Posted by Tina
The President has recently backed the idea floated by union groups to raise the minimum wage. Yesterday he announced plans suggesting that salaried employees should be paid overtime:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s move to make more workers eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay is being hailed by Democrats who see it as a potent midterm election issue and condemned by Republicans and business leaders as presidential overreach. Supporters say it will help the still fragile economy, critics say it will damage it further. …
…The order was the latest in a series of executive actions Obama has taken in an end run around congressional Republicans, who have blocked many of his proposals. With Congress blocking his attempt to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour, he used his executive powers to raise it to that level for government contractors.
Thursday’s presidential memorandum is aimed at workers who make more than the federal minimum but are ineligible for overtime pay under present law because they are designated as management, even when they have little or no supervisory responsibilities.
“If you’re making $23,000, typically you’re not high in management,” Obama said in unveiling the initiative.
The President hasn’t yet revealed the details of the executive order. One way or the other it’s a bad idea.
Government has no business creating a one size fits all dictat when it comes to how or how much an employer pays his people. Businesses are like people in that no two are exactly alike. In most cases employees with some supervisory duties gladly accept a slightly higher salaried wage, giving up overtime, knowing that he will consistently take home more and will from time to time be asked to work extra hours to get a job done. This is an agreement that works well for both employee and employer. His slightly higher regular salary more than compensates for the few times he’s asked to work a few more hours and the bosses payroll is simplified.
Here’s a funny take on the story: “Obama’s Plan to Pay People Enough to Eat Stirs Controversy”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/03/obamas-plan-to-pay-people-enough-to-eat-stirs-controversy.html?utm_source=tny&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=borowitz&mbid=nl_Borowitz+%2849%29
Chris I’m not sure what you mean by funny. Did you find the story amusing or laughable?
Amusing. It was well done satire. What’s laughable is the current Republican party’s stance on basic worker protections.
Obama needs a cabinet that will help guide him, verse the academic, but anemic theorem rubber stampers he has circled around him.
“Overtime” it would seem is a concept lost on Obama, there is little I have seen him really do to help lead this country back from the “Great Recession”. In fact my take is he out to break the back of large corporation job creators, especially those that do not benefit his union based voters.
Possibly instead of willful and uncompromising Executive pen to paper, he should try preforming more in the guise of an Executive and get both houses back on track to working for job creation. Obama needs to roll up his sleeves, if you will, use that talented charisma and actually develop compromise to create a bill that encourages corporate productivity within the boundary of our United States that would grow American jobs, not legislate them to death, or worse yet drive them to off shore countries for overhead relief.
There is a old adage that states “pay now and play later” Obama would do well to contemplate such words given todays feeble circumstances.
Harold: “In fact my take is he out to break the back of large corporation job creators”
Large corporations are doing better than ever. If Obama is out to “break their backs,” he is doing a terrible job of it.
Large corporations are not the real job creators anyway. Middle class consumers are the real job creators. Large corporations will only hire more people if there is enough demand to justify doing so. Demand starts on the consumer level. We need better paying jobs so that people will have enough money to actually spend in the economy. Demand is low right now because wages have been stagnant for decades. Raising wages–through raising the min. wage, expanding overtime, increasing the ability of unions to negotiate for higher wages–will be good for the economy.
I think “well done” satire should be amusing but I found nothing in this that would spark even a smile. To each his own, I guess.
Basic worker protections? Like workers don’t have enough now? Workers are guaranteed a minimum wage to start. They get (now extended) unemployment benefits if they are laid off. They are assured medical expense coverage for injuries on the job. Most get (had) medical benefits. They get paid vacation and sick leave. Some companies offer other incentives like bonuses and stock options. Some offer flex time and daycare. Others pay for memberships at Costco or at health clubs. Businesses that are big enough to offer higher paying jobs usually treat employees pretty well. Employees that are salaried have agreed that for a guaranteed slightly higher wage they will agree to a few extra hours when the job requires it. This is none of the President’s or anyone else’s business.
Businesses that have mostly entry level jobs can’t afford more than the entry level wage. The perk to the employee just starting out is experience on a resume.
