Notices
Results 1 to 64 of 64
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By chad
  • 2 Post By Harold14370

Thread: employment in US

  1. #1 employment in US 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3
    Hello,

    I am from Europe and I want to know how is the situation for employments in US. If people are currently looking for a job and if there is plenty of job in USA actually in industry, services, economy, etc... We have not a point of view for the employent situation in Europe for US.

    Thank you by advance very much for your answer and clarification helps,

    City_green


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Question is really too broad to give a useful answer.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    There is currently a rather peculiar activity by businesses seeking employees in the US. The people in charge of hiring have too many choices to make decisions. Rather than hire someone who is "good enough" many are seeking "the perfect fit" = someone who has done the exact same job somewhere else. Most new jobs here are in the service sector ("you want fries with that?"). And we still have roughly 20% of the workforce unemployed. Add in the under employed and the # of people that want a full time job for which they have been trained runs another 6-10% higher.

    That being said, there are certain pockets where there are more jobs than people to fill them. One example is the northern midwest states' oil boom, from drilling the williston, to mining the oil shales, each industry job means more of all sectors having open jobs, from carpenters to short order cooks, to mechanics, to grocery clerks, etc..

    Every year, more and more college graduates with massive debt are without jobs, and that missmatch is growing.

    So, it really boils down to what skills you have(or are capable of and/or are willing to learn), and where you are willing to work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by city_green78 View Post
    Hello,

    I am from Europe and I want to know how is the situation for employments in US. If people are currently looking for a job and if there is plenty of job in USA actually in industry, services, economy, etc... We have not a point of view for the employent situation in Europe for US.

    Thank you by advance very much for your answer and clarification helps,

    City_green

    The situation for employments in the USA is not good.
    Large Us corporations are moving any job they can, to foreign countries like China, India, South America ex.ex. They do this to get cheaper labor.

    Today in America, you can not buy any thing high-tech, or electronic that was made in America. I went into "Best Buy" (a huge American electronics store) recently, I tried to find something that was made in America. But the only thing I could find that was made in America, was the plastic bags, they use at the cash registers.

    Americas high-tech manufacturing jobs are already gone.
    Many of Americas telephone answering jobs are also gone. ex.ex.ex.ex.

    Here in America, almost 100% of everything we buy, from furniture to toys, was (not) American made.


    Americas college degree jobs, are also being moved to other countries.

    American jobs like accountants and engineers, are being moved to other countries. American companies hire accountants and engineers in places like India, because they work for 1/7? the pay, and they do a better job.

    (Its hard to believe) But soon in America, when you use the (drive in) at certain fast food restaurants, it will be a person in a foreign country taking the order.


    The only American jobs that are not being moved, (are those jobs that cant be moved.)

    America is no longer the worlds economic producer/seller superpower, that it once was.

    We are a country of huge debt and deficits. I think around 1/3? to 1/7?? of the money that our government spends, is borrowed from places like China. And when places like China stop lending us money, Americas problems will get (much) worse.



    And I do (not) want to insult these foreign countries, that are getting these American jobs. It is not their fault, American corporations are the ones that move the jobs.

    And I saw this TV show, were angry Americans who lost their jobs, went to the country were there job was moved to. When most of these Americans came back to the USA, they were no longer mad. They saw how poor those people were, and they were glad those jobs gave them extra money.


    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; July 10th, 2012 at 06:44 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    So, Chad. Are you in favor of moving jobs overseas or not? I can't quite figure that out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So, Chad. Are you in favor of moving jobs overseas or not? I can't quite figure that out.


    NO, NO, NO and HELL NO.


    But I am in favor, of every person on this planet, having a decent standard of living.

    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So, Chad. Are you in favor of moving jobs overseas or not? I can't quite figure that out.


    NO, NO, NO and HELL NO.


    But I am in favor, of every person on this planet, having a decent standard of living.

    Chad.

    Hey I was about to give you a like for that because it's good an strong and I agree with it, but then I thought just hang on a minute I'm pretty sure Harold would also like to see everyone on the planet have a decent standard of living and probarbly virtually every other member what like to see that as well, so you are pretty much stating the obvious.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So, Chad. Are you in favor of moving jobs overseas or not? I can't quite figure that out.


    NO, NO, NO and HELL NO.


    But I am in favor, of every person on this planet, having a decent standard of living.

    Chad.

    Hey I was about to give you a like for that because it's good an strong and I agree with it, but then I thought just hang on a minute I'm pretty sure Harold would also like to see everyone on the planet have a decent standard of living and probarbly virtually every other member what like to see that as well, so you are pretty much stating the obvious.


    When I look at the world, or listen to people talk politics, I think that most people, do not have that desire.
    But I must agree with you, perhaps most people would like to see everyone on Earth doing well. Or at least some part of their inner soul wants it.

    But when you look at most peoples actions in life, they do not try to make a world like that.
    But at least some part of their inner souls want it.

    During moments like these I have hope, this actually happens to me a lot. But then I look around, and listen to people talk, and then this hope disappears.
    But part of me wishes I would never forget it.

    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So, Chad. Are you in favor of moving jobs overseas or not? I can't quite figure that out.


    NO, NO, NO and HELL NO.


    But I am in favor, of every person on this planet, having a decent standard of living.

    Chad.

    Hey I was about to give you a like for that because it's good an strong and I agree with it, but then I thought just hang on a minute I'm pretty sure Harold would also like to see everyone on the planet have a decent standard of living and probarbly virtually every other member what like to see that as well, so you are pretty much stating the obvious.

    Perhaps Harold is clouding your judgement, he is not most people.

    But I still believe that most people, have their own special gift/way, to give love to the people around them.

    Sorry for getting mushy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    The idea that the US doesn't manufacture goods is alarmist anyhow. Nearly all the computers in Best Buy had chips in them manufactured in the US for example; many were engineered and designed here as well. We still produce more automobiles and aircraft, agricultural products, medicines that anyone else in the world. Some sectors are desperate to find qualified Americans for either reduction or for active US jobs--sciences and engineering for example. Nursing and medical fields are desparate for workers. Even some blue collar jobs, particular technical ones are in short supply, welders, machinist, truck drivers etc.

    What we don't have is enough jobs to fill the uneducated, or the college liberal arts or media degree graduates.

    This is why I said the first comment the employment picture is a complex issue which largely depends on what part of the country and for what skills the person has.

    Overall I'm glad most of the dirty industrial jobs have gone overseas--we are a vastly cleaner nation for it than we were 30 years ago.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 10th, 2012 at 06:51 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Chad, how is the rest of the world going to enjoy a good standard of living when you want to boycott their products?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Chad, how is the rest of the world going to enjoy a good standard of living when you want to boycott their products?


    Just like they do in "Star Treck the Next Generation."


    Many people have dreams of a world, were we use our minds to guide humanities path. But we use a thing called money instead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Chad, how is the rest of the world going to enjoy a good standard of living when you want to boycott their products?


    Just like they do in "Star Treck the Next Generation."


