Bush's Pro-growth economy - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Zamunda · 01-21-2004, 09:57 AM

In his address last night our illustrius president made sweeping remarks about his administration's pro-growth economy... which has lost 2.5 million jobs. Maybe no one was listening to the numbers he quoted when they applauded (like a letter from a two year old) but he said his now job initiaitive has opened up 1000 new jobs... less than 1% of the 120,000 promised. While it is true that his tax cuts have begun refueling the economy.. allowing we citizens to drive it forward (in an SUV), many lower income citizens are still suffering and haven't really been helped at all by his reforms. Perhaps its just me, but I don't think Bush's economic strategy deserves such high prasie.

onetime2 · 01-21-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zamunda
In his address last night our illustrius president made sweeping remarks about his administration's pro-growth economy... which has lost 2.5 million jobs. Maybe no one was listening to the numbers he quoted when they applauded (like a letter from a two year old) but he said his now job initiaitive has opened up 1000 new jobs... less than 1% of the 120,000 promised. While it is true that his tax cuts have begun refueling the economy.. allowing we citizens to drive it forward (in an SUV), many lower income citizens are still suffering and haven't really been helped at all by his reforms. Perhaps its just me, but I don't think Bush's economic strategy deserves such high prasie.

Jobs are only one small piece of the economic puzzle. Productivity has been growing substantially over the last decade. Increases in productivity mean fewer people required to do the same job/meet the same production demands than in previous years. Low interest rates, low inflation, strong GDP growth, high home values, strong consumer confidence, strong consumer spending, and a healthy stock market are obviously signs of a very healthy economy.

Astrocloud · 01-21-2004, 10:25 AM

Yes, there's nothing wrong with the American economy because American employers don't have to hire Americans. Think about the Savings!

Quote:

Guess which jobs are going abroad

These days it's not just a desire to cut costs that's pushing employers to hire overseas.
January 5, 2004: 11:13 AM EST
By Leslie Haggin Geary, CNN/Money staff writer

New York (CNN/Money) - If a tax preparer gets you an unexpected refund this year, you may have an accountant in India to thank.

That's because accounting firms are joining the outsourcing trend established years ago by cost-conscious American manufacturers.

In fact, companies in a number of unexpected industries are now sending work overseas. From scientific lab analysis to medical billing, the service-sector workforce has gone global.

CPA firms are just one example. In the 2002 tax year, accounting firms sent some 25,000 tax returns to be completed by accountants in India. This year, that number is expected to quadruple.

The reason lies in the numbers; accountants in the United States typically earn $4,000 a month. In places like India it's closer to $400, says David Wyle, CEO and founder of SurePrep, a tax-outsourcing firm based in southern California that's employed more than 200 accountants in Bombay and Ahmedabad, India.

"We've estimated firms will save between $40,000 to $50,000 for every 100 returns that are outsourced," adds Wyle, whose firm expects to do 35,000 returns in the coming year. That's up from 7,000 last year.

Xiptax, of Braintree, Mass., is another tax firm that's moved much work overseas for "a whole number of reasons," besides money, says CEO Mark Albrecht.

"Most CPAs do between 45 to 50 percent of their work in two months out of the year. It makes for an extremely stressful time," says Albrecht, who adds that accounting firms must then "strain" to find qualified staffers to help fill in during the crunch.

By hiring full-time staff in India, CPA firms like SurePrep and Xiptax don't have to worry about finding staff here.

Instead, they simply send tax information to a permanent team of qualified accountants in India. American accountants then review the returns before signing off on them.

"The real important part of returns isn't taking a number off a W-2 form and putting it in Box No. 1," notes Albrecht. "The real value is what's retained within the CPA firm -- the tax planning and the review."

Fighting cancer from afar
Cancer patients who seek treatment may soon find that when their tests are "sent to the lab" their medical work is scrutinized by pathologists who aren't just down the hall, but who are in a different country.
Since the mid-1980s, pathologists have been using robotic microscopes from offsite locations to peer at biopsy samples. But now, pathologists are using the newest generation of technology to enhance "telemedicine" opportunities.

Specifically, pathologists are accessing computer servers to look at digital images of lab slides, says Ronald Weinstein, director of the Arizona telemedicine project at University of Arizona College of Medicine.

The benefit isn't cost-cutting or accelerating how fast jobs are done, says Weinstein, but the power it has to bring the best and brightest medical minds together.

"Telemedicine will enable international group practices to form," he says. "You'll have a conference where three world experts can look at the slide at the same time."

To test potential uses for offshoring medicine, Weinstein's group at University of Arizona has teamed with the University of Panama School of Medicine in Panama City to work together on cancer cases.