The President is butting in where he doesn’t belong…because the President doesn’t pay the employees or the bills.
The Republicans in Congress should be joined by their Democrat colleagues in calling the President out for his egotistical meddling in the affairs of private business. And when I say that I’m talking about the private business of the employee as well as the employer! By the time a person reaches a salaried position he has learned to negotiate his own salary!
You and the President both need to grow up.
Ref:5 “Large corporation” is where Obama and the unions are aiming their newest Job killer called “over time” not the cottage industry job market. So to me your point missed by a mile.
Better paying jobs come with better production, and advancement for whom ever the employee works for, If you want more for basic entry level jobs, under the guise of “consumers will spend more” go ahead and believe that, however It doesn’t hold water.
And once more I’ll point out the cost of goods include something called overhead, and it is part of the final cost to any consumer. Raise the pay, raise the cost of overhead and bingo your paying more, and most likely at a higher percentage called mark up.
Obama doesn’t get it, and neither do a lot of minimum income people. And arguing it isn’t so, is not going to prove anything but Obamas lack of good business sense.
Tina: “I think “well done” satire should be amusing but I found nothing in this that would spark even a smile. To each his own, I guess.”
Well, not all of us think that Rush Limbaugh is the Jonathan Swift of our time.
“Basic worker protections? Like workers don’t have enough now?”
If they do have enough, why on earth are wages at a record low?
From the New York Times:
“Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product. Until 1975, wages nearly always accounted for more than 50 percent of the nation’s G.D.P., but last year wages fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. Since 2001, when the wage share was 49 percent, there has been a steep slide…
…Some economists say it is wrong to look at just wages because other aspects of employee compensation, notably health costs, have risen. But overall employee compensation — including health and retirement benefits — has also slipped badly, falling to its lowest share of national income in more than 50 years while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share over that time.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0
“This is none of the President’s or anyone else’s business.”
You’re right. The economy is none of the president’s business!
Man, don’t you ever get exhausted from being so obviously wrong all the time?
Chris: “…why on earth are wages at a record low?”
The times piece gives you a political answer. They exist to cover Democrats butts in a lousy economy with few opportunities. Once again they grab a statistic and form an accusation without presenting full context.
People in America have more stuff and a better overall lifestyle today then they did in 1960 but this higher level of standard of living isn’t included in the picture. How did that happen? Government has provided through redistribution. You can bitch about income disparity if you have not taken money from the private sector. Wages comparisons must include the giveaways if we’re going to be honest.
One of the saddest reasons people in America are not doing as well is that it’s failing its children in education. Another is that too many young people have been encouraged toward fame and fortune…pipe dreams…instead of practical study and work, saving, and investing.
Another sad reality is the high number of black youth who are in prison or unemployed because of the terrible conditions created by the welfare society and bad schools in black neighborhoods. This sector of the population is doing much worse than before 1965. The loss of potential earning power from this group is incredible.
A sharp rise in divorce and in single parent households has added to this picture of inequality.
One thing that has skewed the numbers is changes in tax rates. The rich paid a 71% tax rate in 1970 and so hid their income in tax free investments. When tax rates were lowered they invested to realize gains and reported the income. The change caused what appeared to be a much greater gain than had actually occurred as explained at policymic which also notes:
Another factor that isn’t represented in the left talking point is that the high earner bracket isn’t static…people rise and fall out of the top bracket:
The policies being pushed by this administration will add to this problem…to continue these policies after four years of failure following the end of recession is insane!
“You’re right. The economy is none of the president’s business!”
Chris we are not talking about the economy. we are talking about a President inserting himself into the individual decision making of a business and their salaried employees. He is getting dangerously close to blatantly admitting his fascist designs on American industry.
Your opinion of em matters little to the millions of people that are stuck in this Obama created economy. It’s also fairly juvenile, lacking as it is in weight. You, my friend, are young enough, and therefore inexperienced enough, to believe the soundbites without using your noodle.
Democrats have nothing to run on in the next election. They are hoping you will buy this bologna so they can continue to grow the size and power of government.