    Many people have dreams of a world, were we use our minds to guide humanities path. But we use a thing called money instead.
    I've never watched Star Trek the Next Generation, so I don't know what you mean. Are you saying we should use our minds instead of our money? I guess that means we'll give poor countries our sagely advice, while keeping the jobs to ourselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The idea that the US doesn't manufacture goods is alarmist anyhow. Nearly all the computers in Best Buy had chips in them manufactured in the US for example; many were engineered and designed here as well. We still produce more automobiles and aircraft, agricultural products, medicines that anyone else in the world. Some sectors are desperate to find qualified Americans for either reduction or for active US jobs--sciences and engineering for example. Nursing and medical fields are desparate for workers. Even some blue collar jobs, particular technical ones are in short supply, welders, machinist, truck drivers etc.

    What we don't have is enough jobs to fill the uneducated, or the college liberal arts or media degree graduates.

    This is why I said the first comment the employment picture is a complex issue which largely depends on what part of the country and for what skills the person has.

    Overall I'm glad most of the dirty industrial jobs have gone overseas--we are a vastly cleaner nation for it than we were 30 years ago.
    I am a Alarmist?

    Think back to 1970. In 1970 if an American, had a job in any large grocery store warehouse, he had a decent standard of living. With that job, he could afford a small house and a car.

    But now look at 2012. If an American in 2012, has a job in a Walmart grocery store warehousee, he can no longer afford to buy a house. He is forced to live in an apartment, and he is LUCKY if he has a working car.

    What caused this change?

    American low level workers standard of living, has gone down greatly, in the last 20 years.
    Working Americans income is not rising with inflation.

    What caused this change?


    In the 1960's, it was American workers that made all of the worlds tv's, radios's, and computers.
    The above fact, is what made America the worlds #1 super power.
    Its simple business.

    How much money would an American worker, who makes tv's make a hour? (a decent wage)
    But all those high paying American tv making jobs were moved to Asia.
    But this does not matter to you.

    American workers have also lost the high paying jobs, making computers, radios, and other high tech items.

    But now you say this is ok, and does not matter. Its ok because the medical field, needs lots of bed pan changers.



    We still make automobiles? Detroit used to be a super power, but now its a ghost town.

    The reason we still make lots of cars, is because Asian and European car making companies, have built many of their car building plants in America. These foreign car makers built their factories in America, so US consumers would not feel guilty about buying a foreign car, and them giving that money to another country.

    Yes America is home to many Asian and European car making plants. But weres Detroit?



    And yes America still builds aircraft, but even the US government will soon move its manufacturing jobs to India. Your fellow soldiers, will one day be flying inside airplanes that were made in India.


    American workers income is not rising with inflation.
    American low level workers, can no longer afford a house, like they could in 1970.
    Huge amounts of American workers are loosing their homes, because they cant afford to pay for them.
    Huge amounts of American children are hungry, because their parents cant afford to buy them food.

    And huge numbers of Americans with college degrees, are forced to flip hamburgers.

    But to you, all of this is ok, because large US corporations are making the greatest profits ever.


    I am so sorry if was rude,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; July 12th, 2012 at 09:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Chad, how is the rest of the world going to enjoy a good standard of living when you want to boycott their products?


    Just like they do in "Star Treck the Next Generation."


    Many people have dreams of a world, were we use our minds to guide humanities path. But we use a thing called money instead.
    I've never watched Star Trek the Next Generation, so I don't know what you mean. Are you saying we should use our minds instead of our money? I guess that means we'll give poor countries our sagely advice, while keeping the jobs to ourselves.
    Harold I apologize, if this response post falls off subject.

    Definition of CAPITALISM. Taken from: merriam-webster.com.
    An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

    I wanted to start off by saying, I am for the private ownership of goods. If you made a boat, I say its your boat. And I am also for the private ownership of land, as long as one person does not own more land, than 10,000 regular people. I also believe, all people should have the same rights, regardless of nationality, age, sex, race, or sexual orientation.

    We are all controlled by this thing called capitalism. It is a culture that is 1000's of years old. And the results of pure capitalism always repeat themselves. The same thing happens in pure capitalism, whether its Ancient Rome, Ancient South America, Ancient China, or present day America.

    Much of the following SIMPLE EXAMPLE, was taken from a post, by forum member sculptor.

    The following is what happened, to pure capitalist societies, that were around over 1,000 years ago.

    1.) The capitalist country starts off, with regular workers, having a high standard of living.
    2.) Slowly the tax burden shifts, more and more to the lower classes, as the wealthy and powerful, manage to avoid their fair share, or avoid paying taxes alltogether.
    3.) The rich members take control of the government, and run the government themselves.
    4.) The regular workers, end up borrowing money from the rich members, the regular workers use their land and homes as collateral.
    5.) The greed of the rich members causes the whole economy to collapse.

    And all of the above, is now happening in America. (notice how the numbers bellow, match the numbers above.)

    1.) Americas low level workers, in the 1960's had a high standard of living. They had houses and cars. But today low level workers can not afford houses.
    2.) Today in America billionaires like Warren Buffet have a 17% tax rate, and regular Americans have a 30%+ tax rate. And billionaire Bill Gates has stated, he could have a 0% tax rate, if he wanted too.
    3.) Today in America lawyers from rich CEO's, write all of Americas federal laws. Americas laws are written by our rich CEO's lawyers.
    4.) Today in America lower income Americans have huge debt, and even past well to do seniors, are borrowing against their homes.
    5.) America has huge debt, because of tax cuts for rich people. The value of the US dollar has dropped, because the rich moved US jobs to foreign countries, out of greed. And many Americans are loosing their homes, and can no longer provide enough food for their children. Our government is running out of money to pay for social programs.

    The above is what always happens, in a 100% capitalist country. If you watch "Calling all rebels" by Chris Hedges. In the start of his speech, you will think he is talking about present day America, when he is actually quoting a Roman writing over 1,000 years old.

    Pure socialist like countries like Switzerland, do not suffer these problems, because the working class, is not taken out of government.

    Also many scientists think, that most of our CEO leaders, are actually psychopaths. So perhaps one of the reasons, 100% pure capitalists countries always fall apart, is because psychopaths end up being the leaders.


    And now back to money. I would prefer to live in a world, were people controlled the human condition, rather than capitalism and money.

    The following is an example,

    Jupiters and Saturns frozen moons, could have complex life living under the ice.
    Why dont we have underwater devices, under the ice on both moons, looking for complex life, at this moment? We have the technology.

    If humans go to Mars, we will expand our space travel knowledge. Humans will be one step closer, to making human outposts off Earth, and the human future will be safer. Why have humans never been to Mars, as of yet? We have had the technology, for many, many years.

    A huge rock from outer space, could hit Earth and kill all humans, at any time. People have ideas to make machines, that could stop these rocks from hitting Earth. Why is this human saving technology, not being developed as fast as it could? By not going at this problem fast and hard, we are wasting time.

    One reason we are not doing these things, is that America can not afford to do these things. Even though some of the above examples, could kill every human being alive, we dont do them as fast as we could. Pieces of paper, and round pieces of metal, control us. We actually have the resources, and knowledge, to start doing these above things, last year. But the paper, and small round pieces of metal say, "do it slowly."

    And money and capitalism, does not just stop needed science, it also stops humans from helping other humans. 30,000 children will starve to death tomorrow, when we have enough food already to save them. Why dont we save them? Because we are all to busy worrying, about having enough paper to survive, while we have enough resources to survive.

    I hope the free markets, and those pieces of paper, and those small round pieces of metal, will treat our future family members well. But F--- that, I think human brains should decide the living conditions of our future family members, not free markets and pieces of paper.

