253 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

Not "more", "better"

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Qualify that.


Apparently no one else has any clue how to solve the problem, but people do love the bury button. :)

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

'In theory', maybe, but not emprically.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

While it is correct from one context that efficiency leads to a tightly competitive marketplace, it does not therefore correlate that a reduction in employment or hours is necessarily a bad thing if the efficiency creates sufficient abundance. In another context, efficiency implies the peak of competitive spirit, which leads to innovation and a high rate of increase in the standard of living.

Of course, you could also have a situation where economic ruin brought about by fiscally liberal expenditures leads to a situation where competition for jobs is high, but the efficient use of resources declines relative to projected innovation as a consequence of a lack of capital.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

It's better to be unemployed in abundance than to have a meager job in a time of high uncertainty. You shouldn't have to keep working into old age if you don't want to, but you would have had the money to do it if it weren't for the tax-to-the-hilt system of government that you live under. People work well past the time they would otherwise retire because of creeping government taxation and regulation, and then the government pisses away their rainy day money on a pyramid scheme called Social Security which they are forced to contribute to.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

PP.

I am working into old age so that I may be in a health insurance plan as a primary reason. Also I earn nearly 4 times what social security would be giving me. I could not imagine depending on medicare since my doctor does not take medicare patients.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

They are not comfortable with investing or expansion. They feel that money is at risk and they are in the protection of assets mode. I do not really blame them. I lost 40% of my retirement investment and the market is still teetering, it could drop 20% before you could stop your losses.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Well you get my Digg. Business needs to be more attractive to do in the states, and to the chagrin of Digg there really are only a few ways to change it. Less taxes, and less regulations would do wonders to spur business activity right here. Why do I feel like I'm suggesting people start worshiping Satan when I say that? Ah well, based on the responses I see here to it, it might as well be.

Without changing taxes or the multitude of regulatory hoops and requirements, (a breast feeding room too now at the workplace now?) things are going to stay ugly unless the rest of the world adopts our nutty policies, then it wouldn't matter where they opened up shop.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@Blinker: last time i checked, someone making $250k/year is either one helluva small businessman or not a small businessman at all...and a cut on capital gains doesn't do anyone but the rich any good. There have been several studies done that show that large businesses already have record amounts of money in the bank, but their not willing to spend it because they're not sure what the economic climate is going to be.

Ghandi said it right, commerce without morality is one of the blunders of the world.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

We can start by undoing the damaging trade policy we enacted over the years (NAFTA, normalized trade with China, etc.) and start demanding labor standards as part of trade deals.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

It's a shame you didn't take that opportunity, because a pro-immigration stance is a good idea. Preventing the free movement of individuals does not solve the economic problem. I can't tell which faction of political tripe, the left or right, is doing the most to fear monger about scarcity.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

This account has been closed by the user

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

People "need" a certain amount of money to live in this country. Lowering wages would be fine if not for the fact that people can't afford their living expenses. Business really doesn't give a s**t and will pack up and leave for other markets. They have already been doing so for years.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Tax cuts didn't create jobs, deregulation led to things like Enron, and the BP Oil Spill? We couldn't make things more comfortable for business in this country if we were offering them free hand jobs! Businesses need to earn their keep by providing something to benefit society, rather then inventing ways to game the system from one quarter to the next.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@bipolarruledout

No matter what your wage is set at in a numeral context, the issue is how much of what you earn is taken from you by the government, directly OR indirectly.

"Business really doesn't give a s**t and will pack up and leave for other markets. "

At least one of the following is true for any given business in the current paradigm: 1. Businesses are passing the costs of targeted taxes and regulations onto their customers. 2. corporations are finding ways of getting anti-competitive laws past so they can afford to hike up their prices.

To suggest that all businesses don't give a s**t is very juvenile. Why do you expect that businesses should treat you with kid gloves, though? Businesses are run by individuals. I know I would want to be treated like an individual...

One should expect a business to consider their bottom line. That's the nature of business. Doesn't mean it's the only thing they consider in operations, but it is imperative to the continuance of doing business. Corporations, unfortunately, also consider ways of limiting their liability for problems they cause, and are incentivized by the government to get involved in the writing of laws. Sometimes it's an honest business trying to prevent competition from putting them out of business (ample number of examples of that going on!).