It should be obvious by now that progressive ideas on the economy are a complete failure. History shows us what must be done to alter the direction of the economy…follow the lead of Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush. Then work on solutions to the other problems that make Americans less able to earn and move up.
The fact remains that the best way to rise in America is to get yourself well trained or educated after high school graduation, spend and save wisely, and get and stay married.
Chris: ” Raising wages–through raising the min. wage, expanding overtime, increasing the ability of unions to negotiate for higher wages–will be good for the economy. ”
Have you ever met payroll? Everything you suggest makes it harder for companies to stay in business much less make payroll in this economy. Companies have to make money before they can pay and hire. My business is off by about two-thirds!
Its easy to say make them pay more. It is not easy to get more to make payroll. Everything that Obama and the Democrats have done has been bad for the economy. What is sick is that everything they have done has been bad for all Americans…even those that have received from redistribution policy! Food prices are up. Energy price are up. These take a big bite out of income at a time when companies have the same basic problem…they can’t afford more.
Food prices are up for restaurants…parts pries are up for manufacturers. Higher fuel prices figure greatly in these rising prices. The healthcare debacle adds uncertainty to these higher costs. Obama regs have added to rising costs for small business:
Chris how do you propose these businesses, faced with rising costs and in many cases less business, meet your demands for higher pay?
Tina, I asked, “If they do have enough [worker protections], why on earth are wages at a record low?”
You quoted my question and then responded with several paragraphs, but you never answered the question. Instead you just started ranting about conservative bogeyman like “redistribution” and “giveaways.” (Again I’ll remind you that you rarely complain about redistribution and giveaways to large corporations–unless, of course, the companies are ones you disagree with ideologically.)
“Chris we are not talking about the economy. we are talking about a President inserting himself into the individual decision making of a business and their salaried employees.”
You realize these two sentences totally contradict each other, right? The president’s decision here affects the economy. Obviously.
“He is getting dangerously close to blatantly admitting his fascist designs on American industry.”
You have absolutely no idea what a fascist is. Educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist
“Have you ever met payroll?”
No, therefore I have no right to have an opinion about the economy. Is that what you want to hear?
“Companies have to make money before they can pay and hire.”
And before they can make money they have to have a strong customer base. They don’t have that now, and they still won’t have that if we get rid of all the regulations you dislike and reduce corporate taxes to zero. Businesses don’t hire people or raise pay just because their profits are higher or they are able to keep more of their money from being taxed. If they did, they would have done so already. The only time a business will hire or create a new position is if there is a demand for that position. And the only way for that demand to happen is for more average Americans to have a little more money in their pocket.
All of your suggestions for improving the economy focus on the supply end. But that is not where the problem is. The problem is on the demand end.
This says it all . . . . .
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/16/all-you-need-know-about-obama-one-graph
Chris: “you never answered the question”
I did, you just don’t like/agree with the answer.
As I said the statement that “wages are at record low” is a political statement cooked up by the Democrat Party to distract from the failure of the Obama administration to create a recovered, vibrant and growing economy. It is meant to create resentment and envy of the upper class. and if you are any indication it will work with a certain portion of the less experienced/informed population.
The thing we call wage disparity has always been with us. It isn’t news that some people make more money than other people. Wages depend on skill levels and difficulty/responsibility tied to the task. People who work the oil fields get big wages because the job is dirty, difficult, dangerous and has nutty hours. A shift worker stocking shelves won’t ever be able to get as much for a low education/training job.
The President would suggests that we should level that laying field, It’s stupid…sorry but it is!
.
Then I also told you other factors, besides notions of stinginess that create the appearance of disparity. Lack of even good HS education, focus on celebrity rather than science and math, break up of the family creating households with untrained single parents stuck in entry level positions…government growing bigger and taking too much money out of the private sector. All of those things add to the appearance/reality of wage disparity.
If we had the same levels of education, training, focus, and family that we had in the sixties more people would be in higher paying jobs, we wouldn’t need to import people from China and India to work those jobs, and the “disparity would not be so stark.