    Every one seems to love this thing called capitalism. Even though most of us spend our lives, worrying about having enough printed paper to survive.

    And capitalism also causes destruction. Why are the rain forests being destroyed? They are being destroyed to make money. With the proper handing out of resources, most of the rain forest destruction could be stopped.


    What could we do?

    (We could make scientists, and caring people our leaders, instead of psychopath business men.)


    I would like to start a thread titled "capitalism the death of science" someday. That thread may repeat many things I said here.

    But I may never post it. Recently I have been nervous, about not having enough small pieces of printed paper.

    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; July 12th, 2012 at 09:25 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Chad - to get back on the subject of outsourcing. If your life is not controlled by little round peices of metal, then you shouldn't be worried about outsourcing. You don't even need a job, it's just money. You capitalist, you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Harold, long ago(the winter of '72-'73)(in between universities) I worked the line at american motors. On the line with me were people with doctorates of philosophy, and I asked one why he was there on the line with me and he responded "I like to eat". Money, for all it's evils, buys food, clothing, and shelter(and this silly machine to which, I am somewhat addicted---gotta get my i fix).
    "" from Keynes
    When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals
    and Chad, your:
    A huge rock from outer space, could hit Earth and kill all humans, at any time. People have ideas to make machines, that could stop these rocks from hitting Earth. Why is this human saving technology, not being developed as fast as it could? By not going at this problem fast and hard, we are wasting time.
    When in the army, my main post was at site R (an underground complex dedicated to supporting the ANMCC(Alternate National Military Communication Command). With the demise of the cold war, the vast underground complex has been retasked, and one of their new tasks is to coordinate all the sightings of "huge rocks from outer space". They have the ability to retask telescopes from thousands of miles away if they see something noteworthy.
    24/7, they are watching for us. (And I hope they find their mission as un-needed as was ours so long ago)

    Old bible story about saving from the "7 years of fat, for the 7 years of lean": If we live on borrowed money during the 7 years of fat, what do we live on during the 7 years of lean?
    Last edited by sculptor; July 12th, 2012 at 10:34 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Think back to 1970. In 1970 if an American, had a job in any large grocery store warehouse, he had a decent standard of living. With that job, he could afford a small house and a car.

    But now look at 2012. If an American in 2012, has a job in a Walmart grocery store warehousee, he can no longer afford to buy a house. He is forced to live in an apartment, and he is LUCKY if he has a working car.

    What caused this change?
    Their parents probably co-signed for that 70's house, the car was probabably a beater, and the house was in all likelyhood smaller than many modern apartments. Food and gas was also effectively double the cost of today.

    American low level workers standard of living, has gone down greatly, in the last 20 years.
    Working Americans income is not rising with inflation.
    It's been flat for the lower half...not going down.

    I was raised during the 60s and 70s--it was no picnic and like many things in the past we have rose colored glasses.

    What caused this change?
    Our perceptions and to a large degree our unreasonable expectations that uneducated union blue collar jobs (where most of the impact has been) would continue despite globalisation, automation and digitization which has allowed many jobs to be done overseas.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Chad - to get back on the subject of outsourcing. If your life is not controlled by little round peices of metal, then you shouldn't be worried about outsourcing. You don't even need a job, it's just money. You capitalist, you.

    And you don't care about giving American jobs and money, to poorer and less fortunate countries, like China and India. You socialist, you.

    Its Chad the capitalist, and Harold the socialist. I just cant help but wonder, are pigs flying some were?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    The real truth is it's only capitalists than can afford to be socialists, there's irony for you, socialists have usually spent all the money and don't have the same ability to earn the money that they want to spend, capitalists have earned the money but don't like spending it.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Think back to 1970. In 1970 if an American, had a job in any large grocery store warehouse, he had a decent standard of living. With that job, he could afford a small house and a car.

    But now look at 2012. If an American in 2012, has a job in a Walmart grocery store warehousee, he can no longer afford to buy a house. He is forced to live in an apartment, and he is LUCKY if he has a working car.

    What caused this change?
    Their parents probably co-signed for that 70's house, the car was probabably a beater, and the house was in all likelyhood smaller than many modern apartments. Food and gas was also effectively double the cost of today.

    American low level workers standard of living, has gone down greatly, in the last 20 years.
    Working Americans income is not rising with inflation.
    It's been flat for the lower half...not going down.

    I was raised during the 60s and 70s--it was no picnic and like many things in the past we have rose colored glasses.

    What caused this change?
    Our perceptions and to a large degree our unreasonable expectations that uneducated union blue collar jobs (where most of the impact has been) would continue despite globalisation, automation and digitization which has allowed many jobs to be done overseas.

    Earlier in this thread you said, America makes more cars than anyone, but that statement is 1,000% not true.
    Also in 2010 the U.S. ran a trade deficit in automobiles, trucks and parts with the rest of the world of $110 billion.


    And in the years 1950-1981, low level American workers income went up 70%.
    But in the years 1980-2010, low level American workers income went up 1%.

    But nothing I can say matters to you. To you everything in America is ok, because of the following.

    In the years 1950-1981, rich Americans income went up 75%.
    And in the years 1980-2010, rich Americans income went up 403%.


    All you do is twist facts, in the defense of rich Americans, and corporate American profits.
    Last edited by chad; July 12th, 2012 at 07:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The real truth is it's only capitalists than can afford to be socialists, there's irony for you, socialists have usually spent all the money and don't have the same ability to earn the money that they want to spend, capitalists have earned the money but don't like spending it.
    In America republican=capitalist, and democrat=socialist.

    And in America, the capitalists spend 3x-10x more money, than the socialists.


    But things are different in your country. In your country the conservatives, are true conservatives. You just need to watch that your conservatives, never imitate Americas conservatives.

    You will be able to tell, if they start imitating US conservatives, when they start asking for "trickle down economics". Trickle down economics means, you give the rich tax cuts to help the poor. Its a scam that only causes deficits, and rich peoples income to soar, and poor peoples income to fall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    In America republican=capitalist, and democrat=socialist.
    Democrats are socialists? I thought that was one of those Fox News/Rush Radio lies. You must be a right wing stooge, Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    political animals---democrats/republicans left and right and both rich. Our millionaire congress ain't evil, they just have certain class biases that blind them to the realities of the economic imperative that the rest of us live with.
    I'm a libertarian socialist and my ideal presidential ticket would have been Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich----------
    anything but the goddamned middle do nothing centrist elitist puke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    In America republican=capitalist, and democrat=socialist.
    Democrats are socialists? I thought that was one of those Fox News/Rush Radio lies. You must be a right wing stooge, Chad.

    I have heard other forum members say, that in conversations about politics, they feel like strangling you. But they still say, that they still like and respect you a great deal.

    I do not feel like strangling you Harold, rather I view your political opinions in pure disbelief. But I too like and respect you a great deal.


    I have noticed that you are now an administrator. And even though we share 100% separate political beliefs, I still believe that you are as good of moderator/administrator, as anyone could be.

    I have been wanting to say that for a while. But since you may be embarrassed or sickened by that remark, I will not say it again.

    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Thanks, Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    Earlier in this thread you said, America makes more cars than anyone, but that statement is 1,000% not true.
    You were right....we are 2nd, behind China.
    OICA » Production Statistics

    But in the years 1980-2010, low level American workers income went up 1%.
    Which is true is nearly EXACTLY what I said....it is flat, not going down (which is what you said).