"We're looking to have pathologists in different time zones to speed up the rate at which patients pass through clinics," he says. "Currently we're limited by time zones, not just by access to people but to a full range of expertise."

Data entry in New Delhi
Pathology isn't the only area in medicine that's looking abroad. Increasingly, medical billing is being done by clerical staff in India, too.

That's the case at Alpha Thought International, a Chicago-based medical billing firm that has workers both in the U.S. and opened a billing office two years ago in New Delhi where staff do data entry work needed to process insurance and other medical billing claims.

"The reason that came about is because it's difficult to find workers in different parts of the country who want to do data entry," says Alpha Thought COO Dave Jakielo. When staffers in the United States quit, the company replaces them with India-based workers.

Alpha Thought cuts costs by 25 percent, because Indian workers are paid less than the average $10 an hour an American makes. The company also taps into a better-educated workforce.

"To work in an office over there you must have a college degree," says Jakielo. "The office workers we hire here are usually high school graduates."

Even so, even offshoring has its limits.

Jakielo envisions a day when medical billing will be totally automated. When that happens, even workers in New Delhi will have to find another gig.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/30/pf/o...ejob/index.htm

But don't worry America. I hear McDonalds will put you through Burger University!

Superbelt · 01-21-2004, 10:40 AM

Productivity is going up. The reasons are americans aren't using their vacation and sick time as they did in previous years. It's probrably because they are afraid of getting shit-canned in this economy if they do take time off.

nanofever · 01-21-2004, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Jobs are only one small piece of the economic puzzle. Productivity has been growing substantially over the last decade. Increases in productivity mean fewer people required to do the same job/meet the same production demands than in previous years. Low interest rates, low inflation, strong GDP growth, high home values, strong consumer confidence, strong consumer spending, and a healthy stock market are obviously signs of a very healthy economy.

Unless you are poor and unemployed, then you take it in the pants even harder by comparison.

apechild · 01-21-2004, 10:45 AM

There will always be some people somewhere who don't have a job.

There will always be some people somewhere who blame the President for their inability to find work.

So it goes.

Moving along then...

nanofever · 01-21-2004, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apechild
There will always be some people somewhere who don't have a job.

There will always be some people somewhere who blame the President for their inability to find work.

So it goes.

Moving along then...

And by extension, there will always be some people somewhere who have a job. There will always be some people somewhere who credit the President for their ability to find work.

So it goes.

Moving along then...

apechild · 01-21-2004, 11:05 AM

It is folly to presume that Presidential policy is the only variable in the labor markets.

It is, in fact, quite a foolish notion.

The current employment situation is largely the result of broad-based productivity gains (which benefit all of us - including the unemployed), and the recession that began in the fall of 2000.

Fiscal and monetary stimulus (i.e. tax cuts and Fed Funds rate cuts) have helped the economy emerge from recession, and job growth has indeed picked up (an increase of 278,000 in payrolls in the past five months, and a decrease in unemployment from 6.3% to 5.7% since June), but I wouldn't give the President (or the Congress) much credit for that either.

onetime2 · 01-21-2004, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
Unless you are poor and unemployed, then you take it in the pants even harder by comparison.

Everyone benefits from lower or non-inflationary prices due to increased productivity.

FoolThemAll · 01-21-2004, 11:28 AM

January 2001

The civilian labor force, 142.0 million, grew by 466,000 and the labor force participation rate rose to 67.3 percent.

December 2003

The civilian labor force fell by 309,000 in December to 146.9 million; the labor force participation rate decreased over the month to 66.0 percent.

That's a wierd way to lose jobs.

The unemployment rate, of course, is a different matter, but it's not bad by any stretch either.

Zamunda · 01-21-2004, 12:31 PM

If anyone might recall a few months ago when the democrats filibustered some judge nominations, the senate held a 30 hour debate. There was one classic moment in this debate which I think illustrates my point: A democrat from Nevada, John something, took the floor and asked why they were spending so much time debating a few people who made well over five hundred grand a year when there were many Americans in need of help, many of whom had lost their jobs under the Bush administration. He went on to present, by way of visual aid, what the president had done for these people in the last three years... A large blank piece of cardboard... oh and one more large blank piece of cardboard. There is a point somewhere here, and while in this situation he used it to criticize the republicans for making such a big deal over nominating some very uncompromising judges, it still remains that perhaps some thought should be given to the people losing jobs. Of course there are always people unemployed, and some who really don't want to be, but those that lose their jobs and can't find additional work should be helped. While the Bush administration has been pumping up the economy to get it back on track, assuming that eventually jobs would follow and everything would be fine, in the meantime three years without a job is a long time to wait.