So you see the lefts attempts to blame it all on greedy corporations just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny…it is a straw man argument. It is Saul Alinsky 101, it is left politics. Democrats cannot run on their terrific record and won’t take responsibility for the failure of the Keynesian policies they enacted so they need a straw man for you to hate…a single sentence justification for you to use to push unions and raising the minimum wage. Neither of those things will put people to work or create a vibrant economy. In fact they will create fewer jobs and more failing companies in the long run.
This is common sense simple, Chris.
Redistribution/giveaways is not a conservative boogie man, Chris. It is the philosophy of the party you prefer. It is the major premise of progressivism…a collective pot of cash collected and distributed by central control. We’ve been under that system heavily for the last five years and it’s creating more poverty and stagnancy in the economy. It doesn’t work as any person can plainly see if he is willing to tell the truth.
“I’ll remind you that you rarely complain about redistribution and giveaways to large corporations–unless, of course, the companies are ones you disagree with ideologically”
That’s a lie Chris. I have been clear on this blog from the beginning that I favor a flat tax or sales tax…a simplified code that eliminates all loop holes.
I only talk about redistribution in the context of ideology and the fact that redistribution doesn’t make the economy work and doesn’t solve the problem of poverty. I have suggested other approaches to this problem might be better.
“You realize these two sentences totally contradict each other, right? The president’s decision here affects the economy. Obviously.
The President has no business telling companies how much salaried employees, or any employee in my opinion, should make…that’s fascist! It’s certainly not an American ideal.
And yes it will impact the economy…negatively!
“No, therefore I have no right to have an opinion about the economy. Is that what you want to hear?”
No! I want you to consider that neither the President, nor any of the people he surrounds himslef with for advice either. I want you to consider that maybe he is wrong…especially given the record over the last five years and the comparisons I have shown you under presidents from both parties. I expect you to think!
“And before they can make money they have to have a strong customer base.”
No nimrod! they have to feel like it’s worth it to risk! they have to have a sense that the guy at the top of government isn’t going to work against them, pile on more regulations and taxes, turn a big sector of the economy, healthcare, upside down, cause energy and food prices to rise…create the current market fears of inflation and collapse!
Businessmen are willing to risk but not when they are being screwed by the government at every turn!
“The only time a business will hire or create a new position is if there is a demand for that position.”
Chris that makes zero sense. Gee a whole lot of folks are lining up for technical jobs…I think I’ll hire a few even though I don’t have many orders and my cost have skyrocketed. Yeah…this has to be a sign!
Business people would like to see Americans have A LOT MORE IN THEIR POCKETS!
That ain’t possible with this administrations policies.
“But that is not where the problem is. The problem is on the demand end.”
You don’t have a clue about the problem or the solution. I’d like for you to be brilliant about both, and I’m doing my best to set you on a path to that end, but the wizards of smart that you trust are your guys even though they have failed. I can’t do a damn thing about that!
Tina: “All of those things add to the appearance/reality of wage disparity.”
You literally can’t even decide whether you believe income inequality is real or not, and you think you’re making a convincing argument?
Chris don’t be such a jerk! It isn’t that I can’t decide. It is that at least some of this is due to the fact that the middle class has collapsed under Obama’s failing policies. It is that there are factors that determine this condition that have nothing to do with business practices. And that is in addition to the fact that this huge concern has bee generated by progressives with nothing to run on in the election.
Income “disparity” has always existed! It has gotten much worse under progressive leadership and control some of which goes back seventy or more years!
Grow up!
Tina: “Chris don’t be such a jerk! It isn’t that I can’t decide. It is that at least some of this is due to the fact that the middle class has collapsed under Obama’s failing policies. It is that there are factors that determine this condition that have nothing to do with business practices. And that is in addition to the fact that this huge concern has bee generated by progressives with nothing to run on in the election.
Income “disparity” has always existed! It has gotten much worse under progressive leadership and control some of which goes back seventy or more years!
Grow up!”
Translation: Income inequality is not a real problem, and also Obama caused it.
The only thing that needs to grow up is your arguments.