    But nothing I can say matters to you. To you everything in America is ok, because of the following.

    In the years 1950-1981, rich Americans income went up 75%.
    And in the years 1980-2010, rich Americans income went up 403%.
    I've talked about my concern for the income disparity many time on this forum...don't be so quick to characterize my opinion. It worries me greatly because it's one of the key components for civil unrest that sometimes brings down nations. I'm an advocate for raising income tax on wealthy individuals but also setting up our tax codes so every has some skin in the game. The effect federal tax rate of zero for anyone making any income is damn poor government.

    All you do is twist facts, in the defense of rich Americans, and corporate American profits.
    Twist facts? Hardly. I have mixed feelings about corporate America. For one thing I consider a patriot duty to invest in them--fortunately by fulfilling that duty I've been able to turn my middle class income into moderate gains over the past 30 years and huge gains over the past couple years. It's also related to why I think corporate tax rate should be exactly zero as the strongest signal possible that setting up and keeping shop here is good for the bottom line--and that's how to put people to work. On the other hand the internationalization of corporations is allowing them to run rough shod over national laws--the US resistant to strong international laws is contributing to this problem.

    But getting back to the OP... despite your broad brush strokes, can you deny that many technical fields are critically short in the US?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by chad
    Definition of CAPITALISM. Taken from: merriam-webster.com.
    Do not get your definitions - of anything, but particularly hot button political terms - from Merriam Webster. Capitalism can exist without free markets, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    Democrats are socialists? I thought that was one of those Fox News/Rush Radio lies. You must be a right wing stooge, Chad.
    Yep. Not a stooge, but not well connected to leftwing sources of information. Very few Democrats in US national politics are socialists, or advocate any socialist policies - some, but you can count them on a couple of hands.

    But in the years 1980-2010, low level American workers income went up 1%.

    Which is true is nearly EXACTLY what I said....it is flat, not going down (which is what you said).
    Household income is flat when corrected by the official inflation rate.

    That is a deceptive. The number of job holders per household and the hours per job have both risen, taxes and fees have risen, deductions from pay have risen (health insurance, mostly), the inflation rate has been gamed, prices for essentials have risen, while wages have dropped. Most people must now work more hours for less real disposable income than in 1980 - a drop.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    That is a deceptive. The number of job holders per household and the hours per job have both risen, taxes and fees have risen, deductions from pay have risen (health insurance, mostly), the inflation rate has been gamed, prices for essentials have risen, while wages have dropped. Most people must now work more hours for less real disposable income than in 1980 - a drop.
    Your distrust of offical statistics is astounding. Taxes have seldom been lower, food is cheaper and while the number of duel worker household has gone up a bit between 1980 and about 1990, it has remained flat at about 65% since. In the meantime: bigger houses, bigger and more cars, more TVs and other forms of entertainment and cheaper food unless you eat packaged or out all the time. Having lived through it and lived in eight states, I know for certain that and from experience that things are generally a lot better than they were in 1980. The big difference today is folks with a GED arent' going to find work or a carreer--but more education isn't a bad thing--we couldn't live off the economic inertia of post WWII era forever and shouldn't expect to rest on our lurals as a nation.
    [img[
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 13th, 2012 at 01:00 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The real truth is it's only capitalists than can afford to be socialists, there's irony for you, socialists have usually spent all the money and don't have the same ability to earn the money that they want to spend, capitalists have earned the money but don't like spending it.
    In America republican=capitalist, and democrat=socialist.

    And in America, the capitalists spend 3x-10x more money, than the socialists.


    But things are different in your country. In your country the conservatives, are true conservatives. You just need to watch that your conservatives, never imitate Americas conservatives.

    You will be able to tell, if they start imitating US conservatives, when they start asking for "trickle down economics". Trickle down economics means, you give the rich tax cuts to help the poor. Its a scam that only causes deficits, and rich peoples income to soar, and poor peoples income to fall.

    This is probarbly a very simplistic vision of US politics but don't the Republicans tend advocate tax cuts for the rich payed for by less spending on social projects, whilst the Democrats prefer higher taxes on the rich to pay for spending more on social projects?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    ... Capitalism can exist without free markets, for example. ... .
    I suspect that Ayn Rand would dispute that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;337063]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post



    All you do is twist facts, in the defense of rich Americans, and corporate American profits.
    Twist facts? Hardly. I have mixed feelings about corporate America. For one thing I consider a patriot duty to invest in them--fortunately by fulfilling that duty I've been able to turn my middle class income into moderate gains over the past 30 years and huge gains over the past couple years. It's also related to why I think corporate tax rate should be exactly zero as the strongest signal possible that setting up and keeping shop here is good for the bottom line--and that's how to put people to work. On the other hand the internationalization of corporations is allowing them to run rough shod over national laws--the US resistant to strong international laws is contributing to this problem.

    But getting back to the OP... despite your broad brush strokes, can you deny that many technical fields are critically short in the US?

    You said,
    You consider it a patriot duty, to invest in corporate America.



    But these same corporations, sent the American dream to China in India.
    Low level American workers income is falling, because US corporations, outsourced their high paying jobs out of greed, to get cheaper labor.

    It is not patriotic to invest in things, that destroy your fellow country peoples standard of living.


    But you believe that US corporations, made America great.

    The thing that actually made America great, was people like Thomas Jefferson, saying F--- YOU, to these corporations.
    The thing that actually made America great, was our government busting up these corporations, when they got to strong, or took power.

    Our past US government leaders, did not share your same love, of greedy corporations. Americas past leaders would rip these corporations to pieces. And when our past governments, saw rich Americans getting too much power, they did the following. They put taxes on them so damn high, it even knocked their kids out of power.



    And heres another thing, that you will not care about. Its small and family owned businesses, that create most to all, of Americas new jobs.
    Perhaps a patriot, would protect small and family business, because they are the ones, that create all of Americas new jobs.



    We live in America, were we are free to do, what ever we want to do.

    And its your right, to support US corporations, that outsource the high paying American jobs, to other countries out of greed.
    And its your right, to dream about giving these same corporations, a 0% tax rate, so they have even more money, to build more factories in China.


    But its my American right, to stand with Americas workers, and Americas honorable rich citizens, like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.


    As always, I am SO sorry if I was rude,

    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; July 14th, 2012 at 02:07 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The real truth is it's only capitalists than can afford to be socialists, there's irony for you, socialists have usually spent all the money and don't have the same ability to earn the money that they want to spend, capitalists have earned the money but don't like spending it.
    In America republican=capitalist, and democrat=socialist.

    And in America, the capitalists spend 3x-10x more money, than the socialists.


    But things are different in your country. In your country the conservatives, are true conservatives. You just need to watch that your conservatives, never imitate Americas conservatives.

    You will be able to tell, if they start imitating US conservatives, when they start asking for "trickle down economics". Trickle down economics means, you give the rich tax cuts to help the poor. Its a scam that only causes deficits, and rich peoples income to soar, and poor peoples income to fall.

    This is probarbly a very simplistic vision of US politics but don't the Republicans tend advocate tax cuts for the rich payed for by less spending on social projects, whilst the Democrats prefer higher taxes on the rich to pay for spending more on social projects?

    Your above statement is fully correct.


    But I feel the need, to say the following.