nanofever · 01-21-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zamunda
If anyone might recall a few months ago when the democrats filibustered some judge nominations, the senate held a 30 hour debate. There was one classic moment in this debate which I think illustrates my point: A democrat from Nevada, John something, took the floor and asked why they were spending so much time debating a few people who made well over five hundred grand a year when there were many Americans in need of help, many of whom had lost their jobs under the Bush administration. He went on to present, by way of visual aid, what the president had done for these people in the last three years... A large blank piece of cardboard... oh and one more large blank piece of cardboard. There is a point somewhere here, and while in this situation he used it to criticize the republicans for making such a big deal over nominating some very uncompromising judges, it still remains that perhaps some thought should be given to the people losing jobs. Of course there are always people unemployed, and some who really don't want to be, but those that lose their jobs and can't find additional work should be helped. While the Bush administration has been pumping up the economy to get it back on track, assuming that eventually jobs would follow and everything would be fine, in the meantime three years without a job is a long time to wait.

The blank piece of cardboard is funny... I really have to use that some time in my life.

filtherton · 01-21-2004, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Everyone benefits from lower or non-inflationary prices due to increased productivity.

I know. I'm currently benefitting from yet another year of tuition increases. The price of gas is up. Rent? Up.

My question is: At what point to productivity increases start to become a bad thing for the average american? Is it possible for the u.s. to become so productive that we only need half of the workforce? What does the other half do? I know it seems like a stretch, but at what point is employment more important than productivity?

Zamunda · 01-21-2004, 08:13 PM

speaking of tuition expensives... if bush wants to educate the workforce or low wages... max college tax deductible already

nanofever · 01-21-2004, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
I know. I'm currently benefitting from yet another year of tuition increases. The price of gas is up. Rent? Up.

My question is: At what point to productivity increases start to become a bad thing for the average american? Is it possible for the u.s. to become so productive that we only need half of the workforce? What does the other half do? I know it seems like a stretch, but at what point is employment more important than productivity?

Yeah tuition is going to burn a lot next year, if I get excepted into the PUBLIC college of my choice it is going to run me 20K, up 30% from last year. That 20K isn't for a posh dorm either that is the three person no-space dorm.

cheerios · 01-21-2004, 09:29 PM

private school, and i know that makes a difference, but I'm dropping 23,000 a year, WITHOUT room and board and books. thank god this is the last year. My friend (who's father happens to be a retired heart surgeon) said to me today that his parents had told him "You don't need the financial aide... leave it there for those who do." But even so, there's just not enough. My family is right on the edge, and I can tell you right now that school will put me in a mountain of debt i can only pray I will be able to find a job and pay off. I got federally funded financial aide for exactly 1 semester of my 8 semester stint in college. I've needed it the whole time. Debt consolidation, here i come... Wonder if GWB will give me tax credits for educating myself for a job that's being outsourced to India more often every day...

Ustwo · 01-21-2004, 09:38 PM

Well boys and girls, the armed forces is looking for a few good men and women. They pay tuition and give you a living stipend.

Or you could whine no one is handing you an education for free.

I'm still paying off my loans, now its your turn, one way or another.

filtherton · 01-21-2004, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Well boys and girls, the armed forces is looking for a few good men and women. They pay tuition and give you a living stipend.

Or you could whine no one is handing you an education for free.

I'm still paying off my loans, now its your turn, one way or another.

I could join the armed forces, but i currently don't feel like suffering life changing chronic injuries from depleted uranium or dying in wars i don't believe in all while my veteran's benefits are being cut. That's just me. To each their own.

How much did you pay for college? What is the proportion of what you paid compared to what i would pay if i matched your degrees? How much has tuition increased over the inflation rate? Was your tuition less because your school got more tax-dollars than they do nowadays? Did you get better financial aid because there was more to be gotten?

I wasn't whining, i was pointing out that perhaps an overall increase in worker productivity means exactly shit to me as far as what i have to spend money on. In fact, maybe the more productive the american/indian worker is the less of a chance i'll be able to get a job in my field.
I plan on paying for my education, i'll probably be paying for it for a long time. That is, if my job isn't exported to india by the time i graduate. Honetsly, i think that exporting jobs will make good economic advice until they start hiring indian economists instead of american ones.

nanofever · 01-21-2004, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Well boys and girls, the armed forces is looking for a few good men and women. They pay tuition and give you a living stipend.

Or you could whine no one is handing you an education for free.

I'm still paying off my loans, now its your turn, one way or another.

My education won't do me much good if I die in some Iraqi desert, and since people in a lot of countries get FREE college educations it isn't whining.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-21-2004, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
My education won't do me much good if I die in some Iraqi desert, and since people in a lot of countries get FREE college educations it isn't whining.

Aforementioned countires also pay 60-80% income taxes and education is alot mroe cheap.

nanofever · 01-21-2004, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Aforementioned countires also pay 60-80% income taxes and education is alot mroe cheap.