Tina: “Income “disparity” has always existed!”
OK, you’re using quotation marks incorrectly. Second, this argument is pointless. No one is arguing that income disparity should be reduced to zero. But conservatives and liberals both agree that the *degree* of income inequality we see today is undesirable. In a poll most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, said they wanted a degree of income inequality similar to that found in Sweden.
“It has gotten much worse under progressive leadership and control some of which goes back seventy or more years!”
Tina, you have to go back seventy or more years to find income inequality as severe as today’s. Last time it was this bad was right before the Great Depression. That should tell you to take this problem a lot more seriously.
It just takes a quick look around the world to see that more progressive countries actually have less income inequality, not more. Sweden, Denmark, France, Norway–these are all countries with sronger social safety nets and greater social mobility than the U.S. They prove your fallacy that welfare causes poverty false. They prove that strong worker protections like the one Obama just signed help the economy, rather than hurt it.
Chris: “Translation: Income inequality is not a real problem, and also Obama caused it.”
Translation, Chris cannot argue that there are other factors that have caused this or that it has gotten much worse under Obama, or that Democrats are using this as a political slogan so he must attempt to make me the enemy for being negative on Obama.
There is only one problem. Had it been that I am only anti-Obama on this issue, rather than a person who sought to clarify a phony campaign slogan…I would have just said Obama is lying and let it go at that.
“No one is arguing that income disparity should be reduced to zero.”
No one said anyone was.
“But conservatives and liberals both agree that the *degree* of income inequality we see today is undesirable.”
Another false argument. We do not agree on the best way to reverse the trend. In the last five years the we have moved in the wrong direction with the number of Americans moving into poverty growing to levels not seen since the Depression. In Spring of 2009 the recession ended. Obama’s policies have affected this condition negatively since then.
“In a poll most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, said they wanted a degree of income inequality similar to that found in Sweden.”
Another progressive horse pucky claim. “Most” people don’t have a clue what income equality is much less what Sweden’s is. The pollers had to have asked leading questions or polled liberal progressive activists (sarcasm Chris, don’t get your shorts in a tangle) This is a typical political poll.
“That should tell you to take this problem a lot more seriously.”
I take this issue very seriously. If your party has control for much longer there will be no middle class at all, progressive big shots will run this country with total control over private property, including business and we will all become poor peons…wards of the state or slaves of the state. Look around the world.
Freedom is the one thing that made it possible for people to rise to the middle class and beyond in America. Since the dawn of the progressive movement our freedoms have been compromised through greater and greater federal control, intrusive regulation, and too much taxation. The middle class is falling into poverty because of lack of freedom and opportunity and the Democrat Party has led the charge.
“It just takes a quick look around the world to see that more progressive countries actually have less income inequality.
America had the least amount until very recently…we also are and will continue to be the richest nation on earth IF we can rid ourselves of the oppressive progressive policies that put faith in power hungry politicians rather than the imaginations and creativity, the risk taking and ambitions of free individuals going about their daily life and seeking to provide for their own families while offering goods and services, and JOBS, within the greater community…and now the world!
“Sweden, Denmark, France, Norway–these are all countries with sronger social safety nets and greater social mobility..”
And much higher taxes and more unemployment than the U.S. at least when our government is more supportive of individuals and business.
“They prove your fallacy that welfare causes poverty false”
Bologna! These countries have had to start moving away from the big redistribution state because they were all drowning in debt. Their citizens love the freebies, it’s human nature, but they also have expressed the lack of creativity and ambition that settles in and they say the taxes are punishing. They traded freedom for comfort and found mediocrity and apathy were the reward (Also alcoholism in some instances)
I don’t think Americans are interested in mediocrity and apathy. I think Americans are imbued with the spirit of discovery and innovation. I think the American people love the freedom this country guarantees every citizen to reach as high as he can. I think the American people still like the idea of being the power in their own lives and of personal ownership of property and business. I think the American people still want to live in a nation that is charitable but is not forced by government to give to neighbors. We like the idea of volunteering, whether through contributions or our time. We resent forced participation because it mirrors slavery which we abhor!