    US republicans say, that the democrats want to punish the rich. But all of the US democrat politicians, are all very rich themselves.
    Here in America, all of our CEO billionaire families have a 0%-17% tax rate. While Americans who make $100,000 a year have a 30%+ tax rate.

    I just want to say, that I do not want to punish the rich. I believe in a slightly progressive personal tax system, that is fair to everyone.
    Last edited by chad; July 14th, 2012 at 02:03 AM.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    Earlier in this thread you said, America makes more cars than anyone, but that statement is 1,000% not true.
    You were right....we are 2nd, behind China.
    OICA » Production Statistics
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    But in the years 1980-2010, low level American workers income went up 1%.
    Which is true is nearly EXACTLY what I said....it is flat, not going down (which is what you said).

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But nothing I can say matters to you. To you everything in America is ok, because of the following.

    In the years 1950-1981, rich Americans income went up 75%.
    And in the years 1980-2010, rich Americans income went up 403%.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I've talked about my concern for the income disparity many time on this forum...don't be so quick to characterize my opinion. It worries me greatly because it's one of the key components for civil unrest that sometimes brings down nations. I'm an advocate for raising income tax on wealthy individuals but also setting up our tax codes so every has some skin in the game. The effect federal tax rate of zero for anyone making any income is damn poor government.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    All you do is twist facts, in the defense of rich Americans, and corporate American profits.



    After re-reading your comments above, I must say, that some of my beliefs about you were wrong. Perhaps my emotions, ranting ex.ex. misguide me.

    And I hope, if I ever insult or offend you, you would tell me. But I cant ever remember you mentioning it.


    Chad.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 14th, 2012 at 10:18 AM. Reason: (fixed quote tags)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    NP Chad. You annoy me at times with your posting style, but I can't say you offend me. Thanks for acknowledging.

    It's good to know we have some common ground :-)
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor
    Capitalism can exist without free markets, for example. ... .

    I suspect that Ayn Rand would dispute that.
    Ayn Rand had a lot of disputes with reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Your distrust of offical statistics is astounding. Taxes have seldom been lower, food is cheaper and while the number of duel worker household has gone up a bit between 1980 and about 1990, it has remained flat at about 65% since.
    More evidence and argument free assertion, prefaced as always with gratuitous and clueless insult - my distrust is not of any official statistics, barring maybe the official inflation rate, but of the conclusions you draw from them.

    Taxes and fees on the lower economic levels have indeed risen significantly since 1980 - sales and property taxes are up everywhere, State income taxes, government fees such as building permits and car licenses, and of course Reagan's large boost in the Social Security levy.

    If two earner household percentages have held steady in an era of divorce and aging populations (coupled people normally retire one at a time, divorce should create two one earner households, etc), then the pressures creating them among the lower classes have increased.
    In the meantime: bigger houses, bigger and more cars, more TVs and other forms of entertainment and cheaper food unless you eat packaged or out all the time.
    Shows nothing - the littler houses are still there, and their prices have risen much faster than wages, for example, but the whole argument is off base: it doesn't matter whether the more expensive stuff is fancier if you have to buy it, if you can't get a plain version for the old price. Sure phones are fancier, but the fact that one can no longer get good phone service for five dollars a month (total cost - included the phone and all infrastructure) is still a price hike. The cost of living includes a phone, if you want to get and hold a job.

    It also includes dentistry and medical care.

    And what were you trying to show by posting a graph of food and fuel as a percentage of US personal consumption?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Your supporting credible sources are so persuasive.

    food, fuel and utilities are considered essentials, and have relatively gone down in cost... do you dispute that or want someone to read your mind and determine you didn't mean them because they don't agree with the unsupported argument you're trying to make? Feel free to actually provide data about the other essentials you might have meant (it makes following your arguments easier and adds credibility).... that being said, obviously some essentials have gone up...namely health cost that you mentioned...many alreayd accounted for in the inflation numbers you think are "gamed."

    We already know that Federal Taxes have gone down since 1980s. You might be right about some states and local taxes going up even more than federal taxes have dropped--I know that's not true since ~1990 in WA state..but somewhere I'm sure it is. Maine, my home state is probably one of them and key to my wife and my decision not to return there and contribute to that economy (that's what happens when taxes go up--people adn business move or just stay away).

    and no one ever got "good" phone service for $5 a month--though skype does now and is far more effective than any 80s plan--Ever have a party phone? They suck. Given the multiple other ways to communicate now days it's almost not essential.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 15th, 2012 at 02:30 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So, Chad. Are you in favor of moving jobs overseas or not? I can't quite figure that out.


    NO, NO, NO and HELL NO.


    But I am in favor, of every person on this planet, having a decent standard of living.

    Chad.
    Oh, by the way, Chad. Obama shipped jobs overseas with the 2009 stimulus plan.
    Obama Administration Outsourced Jobs with Stimulus Funding | CNSNews.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Oh, by the way, Chad. Obama shipped jobs overseas with the 2009 stimulus plan.
    Obama Administration Outsourced Jobs with Stimulus Funding | CNSNews.com
    Ahem!
    GOP once backed outsourcing it now criticizes | WashingtonExaminer.com

    O
    h, by the way, I notice that the motto line for Harolds link is "THE RIGHT NEWS, RIGHT NOW". Can anyone say "Biased source"?
    Last edited by GiantEvil; July 15th, 2012 at 03:30 PM. Reason: Add a bit.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So, Chad. Are you in favor of moving jobs overseas or not? I can't quite figure that out.


    NO, NO, NO and HELL NO.


    But I am in favor, of every person on this planet, having a decent standard of living.

    Chad.
    Oh, by the way, Chad. Obama shipped jobs overseas with the 2009 stimulus plan.
    Obama Administration Outsourced Jobs with Stimulus Funding | CNSNews.com

    Obama received about $1 billion dollars in campaign funds, from certain companies. And business is there to make money, not to loose money.

    Theres a solid chance, that the above Obama law, was a payback for the $1 billion dollars. Bill Clinton also passed favor laws, very similar to the one you described above.

    I will not deny your statement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Oh, by the way, Chad. Obama shipped jobs overseas with the 2009 stimulus plan.
    Obama Administration Outsourced Jobs with Stimulus Funding | CNSNews.com
    Ahem!
    GOP once backed outsourcing it now criticizes | WashingtonExaminer.com

    O
    h, by the way, I notice that the motto line for Harolds link is "THE RIGHT NEWS, RIGHT NOW". Can anyone say "Biased source"?
    I am not criticizing him for outsourcing, I am critcizing him for being a hypocrite. And, you are not disputing the facts of the article, only the source.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    food, fuel and utilities are considered essentials, and have relatively gone down in cost...
    1) They are not the only, or even the most significant (in the US) essentials. 2) Relative to what? Not relative to the hourly wages of the working poor. (That's why your graph there is worthless - it doesn't even correct for credit card and home equity loan financing in the "consumption" category).
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    You might be right about some states and local taxes going up even more than federal taxes have dropped--I know that's not true since ~1990 in WA state..but somewhere I'm sure it is.
    It's true almost everywhere - everywhere I've checked, such as Washington Sales Tax | TaxRates.com , and http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Reports/2010/...10/Table29.pdf, http://dor.wa.gov/docs/reports/2010/...taxhistory.pdf, and the like, where we see property tax levies quintupling since 1986, cigarette taxes likewise, gasoline taxes up more than 50% since '90 and doubled since the 1980 mark that was the actual argument base. The sales tax rate has held flat at 6.5% for the time in question, but of course that multiplies the inflation of other prices, and it is levied on services as well as goods. Washington relies on the sales tax, rather than an income tax, so all this affects primarily the lower income brackets.