Its closer to 35-50 and they get free health care, lots of benefits, more sick time, tons of social welfare, ect. I would much rather pay higher taxes and recieve these then pay lower taxes and not.

cheerios · 01-21-2004, 11:11 PM

I, honestly, would fare quite badly in the military. I'm just not the right kind of person to do it. props for those who do. I'm not one of them. there's no shame in that. but filtherton has a good point here:

Quote:

How much did you pay for college? What is the proportion of what you paid compared to what i would pay if i matched your degrees? How much has tuition increased over the inflation rate? Was your tuition less because your school got more tax-dollars than they do nowadays? Did you get better financial aid because there was more to be gotten?

education costs have been skyrocketing with no way for us to make up the difference. And it's MUCH more expensive, even relatively, to attend college these days.

Sparhawk · 01-22-2004, 01:31 AM

Do those spouting on about productivity gains adversely affecting job growth actually have some data to back up their conclusions? I don't doubt that we've had productivity gains in the last 2 years, I also know that we've had them in every single economic recovery since the New Deal - but somehow those recoveries also had a corresponding increase in job growth. It isn't an either/or proposition - except perhaps today in this recovery, which isn't really a recovery for labor, the correct definition would be a recovery of capital.

onetime2 · 01-22-2004, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Do those spouting on about productivity gains adversely affecting job growth actually have some data to back up their conclusions? I don't doubt that we've had productivity gains in the last 2 years, I also know that we've had them in every single economic recovery since the New Deal - but somehow those recoveries also had a corresponding increase in job growth. It isn't an either/or proposition - except perhaps today in this recovery, which isn't really a recovery for labor, the correct definition would be a recovery of capital.

Post recession productivity growth happens all the time. They just don't typically happen to this extent or for this long. Since 1992 we are almost 30% more productive per hour of output.

Here's a chart I made showing productivity (non-farm output per hour) gains in the 8 quarters after each recession since 1947. Data sources are the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics.

onetime2 · 01-22-2004, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
I know. I'm currently benefitting from yet another year of tuition increases. The price of gas is up. Rent? Up.

My question is: At what point to productivity increases start to become a bad thing for the average american? Is it possible for the u.s. to become so productive that we only need half of the workforce? What does the other half do? I know it seems like a stretch, but at what point is employment more important than productivity?

Tuition increases are an entirely different matter. I don't know of a single person who didn't see tuition increases while in college in the US.

The second part is an interesting question and would take quite a bit of study to fully answer. A phd dissertation could easily be made of it.

A couple of reasons why productivity increases are unlikely to permanently decrease labor needs:

1.Productivity varies widely across industries, so it will be quite a while before productivity could be increased enough across the board to affect a permanent shift in employment.

2. New industries crop up constantly. How many people were employed in the computer industry 20 years ago? The internet 10 years ago? The car industry a 100 years ago? So long as new industries continue to crop up, it's unlikely that productivity gains can outstrip demand for labor over the long term.

apechild · 01-22-2004, 06:51 AM

This is getting absurd.

"waahhhhh, I want government to give me a free education"
"waaaahhh, I want government to get me a job"
"waaahhhh, I want government to give me healthcare"

Sheesh. Try standing on your own two feet. It's surprisingly liberating.

By the way, regarding unemployment, simply put, some people deserve to be fired.

And now for a much needed rant.

[Rant]
Those who expect to find gainful employment by looking to their elected officials to conjure up jobs for them are unemployed for a reason - they're morons. Any other half-wit who thinks that changes in the labor market are the direct product of Presidential policy hasn't got the mental capacity to bag groceries. I see help wanted signs in windows up and down Main Street. I see help wanted ads in newspapers all over the country. Of course, you have to be literate to know what they say or whom to ask for when you call, but that doesn't mean they're not out there. And if you can't convince that pimply-faced, lazy eyed night shift manager at McDonalds with his GED certificate taped to the wall above the fry-o-lator to hire you, then you're useless. You don't deserve to get paid because there's nothing you can do that's actually worth more than the effort required to supervise your sorry ass. The labor markets are a function of supply and demand, but that doesn't mean you can just demand a job and receive one. Nor does it mean there will ever be demand for idiots like you. What it does mean is that employers will hire and pay workers according to their need, and workers will receive salaries according to the value of their labor. The President is as much to blame for your utter uselessness as you are to blame for his success. Now run along and find someone else to blame before reality catches up to you. Better yet, go home and practice bagging.
[/Rant]

Thank you. I feel much better now.

lurkette · 01-22-2004, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apechild
Thank you. I feel much better now.

And we're all very impressed by your cleverness. You do clever very well. Now see if you can do compassionate.