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Oh come on, Biden is great fun for both sides.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Well, sure, he's great fun. And he's assassination insurance. Obama could walk unescorted through a Klan convention and the white-robed guys would be like "Dude, we'd kill you, but then Biden would be president. Here, have a beer. No wait, have some vegetables. You need to take better care of yourself."

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

In open competition, you would eventually find the bearable market wage for your skill set. Seems there's more to the issue than trying to argue that businesses WANT the economy to fail.

Of course, Corporations, by their nature, want to limit liability and the worst of them gain an advantage through making it illegal to compete against them.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

You could argue that the largest corporations *do* want the economy to fail, at least long enough for a more corporate-friendly Republican Congress to be put in place. Obama did promise to hold corporations accountable, and threatened to increase the tax burden on those corporations who hide their profits overseas. Why not hold back the economy by hoarding cash until you get your way?

The other possibility is that they believe the right-wing fear mongering that says that corporate taxes are going to go up and that the big, bad government is going to limit corporations' ability to reap massive profits.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Counting mass temp jobs for the cenus is really a charde.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

What you don't factor in is that people who a)give up and stop looking for work and b)run out of unemployment benefits and c)now work at a gas station when they used to be skilled labor that have now fallen off the unemployment rolls. The actual unemployment and underemployment rates are much higher than reported.

The issue was caused by the govt (Dodd and Frank driven) to those who were not credit worthy. They FORCED Fannie and Freddie to make over 60% of their loans to under qualified people. Given the opportunity the banks took advantage of these usually financially illiterate which made it near impossible for them to continue to make payments.

Why we aren't recovering is because of "too big to fail" and AIG(who sent a majority of the bailout to banks overseas). We bailed out those bastards instead of supporting small business....we could have set up across the board assistance for every mortgage holder which would have put money in the hands of the people vs. in the hands of the huge multinational financial institutions.

These things combined are the reasons why the recovery is going the way it is. Obama and company(and if you want to throw Bush in I don't care) have taken every wrong step so far and keep digging us deeper.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

This account has been closed by the user

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

The problem is that Wall Street and businesses are looking at the consumer who in turn is looking at Wall Street and businesses. If the consumer has little to no confidence and is holding back, then Wall Street tanks and businesses cut back. If Wall Street and businesses have little to no confidence in the consumer, the consumer has less to spend due to lower wages and less job opportunities.

It's a vicious cycle. Ever notice anytime even anything remotely negative comes out about, say, jobs in this country Wall Street has a coronary and market drops?

What's hilarious is my company is telling it's stores it's expecting better sales on a week-to-week basis than weekly sales from last year yet it was significantly reduced payroll hours for each and every store. In some cases, 200 hours a week. How am I, as a consumer, supposed to take situations like that?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I care little about Wall St. The only "indicator" I look at is how much money is left in my wallet after the bills are paid. And lately, the only thing I see if the bottom of my wallet. I don't need a raise. I make pretty good money as it is. The Great and Powerful Oz over at the Fed is going to have to think of a new plan.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

The 500 largest corporations are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash. That cash is not going in to the economy, being productive or helping in the recovery.

http://digg.com/politics/Corporations_Sit_On_1_8_Trillion_Until_They_Get_Their_Way

Meanwhile, corporations are enjoying increased worker productivity while *decreasing* wages.

If the corporations are not willing to play fair in the system, I say we restore the 1950 era 90% tax rate on corporations.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@treehugger87

The "cash" they are sitting on isn't just dollar bills stored under a mattress. It's usually in the way of short term securities and money in bank accounts. If they just pulled it all out banks would have even less money to lend. When sales are low, recklessly buying and spending money for the sake of spending money doesn't bode well for a company's long term future. With no clear recovery in sight, it's not great business practice to hire employees you may not be able to afford for long.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Of course. Productivity is as high as it's going.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

bacon_skoda,

the reality is that jobs are going to China, which is why they're spending more

pretending that the recession is all the media's doing is laughable

these days we have an internet, and people can go to whatever news source they like

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

or give them money in exchange for a much needed new road or bridge.
so that they will take that money and go buy a cheese steak.
and when cheese steak demand surpasses the number of cheese steak a store can make, they will hire someone to make more cheese steak.