    I doubt, although I haven't checked, that the median hourly wage of the bottom half of the economy in Washington has quintupled since 1986 to match the property tax burden, for example.

    So this
    - - states and local taxes going up even more than federal taxes have dropped--I know that's not true since ~1990 in WA state..
    seems unlikely.

    The only figures I can find for Washington are overall ones - where state and local taxes have been reduced from about 108/1000 in per capita personal income to 100, that kind of thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx
    We already know that Federal Taxes have gone down since 1980s.
    1)Income taxes, for the upper classes, have gone down. Almost every other Federal tax paid by the lower classes has gone up. 2) That's not what you said before, and not what you needed for your argument. It's also not dependably accurate, for the matter at hand - the prosperity of the lower income class. The Reagan boost of SS rates and the Medicare bump outweigh any reduction in Federal income taxes for most of the working poor, for example - they don't have much Federal taxable income.

    And that's just the Federal side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx
    and no one ever got "good" phone service for $5 a month
    I did. $4.65, went up to 4.95 after a while. Included a phone you could use to brain a burglar, and full maintence on the whole system. Rotary dial, two party, dead reliable, free to my entire job search and social area - worked when the power was out.

    Not luxury, but did the job. Like those little houses - and similarly boosted in price, since 1980.
    Last edited by iceaura; July 16th, 2012 at 02:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,124
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 09:45 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    1)Income taxes, for the upper classes, have gone down. Almost every other Federal tax paid by the lower classes has gone up. 2) That's not what you said before, and not what you needed for your argument. It's also not dependably accurate, for the matter at hand - the prosperity of the lower income class. The Reagan boost of SS rates and the Medicare bump outweigh any reduction in Federal income taxes for most of the working poor, for example - they don't have much Federal taxable income.
    We should dispense with the easily myth.

    The Truth About Taxes
    Tax rates for all groups have gone down--including for the lower class.

    [quote]As for WA State they raised their sales tax to compensate for paying hundreds of dollars a year to register every vehicle, boat, (anything registered) etc. The public response was outrage and a referendum that comes up every two years that forces a 66% legislative majority to raise taxes, which at least thus far they've been two cowardly to put into the WA state constitution. I don't know how the local tax picture looks across the state. I'm paying a lower mil rate now than I was when I owned a house in the 90s but I'm living a different town. I'll probably move further from the Capital in the next two years and pay far less.

    I don't know what the average lower 50% wages was, I do know WA has the highest minimum wage in the nation and it's gone up significantly the past few decades.


    And to hit the point about housing cost, which seems to be missed no matter how many times the facts are pointed out....they too are down as compared to 30 years ago; if taken by cost/sq.ft, it would be an even greater drop. (the data is monthly payments and tracked by US census bureau.)
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 16th, 2012 at 11:54 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    The Truth About Taxes
    Tax rates for all groups have gone down--including for the lower class.
    Your table there is Federal income tax rates. ("This chart shows the average federal income tax rates over time for a variety of income levels.") No one here has questioned the trend in Federal income tax rates. They are not a source of contention here. The inadequacy of that single factor was addressed above. That was already discussed. That is beside the point. Nothing here is addressed by posting yet more evidence of something everyone knows and accepts as fact and has over the entire thread to date, and which was stipulated in the very quote you posted for reply.
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    And to hit the point about housing cost, which seems to be missed no matter how many times the facts are pointed out....they too are down as compared to 30 years ago;
    Your graph shows average monthly mortgage payments for a new home, not housing costs in general, and without reference to the wages per hour of the purchaser.

    So without some kind of connecting argument, it's irrelevant to anything I posted. That would be fine, if it hadn't been posted as a reply to something quoted from me. Since it was - what are you trying to claim, and why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Dude---you just don't get it.

    "1)Income taxes, for the upper classes, have gone down. Almost every other Federal tax paid by the lower classes has gone up." Why did you stipulate "upper class" and the same line as federal income? And you wonder why people don't understand you? But I guess I see what you might have meant to convey. I'm curious if you live in one of those high tax states. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/states...070000906.html

    The housing cost is easy to connect--if new homes are going down in actual monthly cost it applies to the lower and lower-middle class as well-certainly they weren't going for the the most expensive homes as their first. Mortgages payments, are also by a large margin the most expensive part of home ownership (about 90% for the 3 homes I've owned), and the chart shows they have been dramatically going down since 1980. (My own payment is now about the same as the older and smaller home with less land than the one I living in 25 years ago). If you bother to actually look further (or at any facts) you'll also find the percent of people with homes at all income classes has generally gone up as well.

    Your entire idea of the past three decades seems distorted by your ideology yet your continue to quibble about all the contrary factual data without putting up any of your own. It dishonors our parents who had things more difficult than they probably wanted us to realize as well but given the amount of information available today we know the actual burden they shouldered. Young adults and poor have always had it the hardest--but generally it's better now than it was 30 years ago.

    --

    But alas, shame on us, we're way off the OP and should be discussing the remarkable number of job opportunities in the US for those with the right education/experience--there's an abundance of critical shortages.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 16th, 2012 at 07:59 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Why did you stipulate "upper class" and the same line as federal income?
    Because that is secure knowledge. For the lower classes, there are problems with the inflation index and the calculation of income and so forth, which given the very small decrease (the line's pretty flat) are significant to the quality judgment.

    But it was granted anyway, in the argument, explicitly. So why not take it as granted?

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    -if new homes are going down in actually monthly cost it applies to the lower class as well
    It only applies to the lower class individuals who buy new homes at fixed and favorable interest rates with 3% down (presuming they are buying the "50% of median" houses labeled).

    That has little or nothing to do with a comparison between housing costs and hourly wages for this class of people. You have not addressed my posting, in other words. Yet you quote it - ?
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    You entire idea of the past three decades seems distorted by your ideology
    You have no clue in that matter - as would become immediately apparent if you attempted to argue that point from evidence, with an accurate base in my ideology and some kind of comprehension of my "idea of the last three decades", as well as a better handle on physical reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    It dishonors our parents who had things more difficult than they probably wanted us to realize as well.
    It dishonors reason and science to air offensive pretentions like that from your position as moderator here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Oh, by the way, Chad. Obama shipped jobs overseas with the 2009 stimulus plan.
    Obama Administration Outsourced Jobs with Stimulus Funding | CNSNews.com
    Ahem!
    GOP once backed outsourcing it now criticizes | WashingtonExaminer.com

    O
    h, by the way, I notice that the motto line for Harolds link is "THE RIGHT NEWS, RIGHT NOW". Can anyone say "Biased source"?

    I am not criticizing him for outsourcing, I am critcizing him for being a hypocrite. And, you are not disputing the facts of the article, only the source.
    If you will read the article I provided a link for you will discover that the original stimulus bill as written by Obama and the democrats contained a buy American clause.
    The bill that got passed had the buy American provision stripped from it by the republicans.
    Your article didn't mention that particular fact.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Oblameo had both houses of Congress for two years but still manages to blame Republicans for everything that happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    Oblameo had both houses of Congress for two years
    Never happened. That's two for two, this thread.