I don't think most people expect the government to give them a job. The fact of the matter is that there are enough resources and enough demand for labor in this country for every person to have a job, if those resources are managed correctly. What I hear people saying is that government policy is being misapplied such that it's creating a level of unemployment that is unnecessarily high. We're also talking about underemployment, where people are not able to find jobs that match their skills and abilities. True, they're still getting a paycheck, but they may be earning too much at McDonalds to qualify for some government assistance programs that could help them make ends meet till they find something more in line with their usefulness.

You're absolutely right, there is a population of people that is simply unemployable, for reasons of disability or mental illness or whatever.

However, just anecdotally, I live in an area where high-tech industry got hit very hard, and I know PhD's who looked for work for 6-12 months and were getting beat out for jobs at WalMart and McDonalds because they were overqualified and the managers knew they'd bolt as soon as they found a 'real' job. True, they could search nationwide for jobs, and that's fine if you're single or if your spouse can find a job where you're looking, but it's not great for the stability of families or communities to have to pick up and relocate every time there's a hiccup in the unemployment rate.

I just think your rant is a little off base with reality - there's this myth of the whiny unemployed. Most people I know who have been unemployed have tried their damnedest to get back to work. Most people don't want handouts, they want to support themselves and their families, and will do whatever they can to do that. Before you go spouting off again (and, might I add, sneaking right up to the line with your vitriolic little rant) you might try talking to some actually unemployed people about what they think is owed to them.

apechild · 01-22-2004, 08:05 AM

People go through hard times. Some of the best of us are, at times, smitten a hard blow. Believe it or not, I do have compassion for them.

Lurkette, you do a wonderful job providing us with examples of some of the hardships some Americans currently face.

The question is, will you simply blame the President for their hardship, or will you rise above this petty criticism and offer a solution?

What, in your opinion, should President Bush do?

lurkette · 01-22-2004, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apechild
The question is, will you simply blame the President for their hardship, or will you rise above this petty criticism and offer a solution?

What, in your opinion, should President Bush do?

I'm of the school that the President actually has relatively little power to influence the economy one way or another, at least in the short term. He can set the tone, and set the agenda, but without the complicity/support of Congress and the Fed, he's just a figurehead. I'm less concerned about what President Bush is doing to influence job creation right now than I am about the ginormous deficit he's running up - that's gonna hurt in a while, and if you think the economy is twitchy now, wait 15 years.

If there was anything to be done about the job market now, legislatively, I would say adopt stricter laws about exporting jobs overseas or allowing guest workers. And the problem is not entirely in the manufacturing sector - it's becoming more and more a problem of the mid-level white-collar sector as well. I would also extend unemployment benefits even further, and raise the income limits on temporary benefits like food stamps, travel vouchers, child care, etc. so people can work the shit jobs that are available and still support their families. In a lot of cases, it's simply not worth it to work because you lose benefits that you would otherwise be unable to afford.

apechild · 01-22-2004, 08:32 AM

Awesome post, lurkette. Very thoughtful

lurkette · 01-22-2004, 09:07 AM

Incidentally, apechild, I'm not saying you're wrong that there are some people who think the government owes them a living. I just think that they're by far the minority. The frustration with the current administration seems to stem from the fact that they're paying a lot of lip service to helping the working class, while doing everything they can to hand out tax cuts to those who need them least, trying to gut government regulation of industry, and running up a deficit that's going to entirely preclude any government-funded safety net services in the future. Whether these measures will actually help the working class is, unfortunately, an empirical question being carried out in the laboratory of most people's everyday lives. Maybe they're right, I don't know. But I think we're dealing with the immanent death of the middle class as we've known it, and a lot of people are blaming the victim for not having enough initiative to overcome the growing hurdles to self-sufficiency that the government, from top to bottom, doesn't currently seem interested in knocking down.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
I would also extend unemployment benefits even further,

While I agree with some of what you say, MORE unemployment benefits is not a good solution. I can't tell you how many fake interviews we had when we were looking for 2 new employees last fall so that people could show they were 'looking for work'. It got so bad we were worried about filling the positions and ended up over paying both of them (at least they were real).

The black family was destroyed by the good intentions of people. Its time we learn the lesson that paying people not to work is counter productive for everyone based on human nature.

apechild · 01-22-2004, 09:14 AM

Hold on. The tax cuts resulted in the middle and lower class paying an even lower proportion of taxes that they did previously. In other words, they received a disproportionately large tax cut, which helped them much more than it helped the rich.

Besides, since when has it been the job of the federal government to redistribute wealth? Do you want the IRS taking money from the most productive and handing it out to the least productive?

If we take away, or even reduce the incentive to work and succeed, what do you think will happen to the economy then?