+1 Employed.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

If they didn't do what they did to the housing market, my personal purchasing power would be a lot higher.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I think you just summed up almost every telco out there.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

The reason they send work abroad is taxes, health care, and pension. They aren't evil, there are simple equations they use to make their decisions and with our system the equation says hire people in India.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

well, depends on how you view "send work abroad". If a company makes computer pieces in China at a much cheaper price than an American company might sell the same pieces for, why would a corporation, whose main interest is profit, buy American? It's not so much sending work elsewhere than getting products elsewhere.
I agree however that companies shouldn't have an economic interest that's so powerful that they'll cut any corner possible, but when law says that you have to maximize revenue for stake-holders, the decision is clear.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@taxmore - "taxes, health care, and pension"

I think it's more about wages and (lack of) environmental policy. Most corporations have offshore tax havens so their tax rates are negligible and most employees don't have pensions, but our companies send jobs offshore nonetheless.

I agree that the American healthcare system should be cheaper, however. We pay more than any developed nation in the world.

@piieerrrree - "If a company makes computer pieces in China at a much cheaper price than an American company might sell the same pieces for, why would a corporation, whose main interest is profit, buy American?"

Exactly. But why is it cheaper?

We as a society decided it was immoral to disregard worker safety, wage standards and environmental regulation, yet our companies do the same thing abroad as they did in our own nation during the abuses of our industrial age.

We need to make immoral actions like worker exploitation and pollution more expensive for companies who want to do business in America.

@PeppermintPig - I expect my government to do what's in the best interest of the American people. That includes doing their best to win and preserve good jobs for Americans. I say that without remorse.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

boulderbum: while I do believe that morality can be defined (thanks, ethics class!), who would do the defining? America's largely anti-scientific, and generally whoever has the most money will have the biggest say in these discussions. And where does one draw the line for "worker exploitation"? personally I think that any restaurant worker who works below minimum wage is being exploited, but legally it's allowed. Also, long-term effects for pollution are hard to estimate since the materials and techniques used need to be addressed individually and in a combined perspective. The logistics behind that kind of reglementation would be pretty strong.
Again, I agree with you at least in part. But arguments can be posed against those ideas.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@boulderbum
"Employees shouldn't be treated like products"

People shouldn't expect top paying jobs if they're not going to put in the time.

People can be assets, or they can be liabilities. The government treats people like liabilities, which is why they come up with laws to regulate lifestyle choices to resolve the infeasibility of their health care and welfare programs.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Do you set no standards whatsoever in the relationships you have with others?? What you've presented is a straw man that disregards the body of my argument.

I'll state it again: It is not a statement of possession or slavery, but of producing value. It is a fundamental axiom that exchange creates value, because the destruction of value is avoided by the rational mind.

Individuals cannot be replaced like so much fuel. People who share your view on labor standards and environmentalism have suggested as much, if only to impulsively find a reason to disagree with me. It's not me they disagree with, but the idea that ethical principles must be applied consistently for them to work. If you believe your ideas have value and you should have the freedom to express them, then it would be hypocritical to reject the same freedom for others.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"The problem is that you seem to only consider employees for their monetary worth, or "value" and I'm saying human beings are commodities to be used and discarded when a cheaper "product" comes along."

I'm speaking of value in the broadest context. I see what you're saying, but individuals do not have a right to a specific job based on specific conditions. Should the horse and buggy industry have been subsidized to protect jobs because the automobile came about? Where does that line of argument end?? Progress happens.

As humans have obtained better ways of generating heat and fire, it has become a time saver, which frees individuals from prior labors and allows them to explore new challenges to create more efficient solutions, or to take the time saved and enjoy it with relaxing activities. To me, this is a good thing, not bad. The marketplace of ideas and their application is the essence of the process of discovery. The reason we have less time despite innovation is that taxes have increased our cost of living, therefore it shows how counterproductive the government has been in trying to promise to solve our problems.

Just because progress happens doesn't mean that innovations are obtained in an ethical manner...

"You disregard the suggestion that morality and justice should factor into the equation and find that suggestion untenable both for its lack of justice and also its long-term implications for our economy."

How is it rational to assume that ALL americans are entitled TO something which limits both the freedoms of americans and non-americans alike?

If people's actions define them, then it does not follow that you can set up exceptions that disregard an individual's responsibility for what they do. Forcing one person to give is not charity either It is not a good because there is no virtue in it, and it is the furthest thing from justice.

"During our progressive era, America made moral judgements that resulted in working and wage standards, robust infrastructure, and taxpayer-funded public services and education."