    Wingnut world is like Oz - you have to wear the special glasses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    Oblameo had both houses of Congress for two years
    Never happened. That's two for two, this thread.

    Wingnut world is like Oz - you have to wear the special glasses.
    111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government from January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011. It began during the last two weeks of the George W. Bush administration, with the remainder spanning the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    "Never happened. "
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    1) A majority of one Party does not control the Senate. That circumstance dominated the legislative history of those two years.
    2) Obama did not have control of the Blue Dogs, so simple nose counts of Democrats does not answer the question of "control" in the House either.
    3) Franken was not seated until after the critical 100 day period of accomplishment, depriving Obama of even a majority Dem vote in the Senate on several crucial matters.

    And so forth. These factors were flagrantly, comically, famously visible on the news, in the pop culture comedy routines, everywhere a politically engaged person looked. They were a big, obvious, significant deal. They have dominated US national politics for the entire Obama presidency so far. There is no sane way to have overlooked them.

    With the special wingnut glasses, anything - anything at all, even obliviousness to the sight of Republicans filibustering legislation they themselves had sponsored - can be arranged before the eyes, presented in the dress of life, made to gesture and move as if a real thing under the sun. Apparently. All one need do is curb the natural human embarrassment and shame normal people feel when caught behaving thusly.
    Last edited by iceaura; July 18th, 2012 at 02:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    1) A majority of one Party does not control the Senate. That circumstance dominated the legislative history of those two years.
    2) Obama did not have control of the Blue Dogs, so simple nose counts of Democrats does not answer the question of "control" in the House either.
    3) Franken was not seated until after the critical 100 day period of accomplishment, depriving Obama of even a majority Dem vote in the Senate on several crucial matters.
    Ice you are quibbling. So you're trying to say that Dem control wasn't real because of internal squabbling within the Dem party (your blue dog comment)....so what! You could use that excuse if dems were 100% of congress. The reality is the Dems controlled the legislative branch for 1 year and 9 months. Many of the most important agenda items were during that period; the dems should take responsibility for them, despite the overwhelming repudiation by the American people in the most devastating mid-term election since the 1930s.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Don't give me that crap. The democrats had a filibuster proof supermajority with Franken. That's a luxury hardly any president ever has.

    Now, I suppose with their minority in both houses, the Republicans were able to brutally force the Democrats to strip out the buy American clause, then ram through spending bills that outsourced jobs overseas. How crafty they must be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Ice you are quibbling. So you're trying to say that Dem control wasn't real because of internal squabbling within the Dem party (your blue dog comment)....so what! You could use that excuse if dems were 100% of congress.
    1) No, I'm not. Your usual difficulty with comprehension 2) The distinction between Dem control and Obama control is apparently beyond you, but it's very real - the Blue Dogs opposed Obama frequently, and joined the Reps on many issues 3) The Senate was controlled, or at least incapacitated, by Republican filibuster, for the entire time.

    When someone claims that Obama "had both houses of Congress" for two years, the fact that he didn't is not a quibble. The fact that said fact was not only obvious but explicitly dominating the news for those two years is not a minor point, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Many of the most important agenda items were during that period; the dems should take responsibility for them
    The Dems should take responsibility for what they did as a body, individual Dems should take responsibility for what they did as individuals; these things would be determined by people who paid attention to the actual events and doings, of course, not somebody who thought the President "had both chambers of Congress";

    and so should the Republicans, a body who can be accurately referred to as "the Republicans", who spent those two years in vandalism of the US government, betrayal of their country, and impoverishment (including unemployment) of their constituencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    Don't give me that crap. The democrats had a filibuster proof supermajority with Franken.
    Three for three.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    For many reasons, I have been trying to be an American, rather than a person on the left. I used to think people on the right were crazy, but I have learned people on the left can be even more nuts.

    My take on this conversation is this. If you are a grounded Republican or Democrat, you are living as a fool.

    It now cost around $1 billion dollars, to be able to run for president. That $1 billion dollars. And I tell you both parties, have granted huge favors for that money.
    In fact its beyond favors, today the people that give our politicians that money, literally write all of our laws.
    The lawyers from large corporations, write all of Americas federal laws. Thats what the money has done.

    I know Harold will continue to attack democrats, and I know I will continue to attack republicans. But I have recently learned that both sides, have valid points.
    I recently learned those on the right, have part of the ideas, that make a country run well.

    Dont worry Harold and Lynx_Fox, I plan to someday attack your political side again.

    But for a while I will sit here and realize, that during all of my attacks of Americas right. I forgot about the root cause of Americans problems. And I did not realize that the political right is a needed part of human politics.

    I just forgot that some one gave Obama $1 billion dollars as well.
    And both sides should know, very rarely does a group of money making businesses, give out $1 billion dollars for nothing.




    (I feel guilty/bad about the way I lectured in this post, sorry.)
    Last edited by chad; July 18th, 2012 at 06:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by chad
    I know Harold will continue to attack democrats, and I know I will continue to attack republicans. But I have recently learned that both sides, have valid points.
    What valid points do the current crop of Republicans have? Not "the Right" in theory, not some theoretical situation in which two comprehensive and informed ideologies approach a given topic, but the actual Republican politicians we in fact have before us talking: what valid points do they have?

    I don't know of a single one, in twenty five years. They've been completely full of shit, worthless as politicians and as people, since Reagan, since Gingrich purged the Party.

    On topic, for example: they have no proposals for government response to the unemployment from the Crash of '08. Their only political, economic, social, or ecological response to anything is tax cuts for rich people.

    This, for example, is irrelevant:
    But for a while I will sit here and realize, that during all of my attacks of Americas right. I forgot about the root cause of Americans problems. And I did not realize that the political right is a needed part of human politics.
    We have plenty of representation of the political Right among the Dems and Inds. The question I'm asking, in view of your apparent muddle about "both sides", is not whether we need the political Right, but whether we need the current Republican politicians.

    Remember that there is no equivalency here, that the argument is against "both sides" type reasoning: if the Reps are as I observe completely worthless and damaging, that does not make the Dems or the Greens or the Inds or anybody wonderful and without flaw.

    It's not a matter of automatic equivalency. This, for example:
    I just forgot that some one gave Obama $1 billion dollars as well.
    And both sides should know, very rarely does a group of money making businesses, give out $1 billion dollars for nothing.
    You also forgot who created that situation - who worked to defeat the Fairness Doctrine, so money was everything in media time; who appointed the ideology driven judges who ruled so bizarrely in the Citizen's United case; who worked hard to make big money from rich people a central factor in every political race.

    It's not that Obama taking a billion dollars has incurred no obligations, gotten his hands dirty - of course he has. It's that he is not nearly as responsible for this miserable situation of universal bribery as the Republicans in general or Mitt Romney in particular. He doesn't represent the bad stuff. He'd be better off without it - kick the bribe money out of politics and he'd have no serious opponents outside his own Party. That's a different political position. It's not a case of "both sides" doin' it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad
    I know Harold will continue to attack democrats, and I know I will continue to attack republicans. But I have recently learned that both sides, have valid points.
    What valid points do the current crop of Republicans have? Not "the Right" in theory, not some theoretical situation in which two comprehensive and informed ideologies approach a given topic, but the actual Republican politicians we in fact have before us talking: what valid points do they have?

    I don't know of a single one, in twenty five years. They've been completely full of shit, worthless as politicians and as people, since Reagan, since Gingrich purged the Party.