Sparhawk · 01-22-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apechild
Hold on. The tax cuts resulted in the middle and lower class paying an even lower proportion of taxes that they did previously. In other words, they received a disproportionately large tax cut, which helped them much more than it helped the rich.

Besides, since when has it been the job of the federal government to redistribute wealth? Do you want the IRS taking money from the most productive and handing it out to the least productive?

If we take away, or even reduce the incentive to work and succeed, what do you think will happen to the economy then?

Clinton's tax increase on the richest one percent in '93 notwithstanding?

Zamunda · 01-22-2004, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
I'm less concerned about what President Bush is doing to influence job creation right now than I am about the ginormous deficit he's running up - that's gonna hurt in a while, and if you think the economy is twitchy now, wait 15 years.

Could not agree more, whats sad is that we're going to end up paying for it hard in the long run, or at least the younger generation will. Doesn't anybody realize this?
Utswo: I didn't quite follow your comment about the black family:

"The black family was destroyed by the good intentions of people. Its time we learn the lesson that paying people not to work is counter productive for everyone based on human nature."

could you explain it?

lurkette · 01-22-2004, 10:47 AM

Oy. Might as well paint "liberal" on my forehead and run through an NRA meeting, but here goes...

Quote:

Originally posted by apechild
Hold on. The tax cuts resulted in the middle and lower class paying an even lower proportion of taxes that they did previously. In other words, they received a disproportionately large tax cut, which helped them much more than it helped the rich.

When we're dealing with the scale of inequality that we're dealing with in this country, looking at proportions and "fairness" is a misleadingly simple way of looking at a complex system that tends to reward those at the top disproportionately more than those at the bottom.

Quote:

Besides, since when has it been the job of the federal government to redistribute wealth? Do you want the IRS taking money from the most productive and handing it out to the least productive?

No, I want the government to level the playing field and meet the basic needs of all of its citizens before allowing the fabulously wealthy who reached that level of wealth through inheritance, dishonest/unethical behavior *koff* Ken Lay *koff*, gaming the system (who do you think gets first crack at good-looking IPOs?), or just pure luck to prosper even more. I'm sure there are a lot of economic arguments I'm not privy to that would support this kind of inequality, but I know there are some that say such inequality is bad for the society as a whole, and just ethically it seems wrong.

Quote:

If we take away, or even reduce the incentive to work and succeed, what do you think will happen to the economy then?

We'll look more like Scandinavia? People would stop buying shit they don't need? What?

Quote:

Originally posted by UstwoWhile I agree with some of what you say, MORE unemployment benefits is not a good solution

I don't know - I think the people who would have abused the system in the first place would abuse it anyhow, regardless of the increased benefit, and increasing/extending the benefits might actually help those who were genuinely trying to get back to work. It's not as though you could live for any extended period of time on unemployment benefits anyhow, but it might make the difference between solvency and bankruptcy for people who really just need a little more time to find a good job. I just don't think that increasing benefits is that much more incentive for abuse than what's currently in place.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette

I don't know - I think the people who would have abused the system in the first place would abuse it anyhow, regardless of the increased benefit, and increasing/extending the benefits might actually help those who were genuinely trying to get back to work. It's not as though you could live for any extended period of time on unemployment benefits anyhow, but it might make the difference between solvency and bankruptcy for people who really just need a little more time to find a good job. I just don't think that increasing benefits is that much more incentive for abuse than what's currently in place.

How long do the benifits last now?

There comes a time you gotta tell someone to get off their ass and get a job. I've personally worked every kind of job from cleaning horse stalls to surgery, and I'm sick of people being lazy asses and expecting others to pay for it. There are plenty of jobs out there, and maybe they are not your #1 choise, but so what?

Astrocloud · 01-22-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
How long do the benifits last now?

There comes a time you gotta tell someone to get off their ass and get a job. I've personally worked every kind of job from cleaning horse stalls to surgery, and I'm sick of people being lazy asses and expecting others to pay for it. There are plenty of jobs out there, and maybe they are not your #1 choise, but so what?

Well, "doctor" -The Federal Unemployment Benefits last about a year (with one federal extension).

If you bother to go down to the Unemployment office -you will notice that there are a number of people out of work whose families will go hungry if they "clean horse stalls" for a living.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Well, "doctor" -The Federal Unemployment Benefits last about a year (with one federal extension).

If you bother to go down to the Unemployment office -you will notice that there are a number of people out of work whose families will go hungry if they "clean horse stalls" for a living.

Yes I knew it was a year, a whole year and you can't find a job? I'm sorry but thats bullshit. I'm not saying you need to do 'guest labor' work like cleaning horse stalls, I did it as a kid, but enough is enough. How long do YOU think it should last? 2 years? 10 years? Until a democrat is elected and then the economy magicly fixes itself?

apechild · 01-22-2004, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
When we're dealing with the scale of inequality that we're dealing with in this country, looking at proportions and "fairness" is a misleadingly simple way of looking at a complex system that tends to reward those at the top disproportionately more than those at the bottom.