I have to stop you right here: America is not an individual. It cannot make choices, nor can it take responsibility for such. Secondly, you're living in the consequences of those government actions you hold in such high regard, with a system that now cannot sustain itself for the creeping costs of bureaucracy. These so-called services cannot be validated ethically or economically. Technology and innovation are supposed to reduce these costs, yet the government has continued to grow the national debt with no apparent means or intent to solve this crisis.

Sure, we're all dead in the long run, but our actions permeate with time and the living will need to deal with negative consequences of those who destroy opportunity and wealth in all its forms.

"Now that we disregard the notion of morality, we've gone from decades of trade surpluses in the $10's of billions to exploding trade deficits in the $100's of billions! Innovation and future industry is exported along with offshored jobs and our world is becoming more polluted for lack of environmental regulation abroad."

Exchange creates value for all participating individuals, which is why it is insufficient to rely on a government metric of "trade deficit" which is ACTUALLY a measure of currency performance and not a measure of individual loss in trade, which contradicts value theory entirely. The government uses this metric to manipulate the currency to their advantage.

Efficiency is not the enemy of quality. The government has increased the cost of living and the cost of doing business. In a declining market, people will use resources less efficiently over time as the opportunity to innovate is lost due tot a lack of capital. Regulation crafted under an expectation of a strong market is helpless to prevent it, and often contributes to the problem.

Cavemen had to start somewhere. Third world nations have to build their markets as well to overcome conditions you find intolerable. They cannot apply US or European style regulatory schema for 'human rights' or 'environmental protection' without expecting the high costs derived from the US or European models to in turn impoverish people whose alternatives are already grim. It's more likely to install corrupt bureaucrats who take bribes to look the other way, or to justify extortion.

"Chinese factory workers making dollars a day aren't going to run around in their Nike shoes chatting on iPhones on their way to a Cadillac in the parking lot!"

I don't have nikes, an iPhone, or a Cadillac. I guess that means I'm suffering too.

My point is, what is the alternative, and how are you creating prosperity? A business bringing jobs to your country is better than handouts. If you can refuse these "sweat shop" conditions, then surely you have better choices available to you. if not, how is government decree going to overcome the economic limitations??

Corporations or sweatshops can buy off the government. This is anti-competitive and perpetuates the problem. Trade regulation encourages this activity.

Trade regulation only makes things worse because people have to pay more for the same things, which leads to less money for the producers of the products in the factories that you seem so concerned about.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

America has what we call a "mixed" economy, some elements of capitalism and some elements of socialism. This isn't news to anyone that has any knowledge of economics.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I'm not sure saying nation x is some parts socialist and some parts capitalist is very informative in an economic context. The marketplace is substantiated by the participation of individuals asserting their values on services, goods and ideas. Where an individual is prohibited from the freedom of acting on a value judgment, this diminishes the function of a marketplace.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Socialism doesn't typically encompass forced decisions or prohibitions for consumers. The socialism we see in mixed economies is mostly just supply side elements which in many cases have a private alternative. Public transportation and roads, public schooling, postal service, energy sectors, emergency respondants are just some of many examples of socialist elements of the US mixed economy

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Voluntary socialism on initial premises contains none of the ironically antisocial attributes of state enforced 'socialist' programs.

I get the point you're making, however it tends to be a function of politics and vote buying, and the growth of the programs inevitably does lead to the restriction of individual choice, for both consumers and creators of goods... I don't believe it's beneficial to divide individuals by classes in any circumstance, but if you were to ascribe to a class theory, I would suggest one which accounts for the ethical behavior of individuals instead of dividing people by an arbitrary sum of money or status of employment.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

You said...

"Public transportation and roads, public schooling, postal service, energy sectors, emergency respondants are just some of many examples of socialist elements of the US mixed economy"

You're conflating the financial structuring via a government with the concept of the marketplace. Central planning is inherently tethered to politics.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Are you being intentionally vague or just rhetorical? I don't follow where you are going with this. The general concept of socialism is that the means of production are given a certain direction as they are publicly owned and operate in the interest of the society as whole not to maximize profits for the owner of the business(es) in question. There are forms of socialism that take on many free-market principles in order to perform at pareto optimal efficiency and maximize profits (see the chinese economy "market socialism"). I wasn't trying to argue political philosophy, which you seem to imply, to convey my economic beliefs. I was merely stating a fact about the nature of the US economy, when you nitpicked my statement.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"The general concept of socialism is that the means of production are given a certain direction as they are publicly owned and operate in the interest of the society as whole not to maximize profits for the owner of the business(es) in question."