    On topic, for example: they have no proposals for government response to the unemployment from the Crash of '08. Their only political, economic, social, or ecological response to anything is tax cuts for rich people.

    This, for example, is irrelevant:
    But for a while I will sit here and realize, that during all of my attacks of Americas right. I forgot about the root cause of Americans problems. And I did not realize that the political right is a needed part of human politics.
    We have plenty of representation of the political Right among the Dems and Inds. The question I'm asking, in view of your apparent muddle about "both sides", is not whether we need the political Right, but whether we need the current Republican politicians.

    Remember that there is no equivalency here, that the argument is against "both sides" type reasoning: if the Reps are as I observe completely worthless and damaging, that does not make the Dems or the Greens or the Inds or anybody wonderful and without flaw.

    It's not a matter of automatic equivalency. This, for example:
    I just forgot that some one gave Obama $1 billion dollars as well.
    And both sides should know, very rarely does a group of money making businesses, give out $1 billion dollars for nothing.
    You also forgot who created that situation - who worked to defeat the Fairness Doctrine, so money was everything in media time; who appointed the ideology driven judges who ruled so bizarrely in the Citizen's United case; who worked hard to make big money from rich people a central factor in every political race.

    It's not that Obama taking a billion dollars has incurred no obligations, gotten his hands dirty - of course he has. It's that he is not nearly as responsible for this miserable situation of universal bribery as the Republicans in general or Mitt Romney in particular. He doesn't represent the bad stuff. He'd be better off without it - kick the bribe money out of politics and he'd have no serious opponents outside his own Party. That's a different political position. It's not a case of "both sides" doin' it.


    You are correct, it is the "political right" that has needed ideas, not US republicans. But still US republicans, do talk about (some) of those needed ideas.

    But if Reagan and G W Bush never got elected, our national debt would be bellow 50% of our GDP. This country would have trillions of dollars to borrow, to pay for senior care and needed social programs. But because of Reagan and Bush our national debt is 100% of our GDP. The only thing gained by America, in Reagan's and Bush's $12? trillion dollar borrowing mechanism, was a huge increase in the earnings of Americas richest citizens, and a whole bunch of new US factories in China.

    In your opinion, how is it possible that anyone, besides a greedy CEO or greedy billionaire, could even vote republican?
    Last edited by chad; July 21st, 2012 at 04:22 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad
    I know Harold will continue to attack democrats, and I know I will continue to attack republicans. But I have recently learned that both sides, have valid points.
    What valid points do the current crop of Republicans have? Not "the Right" in theory, not some theoretical situation in which two comprehensive and informed ideologies approach a given topic, but the actual Republican politicians we in fact have before us talking: what valid points do they have?

    I don't know of a single one, in twenty five years. They've been completely full of shit, worthless as politicians and as people, since Reagan, since Gingrich purged the Party.

    On topic, for example: they have no proposals for government response to the unemployment from the Crash of '08. Their only political, economic, social, or ecological response to anything is tax cuts for rich people.

    This, for example, is irrelevant:
    But for a while I will sit here and realize, that during all of my attacks of Americas right. I forgot about the root cause of Americans problems. And I did not realize that the political right is a needed part of human politics.
    We have plenty of representation of the political Right among the Dems and Inds. The question I'm asking, in view of your apparent muddle about "both sides", is not whether we need the political Right, but whether we need the current Republican politicians.

    Remember that there is no equivalency here, that the argument is against "both sides" type reasoning: if the Reps are as I observe completely worthless and damaging, that does not make the Dems or the Greens or the Inds or anybody wonderful and without flaw.

    It's not a matter of automatic equivalency. This, for example:
    I just forgot that some one gave Obama $1 billion dollars as well.
    And both sides should know, very rarely does a group of money making businesses, give out $1 billion dollars for nothing.
    You also forgot who created that situation - who worked to defeat the Fairness Doctrine, so money was everything in media time; who appointed the ideology driven judges who ruled so bizarrely in the Citizen's United case; who worked hard to make big money from rich people a central factor in every political race.

    It's not that Obama taking a billion dollars has incurred no obligations, gotten his hands dirty - of course he has. It's that he is not nearly as responsible for this miserable situation of universal bribery as the Republicans in general or Mitt Romney in particular. He doesn't represent the bad stuff. He'd be better off without it - kick the bribe money out of politics and he'd have no serious opponents outside his own Party. That's a different political position. It's not a case of "both sides" doin' it.
    During my last post, I had some one yelling at me, and my mind wondered. Perhaps this reply will be on subject.



    G (H) W Bush was a hell of a man. He called the supply side formula, voodoo economics. And he raised taxes to increase government revenues. He did not live to give rich people tax cuts. He knew what was going on, and cared. The man was also a true warrior, who prayed for, and deeply cared about American troops. He is one of my favorite presidents.

    But Reagan and GW Bush, were two corporate controlled puppets. I heard when Reagan and his corporate pals, first went into the White House, they busted up, and destroyed Jimmy Carters solar power system, and then they were yelling and laughing saying, "were gonna leave every light on in the White House forever." And then they stopped research money for solar and wind power, and eliminated tax breaks for their use. The amount of corporate favors done by Reagan and GW Bush is mind blowing.

    But look at G (H) W Bush, its not the republicans, its the corporate puppets. But I realize republicans like G (H) W Bush, are no longer heard from.



    And Bill Clinton "Mr. Surplus" himself, was doing favors for his campaign givers. And Obama said "he would not appoint any lobbyist to his White House", but then he appointed several. The same group of corporations that controlled Reagan and Bush, gave Obama $1 billion dollars. And I am damn scared, that puppet (democrats) like Reagan and W Bush will soon be getting the corporate money.

    You know Reagan, and you know G W Bush. They become friends with the lobbyists, and they did what they had to do to get power. But the crazy thing is, they think they are doing the right thing.
    What happens if/when they get their hooks in democrat politicians?

    You said I forgot who created the situation. Maybe for a few seconds I did, but I know.

    But I think you forgot what created this situation, because it was not G (H) W Bush, it was corporate puppets like Reagan and (W) Bush.



    I agree with everything you say, and in a few days, I will again be thinking just like you.

    But tonight I am thinking this, if America had a money election system like Canada, Germany, England, France or any other industrialized country. Then corporate puppets like Reagan and G W Bush would not even be around.

    Its the money.
    Last edited by chad; July 21st, 2012 at 06:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by city_green78 View Post
    Hello,

    I am from Europe and I want to know how is the situation for employments in US. If people are currently looking for a job and if there is plenty of job in USA actually in industry, services, economy, etc... We have not a point of view for the employent situation in Europe for US.

    Thank you by advance very much for your answer and clarification helps,

    City_green
    America is a tale of many different types of economies.. However, and to keep it simple, working for someone else is in decline while government subsidized illegal work, as well as self employment, is on the rise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    More power to them. They will probably make better use of the money than the government would.
    Lynx_Fox and gonzales56 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    More power to them. They will probably make better use of the money than the government would.
    They surely will... I do love America!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    government subsidized illegal work, as well as self employment, is on the rise.
    - - - - - -
    More power to them. They will probably make better use of the money than the government would.
    You can't parody that.

    The bar keeps getting higher, and they clear it every time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Which countries fared best employment-wise in the recession?
    By icewendigo in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 12th, 2010, 11:21 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •