverty guidelines.

The point is that we should be solving simple poverty and capitalism's natural rate of unemployment by bailing out capitalism with sufficient socialism, like usual.

 

[Boss]

Increasing cost of labor does not increase capital available for investment.

no, but it does provide incentive to lower costs through productivity.

Except, it doesn't.

They lower costs by laying people off and maintain productivity by delegating it to others. You have better paying jobs but fewer of them and more demanding. IF the demand for their product or service warrants increase in productivity they may choose to invest in new technology but this also generally results in fewer jobs, better pay but more technical skill required.

Why would capitalists prefer obsolete methods merely to use inexpensive labor? i believe capitalist may prefer to re-tool to achieve gains from productivity using the latest technologies available.

Obsolete methods? ...So you assume the instant a new technology is available, all previous technology is obsolete? Inexpensive labor? You just said we raised the cost of labor.

A capitalist believes in making a profit, it doesn't matter what your silly ass believes. A smart capitalist (which you have no chance of ever being) looks at return on investment (ROI) and if it is to his advantage to "re-tool" he will. You see, when NEW technology first comes out it is generally very expensive. Therefore, it's not always a good idea. Especially when increased productivity is not the issue. Raising labor cost results in the capitalist eliminating jobs and consolidating responsibility to maintain production levels. Raise the cost too much and it results in outsourcing labor to China.

That isn't the problem since the public sector can create incentives and disincentives for the private sector based on tax preference.

The goal is to provide a social safety net on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and a form of minimum wage that simply clears our poverty guidelines.

The point is that we should be solving simple poverty and capitalism's natural rate of unemployment by bailing out capitalism with sufficient socialism, like usual.

Well you've been trying to solve poverty with socialism and manipulate the MW to clear our poverty guidelines for 82 years.... how much longer does your brilliant plan take?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

bailing out capitalism with sufficient socialism, like usual.

dear, like usual China just bailed out socialism with capitalism and prevented another 60 million from slowly starving to death.

Do you think Nazis were great too??

 

[danielpalos]

no, but it does provide incentive to lower costs through productivity.

Except, it doesn't.

They lower costs by laying people off and maintain productivity by delegating it to others. You have better paying jobs but fewer of them and more demanding. IF the demand for their product or service warrants increase in productivity they may choose to invest in new technology but this also generally results in fewer jobs, better pay but more technical skill required.

Why would capitalists prefer obsolete methods merely to use inexpensive labor? i believe capitalist may prefer to re-tool to achieve gains from productivity using the latest technologies available.

Obsolete methods? ...So you assume the instant a new technology is available, all previous technology is obsolete? Inexpensive labor? You just said we raised the cost of labor.

A capitalist believes in making a profit, it doesn't matter what your silly ass believes. A smart capitalist (which you have no chance of ever being) looks at return on investment (ROI) and if it is to his advantage to "re-tool" he will. You see, when NEW technology first comes out it is generally very expensive. Therefore, it's not always a good idea. Especially when increased productivity is not the issue. Raising labor cost results in the capitalist eliminating jobs and consolidating responsibility to maintain production levels. Raise the cost too much and it results in outsourcing labor to China.

That isn't the problem since the public sector can create incentives and disincentives for the private sector based on tax preference.

The goal is to provide a social safety net on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and a form of minimum wage that simply clears our poverty guidelines.

The point is that we should be solving simple poverty and capitalism's natural rate of unemployment by bailing out capitalism with sufficient socialism, like usual.

Well you've been trying to solve poverty with socialism and manipulate the MW to clear our poverty guidelines for 82 years.... how much longer does your brilliant plan take?

dude; only lousy capitalists can't solve simple poverty without the outright communism of a wartime economic paradigm as was the case during WWII.

we merely need be faithful to our own laws regarding employment at will to solve simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, not rocket science. And, we have already been to the moon and back, last millennium.

 

[danielpalos]

bailing out capitalism with sufficient socialism, like usual.

dear, like usual China just bailed out socialism with capitalism and prevented another 60 million from slowly starving to death.

Do you think Nazis were great too??

so what; we are talking about the US. socialism can bailout capitalism and help out the People at the same time.

 

[Friends]

You will always have a growing income gap in a free market capitalist economy... it's the natural order. What your charts are not showing you is the enormous number of people who moved up the ladder and left the "middle class". We don't live in a vacuum, people move in and out of different classes all the time in a free society. The reason your masters present such meaningless information is this is how Socialism is promoted in countries where there is no freedom to escape the class you are born into. This comparing gaps between classes works in those systems to create envy and spark revolution.

In OUR system, you are free to escape your class. You can become part of the top 1% if you have the drive and motivation to succeed, people do it all the time. Free market capitalism has created more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. In the past two centuries, Socialism is responsible for more than 100 million deaths, usually by hideous acts of genocide as dictatorships collapse.

Right now a lot more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class.

I do not expect you to care about that. A true conservative will find it unsettling.

As is always the case with those of your persuasion, you fail to distinguish between Communism and Social Democracy.

 

[Boss]

Right now a lot more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class.

Not true.

 

[Boss]

dude; only lousy capitalists can't solve simple poverty without the outright communism of a wartime economic paradigm as was the case during WWII.

we merely need be faithful to our own laws regarding employment at will to solve simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, not rocket science. And, we have already been to the moon and back, last millennium.

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

 

[Friends]

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

 

[Friends]

Not true.

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

 

[Boss]

Yes... 47% of our country is mentally unstable due to ingesting lead from Chinese toys as a child... they've become the base of the Democrat party.

 

[Friends]

Yes... 47% of our country is mentally unstable due to ingesting lead from Chinese toys as a child... they've become the base of the Democrat party.

Pew Research Center APRIL 7, 2015

Democrats hold advantages in party identification among blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials. Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education and evangelical Protestants – as well as members of the Silent Generation...

Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees.
A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation

 

[Friends]

PBS July 9, 2013

For many middle-class families, the American Dream can feel as though it's slipping away. For others, it can seem lost for good.

Consider Terry and Tony Neumann and Claude and Jackie Stanley -- the two Milwaukeecouples featured in tonight's episode of FRONTLINE, Two American Families (check local listings here).

In 1992, both Tony and Claude had recently lost their manufacturing jobs. For the next 20 years, our cameras followed them and their families as they struggled to avoid poverty. When they could find work, it was often for longer hours, less pay and no benefits. Bills piled up, tensions rose and relationships became strained.

Of course, their story is far from unique. Over the last several decades, the middle class has struggled to keep pace with smaller paychecks, mounting debt and shrinking opportunities for steady work. The following eight charts offer a brief snapshot:

#1: Wages are down
Middle class incomes have shrunk 8.5 percent since 2000..

#2: Less income for the middle class
Partly as a result of lower pay, the middle class’s share of the nation’s total income has been falling. In 1980, the middle 60 percent of households accounted for 51.7 of the country’s income. By 2011, they were less than half. Meanwhile, the top fifth of households saw their slice of the national income grow 16 percent, to 51.1 percent from 44.1 percent...

#3: Union positions are shrinking...

#4: More workers stuck in part-time jobs...

#5: Fewer jobs from U.S.-based multinationals...

#6: Rising debt...

#7: Families are saving less
The rise in debt has meant fewer families have the ability to put away money for things like retirement or a child’s tuition bills...

#8: Net worth has plunged
The State of America’s Middle Class in Eight Charts – Two American Families - FRONTLINE

 

[Correll]

Right now a lot more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class.

Not true.

View attachment 49195

Depending on the local, 75k seems a low number to be considered upper income...

 

[Correll]

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity.

Boss says that socialistic policies have failed, and you reply that they are popular...

 

[Correll]

Not true.

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

I believe that "the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair."

But, IMO, that is because of Trade and Immigration policies designed looking at the economy as a whole and not at a breakdown of how it hits smaller groups WITHIN the US.

And the answer, in my opinion is NOT "redistribution of wealth" but trade policy and immigration policy designed with the interests of the US Middle Class as the primary goal.

 

[danielpalos]

dude; only lousy capitalists can't solve simple poverty without the outright communism of a wartime economic paradigm as was the case during WWII.

we merely need be faithful to our own laws regarding employment at will to solve simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, not rocket science. And, we have already been to the moon and back, last millennium.

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

dude, no denies it was the out-right communism of our wartime economy that engendered full employment in the US, not capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity.

Boss says that socialistic policies have failed, and you reply that they are popular...

some policies fail all the time; capitalism failed in 1929.

 

[danielpalos]

Not true.

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

I believe that "the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair."

But, IMO, that is because of Trade and Immigration policies designed looking at the economy as a whole and not at a breakdown of how it hits smaller groups WITHIN the US.

And the answer, in my opinion is NOT "redistribution of wealth" but trade policy and immigration policy designed with the interests of the US Middle Class as the primary goal.

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards. there is no reason to not abolish simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through a form of minimum wage that can be applied for on an at-will basis whenever labor can claim to be unemployed.