Every time the Democrats conceive of yet another program they are in essence saying that Americans are cheap, stingy, selfish, lazy and ignorant…too ignorant to be left to their own devices. They suggest that ONLY through government control will people survive and improve. That’s nuts! By that philosophy no child would ever leave home and become independent. Big surprise under progressive policies many in our nation are doing just that!
Americans want to work and provide for themselves. they want jobs…opportunity. The private sector, and particularly small and medium sized business, can provide those jobs but they need less government intrusion, the need certainty and stability. they need to have some sense that Obama is going to get the hell out of the way and let them run their businesses in a way that works!
You can run form this bad economy and you can make excuses and try to change the subject but the truth will out. Obama’s polices suck…they suck for business and they suck for anyone that hopes to ever have a good job…ever again.
Tina: “Translation, Chris cannot argue that there are other factors that have caused this”
I think I’ve described the factors involved quite accurately. The decline in workers’ ability to bargain, the decline in wages (caused by point #1 as well as the government not keeping the min. wage consistent with inflation), the death of the manufacturing industry, outsourcing, rising college tuition rates, and a relatively small social safety net have all helped income inequality rise and social mobility fall.
You believe, against all available evidence, that redistribution policies are the cause. If that were the case, we should see higher income inequality in countries with greater redistribution.
The evidence shows that the opposite is true; countries with greater redistribution actually have lower income inequality.
Can you explain this?
“or that it has gotten much worse under Obama,”
Yes, but it’s been getting worse for decades, and conservatives haven’t really taken notice. In fact, generally speaking, conservatives ignore the issue unless they are in the middle of blaming Obama for it. See: all of your comments in this thread. That’s disingenuous.
You can see here how the problem of income inequality has gotten worse over time.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/11/inequality-and-growth-what-do-we-know.html
“or that Democrats are using this as a political slogan”
Well, of course we are. And we should; it’s a damn good political slogan, and it reflects the reality. Income inequality is a serious problem. For the most part, Democrats are the ones acknowledging the problem and showing real world evidence for what can be done about it, while Republicans are the ones alternately arguing that it doesn’t exist or that it’s all Obama’s fault. Can you really blame us for being more successful in spreading our message over the last couple presidential elections?
“so he must attempt to make me the enemy for being negative on Obama.”
Being negative on Obama is not inherently wrong. I’ve called him out here myself, and I was so repulsed by some of his actions that I couldn’t in god conscience vote for him in 2012. The problem I have is that your reasoning for being against Obama is not logically consistent.
“Another false argument. We do not agree on the best way to reverse the trend.”
I don’t understand how that makes my argument false. I did not say we agree on how to reverse the trend; I said that most conservatives and liberals agree that it’s a problem. You seemed to indicate that you disagreed.
“In the last five years the we have moved in the wrong direction with the number of Americans moving into poverty growing to levels not seen since the Depression. In Spring of 2009 the recession ended. Obama’s policies have affected this condition negatively since then.”
The CBO disagrees, as do most economists. The stimulus, for instance, kept people out of poverty. So did expanding the number of people on food stamps. So did extending unemployment. So will raising the minimum wage. There will be a slight job loss but it will be balanced out by a larger decrease in poverty.
“Another progressive horse pucky claim. “Most” people don’t have a clue what income equality is much less what Sweden’s is. The pollers had to have asked leading questions or polled liberal progressive activists (sarcasm Chris, don’t get your shorts in a tangle) This is a typical political poll.”
I find it very revealing that you dismiss a poll based on the results when you have literally no idea how the poll was conducted. It says something you don’t like, therefore it must be wrong.
I’ve posted the study here before, Tina. People did not come out and say they wanted income inequality to be at the same level as Sweden. They were asked to pick an ideal distribution of wealth, and the most commonly picked (by conservatives AND liberals) was about what they have in Sweden. I’d post the study again, but I’d actually like to see how you’d do on the poll. Maybe I could post it as an article? It might be interesting to see what others think.