Such a concept is silent on the matter of enforcement. To say the means of production becomes a common good does not ethically or by course qualify how an authority is established to determine that the concept is being realized and validated.

Voluntary socialism OTOH does not begin by implying that the "public" has the authority to usurp the rights of any other individual. This is the form of socialism which operates on a free market model of performance.

China is not an example of market socialism. Like most other places, it is a socially oppressive oligarchy which is relatively less controlling of industry than the US.

"I wasn't trying to argue political philosophy, which you seem to imply, to convey my economic beliefs. I was merely stating a fact about the nature of the US economy, when you nitpicked my statement. You should try being a bit less verbose in the future."

Your definition of economics is going in two different directions. One being your understanding of economics as a science vs making claims about the conditions of an economy by making generalizations about a nation's market performance. You switch back and forth between the two without apparently recognizing it.

Just because an activity is non-partisan doesn't mean it's not political in nature. You are discussing methods of organizing society, which is not economics. Economics is to finances as botany is to farming. You can do the latter, but a knowledge of the former increases your performance.

There can be no 'facts' about economics (science) that apply to one nation but not to another. When generalizing the actions of millions of people, or whole groups such as government, there's only so much informative value you can impart before the complexity of a situation becomes contradicting, or your facts require conditional statements.

We're discussing economics, you should expect verbose. Grasping the basics of economics is very simple, actually, but it is made complex because of all kinds of misconceptions, confusing term usage, and sophistic theories based on such which require dispelling.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Sorry i don't follow, in english please?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

The marketplace for illegal labor is effectively a black market created by the government in the application of immigration laws. While some immigrants take the initiative to underbid, some employers press the issue of wages, and threaten dissent with reporting and deportation.

Peaceful individuals should be free to travel. If people are concerned about criminals, then stop creating them with arbitrary and unjust restrictions that destroy wealth for everyone in the process.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

audiomodder : You know it.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Treat the cause, not the symptoms. Otherwise I would expect you to support a $100 per hour minimum wage.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

audiomodder, these are entry level jobs. Do you expect anyone to make a living off of them long term? Anyways, most companies used to hire people for more than the minimum wage until the recession, so I don't see the problem.

And tell me, why don't we raise the minimum wage to $100's an hour? Oh yeah, a minimum wage increase also caused a canned fish packaging company to lay off employees. Isn't that nice?

Maybe surviving economically wouldn't be so harsh if the government just f**ked off from the economy.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@ChuckDees : Heh, yeah, that's why Hong Kong is performing better than us.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

George Washington fought a war to resist a one percent tax, only to turn around and murder his fellow countrymen refusing a tax targeting whiskey production, which was intended to pay for the last armed conflict. Start a war to pay for another war... the hypocrisy is monumental.

You can't use standards such as nationalism or other forms of collectivism to determine the worth of an individual. Nor can such standards be used to deprive people of the freedom to choose the kind of relationships and activities they want to participate in without crossing an ethical line.

Slavery was also 'good enough' for post revolution America. I'm of the opinion that there's no reason to limit the pursuit of liberty. You should be free to advance the goals you believe in, but not at the expense of the liberty of others.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Tariffs have worked in this nation since 1789. They are currently working right now for the economies of Japan, S.Korea and Germany.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I 100% agree....

For the U.S to continue to have economic prosperity it needs to have control of it's on destiny from the beginning to end. After a country builds an infrastructure to utilize new innovations, it then need a way to "produce products. The U.S (in a lame general term) has topped producing and manufacturing jobs instead outsourcing the "labor force" to India, China, Russia etc.. as it's cheaper and more cost effective. Cheaper and more cost effective for the companies that innovated the products, but not necessarily cheaper for (let's say) U.S citizens.

Yea.. it's great that I can buy a $10.00 widget at WalMart instead of $30.00 at the Mom and Pops. But it sure sucks I work at Walmart making $9/hr, because the local manufacturing plant closed 2 years ago where I was making $22/hr.

Outsourcing manufacturing & production jobs are great for companies... bad for countries that are seeing jobs being lost, and definitely bad for the people who lost their jobs. As Friedman has said, "The world is flat".. but isn't really a good thing for U.S employees.. or lack there of.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

You can't get around the fact that a guy making $1/hr in Shanghai is going to be able to undercut an American making $22/hr. That's just a fact of life. When the Communists were queering the Chinese economy it wasn't a problem, but that hasn't been the case since Mao died.

• Reply