Quote:

No, I want the government to level the playing field...

A level playing field means equality of opportunity for all. Equal opportunities do not, however, guarantee equal results.

Look, I also want everyone to be rich and happy and successful and healthy and good looking, but the ends don't justify the means. Besides, where do we stop? When we discard all measures of objectivity and fairness (which you decry as "misleadingly simple" because the "system" is so complex) then you're left with arbitrary rules written by the whims of a fickle mob. It's already pretty bad when the richest 5% pay more than half of the nation's income taxes and the bottom 50% pay just 4% of the income taxes. We're already perilously close to a system in which the majority pay little or no income tax while receiving the lion's share of government entitlements - creating a sort of class-warfare where the nation's most productive citizens consistently find the products of their labor plundered and looted by an angry mob - where net payers of government revenues find themselves in a dwindling minority and the net consumers of government revenues wield the power.

And in the end, who should determine who needs what?

01-21-2004, 09:57 AM	#1 (permalink)
Zamunda Tilted	Bush's Pro-growth economy In his address last night our illustrius president made sweeping remarks about his administration's pro-growth economy... which has lost 2.5 million jobs. Maybe no one was listening to the numbers he quoted when they applauded (like a letter from a two year old) but he said his now job initiaitive has opened up 1000 new jobs... less than 1% of the 120,000 promised. While it is true that his tax cuts have begun refueling the economy.. allowing we citizens to drive it forward (in an SUV), many lower income citizens are still suffering and haven't really been helped at all by his reforms. Perhaps its just me, but I don't think Bush's economic strategy deserves such high prasie.

01-21-2004, 10:45 AM	#6 (permalink)
apechild Crazy Location: Vermont	There will always be some people somewhere who don't have a job. There will always be some people somewhere who blame the President for their inability to find work. So it goes. Moving along then... __________________ Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

01-21-2004, 11:05 AM	#8 (permalink)
apechild Crazy Location: Vermont	It is folly to presume that Presidential policy is the only variable in the labor markets. It is, in fact, quite a foolish notion. The current employment situation is largely the result of broad-based productivity gains (which benefit all of us - including the unemployed), and the recession that began in the fall of 2000. Fiscal and monetary stimulus (i.e. tax cuts and Fed Funds rate cuts) have helped the economy emerge from recession, and job growth has indeed picked up (an increase of 278,000 in payrolls in the past five months, and a decrease in unemployment from 6.3% to 5.7% since June), but I wouldn't give the President (or the Congress) much credit for that either. __________________ Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

01-21-2004, 11:28 AM	#10 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	January 2001 The civilian labor force, 142.0 million, grew by 466,000 and the labor force participation rate rose to 67.3 percent. December 2003 The civilian labor force fell by 309,000 in December to 146.9 million; the labor force participation rate decreased over the month to 66.0 percent. That's a wierd way to lose jobs. The unemployment rate, of course, is a different matter, but it's not bad by any stretch either. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

01-21-2004, 09:38 PM	#17 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Well boys and girls, the armed forces is looking for a few good men and women. They pay tuition and give you a living stipend. Or you could whine no one is handing you an education for free. I'm still paying off my loans, now its your turn, one way or another. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-21-2004, 10:40 AM	#4 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Productivity is going up. The reasons are americans aren't using their vacation and sick time as they did in previous years. It's probrably because they are afraid of getting shit-canned in this economy if they do take time off.

01-21-2004, 12:31 PM	#11 (permalink)
Zamunda Tilted	If anyone might recall a few months ago when the democrats filibustered some judge nominations, the senate held a 30 hour debate. There was one classic moment in this debate which I think illustrates my point: A democrat from Nevada, John something, took the floor and asked why they were spending so much time debating a few people who made well over five hundred grand a year when there were many Americans in need of help, many of whom had lost their jobs under the Bush administration. He went on to present, by way of visual aid, what the president had done for these people in the last three years... A large blank piece of cardboard... oh and one more large blank piece of cardboard. There is a point somewhere here, and while in this situation he used it to criticize the republicans for making such a big deal over nominating some very uncompromising judges, it still remains that perhaps some thought should be given to the people losing jobs. Of course there are always people unemployed, and some who really don't want to be, but those that lose their jobs and can't find additional work should be helped. While the Bush administration has been pumping up the economy to get it back on track, assuming that eventually jobs would follow and everything would be fine, in the meantime three years without a job is a long time to wait.