“I take this issue very seriously. If your party has control for much longer there will be no middle class at all, progressive big shots will run this country with total control over private property, including business and we will all become poor peons…wards of the state or slaves of the state. Look around the world.”
I am looking around the world, and that’s why this sounds so ridiculous. Most countries with more progressive governments than ours do not resemble the Orwellian hellscapes you so eloquently paint, Tina. They are pretty well-functioning social democracies with pretty happy people, for the most part. And right now they are living the American dream better than America.
More later.
Chris: “The decline in workers’ ability to bargain”
Workers can bargain as individuals any time they want. this is nothing more than union propaganda. If you want to say you believe that union representation is superior then do so but please don’t say workers have less bargaining power because they aren’t part of an (extortion mob) union.
“death of the manufacturing industry”
Which unions helped bring about by demanding more than the company could do for them. Unfortunately those who run unions aren’t very bright. They helped kill manufacturing by being too adversarial to the very entity that made their jobs possible. That’s just plain S-T-U-P-I-D! It causes “outsourcing”.
“rising college tuition rates”
In most cases due to progressive ideals, structures, and policies: bloated upper management, ridiculous curricula, professors who are paid well, get tenure, and teach very little. A conservative/business person would find ways to bring costs down and customer (parent/student) satisfaction up!
“relatively small social safety net”
Nice word, “relatively”.
It’s hard to make apples to apples comparisons because the programs have been expanded and overlap but as a rough comparison the government spent 12.9 billion on welfare in 1965.
I don’t have inflation adjusted figures but today the US spends $588 billion on social programs or 1/6th of the federal budget. The figures do not include SS, Medicare or unemployment.
Bill Frezza of Forbes asks:
And guess who makes money from the new ATM style food stamps cards:
Now that’s crony capitalism! It’s sucking a lot of money out of the taxpayers paycheck in every single bracket and from every businesses bottom line! It’s an unnecessary expense but a well oiled machine that’s helping to suck the life out of the economy and out of wealth building business. There are too many layers of red tape between the taxpayer and the recipient of welfare…and they would be much better off with training and a job. So would America!
“You believe, against all available evidence, that redistribution policies are the cause.”
I base what I have expressed on evidence and experience. Obviously you are not willing to look at “all available evidence” since you dismiss mine. And I have NOT said redistribution policies are “the cause”. I have listed numerous causes some of which flow from redistribution.
If that were the case, we should see higher income inequality in countries with greater redistribution.”
Based on what? In countries where the goal is mediocrity there is little chance that anyone will be able to acquire wealth. Likewise there is little innovation in these countries. Sacrifice is the name of the game rather than freedom. Eventually more is sacrificed than just a few dollars from ones paycheck.
“Yes, but it’s been getting worse for decades, and conservatives haven’t really taken notice.”
The phrase itself reeks of redistribution mentality but in fact this has been discussed before. As I said we just don’t agree about causes and cures.
I would agree that America has an opportunity problem for the middle and lower classes but it also has a learning/education problem and a serious adolescent problem…our kids are no longer all trained to grow up and take on adult responsibilities. Not to the degree they once were. A large percentage of young adults are not prepared to work and provide for themselves. Their heads are filled with dreams of being rich and/or famous and they have no idea how to get there except by magic…they have no back up plans. Too many just give up trying before they reach high school. At a time when technology and machines can do a lot of the work this is bad news for young people, bad news for the economy and a contributing factor to income inequality. the numbers of people unqualified for higher paying jobs is growing.
Companies are being driven out of America by overly harsh regulation, noncompetitive taxes, and in some sectors high payroll demands. Small business is being squeezed by the same concerns and high energy and food costs too. Payroll is one of the largest expenses for business. When expenses grow, payroll is the likely place to cut. When government demands too much and creates uncertainty about future expenses jobs, hours,raises, bonuses all flatten out or disappear.
A lot of middle class families lost their homes and investments in the crash. The stubbornly sluggish recovery has created little opportunity for recovery and a widening of disparity:
The Economist reported in 2006 on middle income under Bush:
That 8% isn’t great but it sure beats 0.4%! Unemployment at that time was 4.4%, also a good deal better than today’s rate.
Dodd Frank now requires banks to hold a large amount of revenue in reserve (can’t loan it out). That money is not being utilized to grow the economy and good jobs. The fed printing money and artificially holding interest rates low has also throw wrenches into the works.
Demographics also plays a part in this. The boomers are a large group just finishing their peak productive years. A lot of people in this group joined the ranks of the wealthy, others have private retirement accounts because back in the eighties and nineties we were already looking at social security debt and the need for reform. A good number of boomers had either no children or had fewer children than previous generations. These factors add to the disparity perception too.
“…unless they are in the middle of blaming Obama for it”
Chris Obama sets policy now. He’s the leader now. Besides, I remember how hard you were on Bush over a much better economy than this so I think your complaint is out of order.
Beyond the fact that Obama is our leader, his ideology is in direct contradiction to mine…why wouldn’t I find fault with his policies? And if you would be willing to cut me some slack and tell the truth, most of my arguments are broad and cover decades of decline in many areas.
“…it’s a damn good political slogan, and it reflects the reality.”
That Democrats take zero responsibility for creating it! It allows them to sidestep the many problems that exist and persist due to their policies…like unemployment numbers, the healthcare mess, inflation…especially food and energy pries, mounting debt and the bubbles that are forming…also blaming Bush incessantly for much better numbers than they have generated!
“The problem I have is that your reasoning for being against Obama is not logically consistent.”
My reasoning for being against Obama is quite clear: 1. He was unprepared for this job, and I said so before he won it, and 2. Progressivism is against everything that I think is uniquely American. I have witnessed it’s failures before. I have also witnessed strong revivals of energy, vibrancy, and economic growth under conservative policies that put people in the forefront and give government a lesser, supporting roll.
“I said that most conservatives and liberals agree that it’s a problem. You seemed to indicate that you disagreed.”
It’s a problem that will not be fixed by raising the minimum wage and making people join unions because those things have little to do with the underlying failures and conditions. Raising the minimum wage will just shift dollars around…it won’t cause growth. Union demands have bankrupted cities all across America; they had a lot to do with the automotive industries problems. The people are tired of their unreasonable demands, their mob mentality, and their thug practices. People are willing to rely on themselves; they want things to work.
“The stimulus, for instance, kept people out of poverty”
That’s why there are so many more people in poverty today, right? The stimulus targeted spending, a lot of it wasted, and did nothing to boost the overall economy…obviously! People will not rise out of poverty until the economy improves and jobs are plentiful overall. In five years Obama and the Democrats have not made that happen and have blocked all Republican ideas and efforts to make it happen.
“I find it very revealing that you dismiss a poll based on the results when you have literally no idea how the poll was conducted.”
So sue me. Come on Chris…Sweden? Do you really think the average American, unprompted, gives a rip about conditions in Sweden? The poll is an obvious set up in my opinion.
“Most countries with more progressive governments than ours do not resemble the Orwellian hellscapes you so eloquently paint, Tina.”
No they resemble America today…and they are waiting for the big economic giant to once again take the lead. Their economies rely on ours doing well. They also do not resemble America in her full bloom…the Reagan boom! Sensible regulation. Smart tax and money policy. American citizens with fantastic opportunity. Growing the pie and needing workers to make it happen.
Tina: “Workers can bargain as individuals any time they want. this is nothing more than union propaganda. If you want to say you believe that union representation is superior then do so but please don’t say workers have less bargaining power because they aren’t part of an (extortion mob) union.”
You’re literally telling me not to say that workers have less bargaining power because they aren’t part of a union. That is just plain idiotic. OF COURSE being in a union increases a worker’s bargaining power. You cannot make a rational argument otherwise. Even Reagan said that collective bargaining was an “elemental human right.” That Republicans now deny the basic fact that unions help workers shows how extreme and out of touch with reality they’ve become.
Unions did NOT destroy the manufacturing industry. They built the damn thing. Unions are a convenient scapegoat for corporate greed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-detroit/2013/07/26/132c2932-f478-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html
More later.