01-21-2004, 08:13 PM	#14 (permalink)
Zamunda Tilted	speaking of tuition expensives... if bush wants to educate the workforce or low wages... max college tax deductible already

01-21-2004, 09:29 PM	#16 (permalink)
cheerios Banned Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac	private school, and i know that makes a difference, but I'm dropping 23,000 a year, WITHOUT room and board and books. thank god this is the last year. My friend (who's father happens to be a retired heart surgeon) said to me today that his parents had told him "You don't need the financial aide... leave it there for those who do." But even so, there's just not enough. My family is right on the edge, and I can tell you right now that school will put me in a mountain of debt i can only pray I will be able to find a job and pay off. I got federally funded financial aide for exactly 1 semester of my 8 semester stint in college. I've needed it the whole time. Debt consolidation, here i come... Wonder if GWB will give me tax credits for educating myself for a job that's being outsourced to India more often every day...

01-22-2004, 01:31 AM	#23 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Do those spouting on about productivity gains adversely affecting job growth actually have some data to back up their conclusions? I don't doubt that we've had productivity gains in the last 2 years, I also know that we've had them in every single economic recovery since the New Deal - but somehow those recoveries also had a corresponding increase in job growth. It isn't an either/or proposition - except perhaps today in this recovery, which isn't really a recovery for labor, the correct definition would be a recovery of capital. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

01-22-2004, 06:51 AM	#26 (permalink)
apechild Crazy Location: Vermont	This is getting absurd. "waahhhhh, I want government to give me a free education" "waaaahhh, I want government to get me a job" "waaahhhh, I want government to give me healthcare" Sheesh. Try standing on your own two feet. It's surprisingly liberating. By the way, regarding unemployment, simply put, some people deserve to be fired. And now for a much needed rant. [Rant] Those who expect to find gainful employment by looking to their elected officials to conjure up jobs for them are unemployed for a reason - they're morons. Any other half-wit who thinks that changes in the labor market are the direct product of Presidential policy hasn't got the mental capacity to bag groceries. I see help wanted signs in windows up and down Main Street. I see help wanted ads in newspapers all over the country. Of course, you have to be literate to know what they say or whom to ask for when you call, but that doesn't mean they're not out there. And if you can't convince that pimply-faced, lazy eyed night shift manager at McDonalds with his GED certificate taped to the wall above the fry-o-lator to hire you, then you're useless. You don't deserve to get paid because there's nothing you can do that's actually worth more than the effort required to supervise your sorry ass. The labor markets are a function of supply and demand, but that doesn't mean you can just demand a job and receive one. Nor does it mean there will ever be demand for idiots like you. What it does mean is that employers will hire and pay workers according to their need, and workers will receive salaries according to the value of their labor. The President is as much to blame for your utter uselessness as you are to blame for his success. Now run along and find someone else to blame before reality catches up to you. Better yet, go home and practice bagging. [/Rant] Thank you. I feel much better now. __________________ Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

01-22-2004, 08:05 AM	#28 (permalink)
apechild Crazy Location: Vermont	People go through hard times. Some of the best of us are, at times, smitten a hard blow. Believe it or not, I do have compassion for them. Lurkette, you do a wonderful job providing us with examples of some of the hardships some Americans currently face. The question is, will you simply blame the President for their hardship, or will you rise above this petty criticism and offer a solution? What, in your opinion, should President Bush do? __________________ Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

01-22-2004, 08:32 AM	#30 (permalink)
apechild Crazy Location: Vermont	Awesome post, lurkette. Very thoughtful __________________ Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

01-22-2004, 09:07 AM	#31 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Incidentally, apechild, I'm not saying you're wrong that there are some people who think the government owes them a living. I just think that they're by far the minority. The frustration with the current administration seems to stem from the fact that they're paying a lot of lip service to helping the working class, while doing everything they can to hand out tax cuts to those who need them least, trying to gut government regulation of industry, and running up a deficit that's going to entirely preclude any government-funded safety net services in the future. Whether these measures will actually help the working class is, unfortunately, an empirical question being carried out in the laboratory of most people's everyday lives. Maybe they're right, I don't know. But I think we're dealing with the immanent death of the middle class as we've known it, and a lot of people are blaming the victim for not having enough initiative to overcome the growing hurdles to self-sufficiency that the government, from top to bottom, doesn't currently seem interested in knocking down. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

01-22-2004, 09:14 AM	#33 (permalink)
apechild Crazy Location: Vermont	Hold on. The tax cuts resulted in the middle and lower class paying an even lower proportion of taxes that they did previously. In other words, they received a disproportionately large tax cut, which helped them much more than it helped the rich. Besides, since when has it been the job of the federal government to redistribute wealth? Do you want the IRS taking money from the most productive and handing it out to the least productive? If we take away, or even reduce the incentive to work and succeed, what do you think will happen to the economy then? __________________ Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.