Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

In your originial post you "she believes in freedom to the individual" and I replied "unless you happen to be gay or wish to make your own reproductive choices." How exactly was I misrepresenting anything you said? You were talking about what she believes and I elaborated on it.

Now, since you added in that original post that she isn't trying to go on some Christian Crusade, and then contradicted that in the above post by claiming that it is a Senator's job to try to sway others to political point of view, it is little wonder that you have to explain yourself 90% of the time. Don't be angry with me because you are a poor communicator who can't make a cohesive point.

You attack people because when you make your silly points and people disagree it is all you've got left.

Your post left a lot to interpretation, but it implied that if Bachmann stays in power, awful things are going to happen to gays and women who get abortions.

Bottom line: if you don't live in MN, it doesn't affect you. If you live in MN, vote her out. Simple as that.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I'm not disagreeing with this, but that is actually opposite of the point Leppy was making. He was claiming that her personal beliefs are not her political beliefs and the two should not be confused. You are saying that her personal beliefs are her political beliefs (or at least she wants them to be perceived that way). It appears you are closer to my thoughts on this than you are to his.

Thanks for that.

I can't stand her personally. Like you mentioned, I think there is a huge amount of hypocrisy from religous conservatives. Conservatives want government "out of their lives" yet are willing to push their religous views on others (gay marriage being a prime example). Doesn't seem logical to me. Personal views are one thing, but forcing personal views on others is something totally different. On the flip side, liberals do this too. They strive for diversity but seem very intolerant when it comes to diversity of thought (as our conservatives).

 

[GoIrish41]

Your post left a lot to interpretation, but it implied that if Bachmann stays in power, awful things are going to happen to gays and women who get abortions.

Bottom line: if you don't live in MN, it doesn't affect you. If you live in MN, vote her out. Simple as that.

I don't know how you interpreted if Bachmann stays in power, awful things are going to happen to gays and women who get abortions from any of my posts, but whatever.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'll take a step back. I respect people's opinions and I welcome debate.

What ticks me off is the perception and portrayal of different people's opinions, beliefs, politics, etc.

Example: We know our president isn't a regular attendee at mass every sunday. Not a problem whatsoever. But when he says he wants to raise taxes on the "rich" and quotes Jesus and the Bible, he's described as "spiritual."

When Bachmann says she is against homosexuality, she's painted as backwards, knuckle dragging, fundamentalist, hateful right winger.

That's the difference.

 

[GoIrish41]

Pretty balanced article that calls on both sides to do the right thing to avoid sequestration.

Sequestration deadline offers politicians teachable moment - The Hill's Congress Blog

 

[Bluto]

Definitely. Any secular culture is superior to a religious one. A culture that inherently denies freedom to women is inferior 100% of the time. I would also welcome a politician who finally stood up and said that the "ghetto" culture was disgusting, too.

What's ghetto culture in your opinion? Graffiti and gangster rap? Dueling banjos and hoarding used John Deere parts? Crusty punks living under a bridge with their dog? Italian and Irish mobsters? 64 impalas with gold flake and going to the flea market?

 

[DSully1995]

I'll take a step back. I respect people's opinions and I welcome debate.

What ticks me off is the perception and portrayal of different people's opinions, beliefs, politics, etc.

Example: We know our president isn't a regular attendee at mass every sunday. Not a problem whatsoever. But when he says he wants to raise taxes on the "rich" and quotes Jesus and the Bible, he's described as "spiritual."

When Bachmann says she is against homosexuality, she's painted as backwards, knuckle dragging, fundamentalist, hateful right winger.

That's the difference.

Just saying, I doubt people are hating on her for that,

."I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending." –Rep. Michele Bachmann

"I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Florida, after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter." –Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), on the HPV vaccine, Fox News interview, Sept. 12, 2011

"Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, 'Be submissive wives; you are to be submissive to your husbands." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, recalling in a 2006 speech at a Megachurch in Minneapolis that pursuing tax law wasn't her choice, but she did so at the urging of her husband because she was certain God was speaking through him

"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, on the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak that happened when Gerald Ford, a Republican, was president, April 28, 2009


I got carried away and posted alot of them, too good to pass up.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Pretty balanced article that calls on both sides to do the right thing to avoid sequestration.

Sequestration deadline offers politicians teachable moment - The Hill's Congress Blog

good find.

I like this insight to the situation as well.

"On a practical note, the military cuts would have to be defined relative to a baseline, which already specifies spending increases. So the “cuts” in the sequestration would still lead to higher nominal military spending and roughly flat inflation-adjusted spending across the next 10 years. That is hardly unilateral disarmament, given that the United States accounts for about half of global military spending. And in a time when some belt-tightening will undoubtedly be required, that seems a manageable degree of restraint."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/business/budget-sequestration-how-to-do-it-right.html?_r=0

 

[Black Irish]

"Real wages" may not increase, but what you can buy with your dollar increases exponentially. That's is the textbook advantage/disadvantage with capitalism.

I have a lot of critiques for Reagan, but yours are a bit off.



I don't think that is necessarily true either. That purchasing power goes to buy goods from China.

Bottom of the line, this isn't a good thing:

The Walton family (Walmart) has more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans. Isn't that a bit ****ed up?

Is it screwed up? And if so, how? A lot of people look at this wealth disparity and say "wow, that's so wrong." But they can't really articulate why it's wrong in a logical way. Wealth is not a zero sum game. All of the Baltimore Ravens players get a minimum bonus of over $80K for winning the Super Bowl last night, thus getting an instant boost in personal wealth. Is there a group of people out there who are suddenly poorer because that happened?

 

[BobD]

What's ghetto culture in your opinion? Graffiti and gangster rap? Dueling banjos and hoarding used John Deere parts? Crusty punks living under a bridge with their dog? Italian and Irish mobsters? 64 impalas with gold flake and going to the flea market?

What you got against flea markets ese?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The Nordic countries are reinventing their model of capitalism, says Adrian WooldridgeFeb 2nd 2013 |From the print edition Tweet


THIRTY YEARS AGO Margaret Thatcher turned Britain into the world’s leading centre of “thinking the unthinkable”. Today that distinction has passed to Sweden. The streets of Stockholm are awash with the blood of sacred cows. The think-tanks are brimful of new ideas. The erstwhile champion of the “third way” is now pursuing a far more interesting brand of politics.

Sweden has reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP from 67% in 1993 to 49% today. It could soon have a smaller state than Britain. It has also cut the top marginal tax rate by 27 percentage points since 1983, to 57%, and scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance. This year it is cutting the corporate-tax rate from 26.3% to 22%.

Sweden has also donned the golden straitjacket of fiscal orthodoxy with its pledge to produce a fiscal surplus over the economic cycle. Its public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010, and its budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3% over the same period. This allowed a country with a small, open economy to recover quickly from the financial storm of 2007-08. Sweden has also put its pension system on a sound foundation, replacing a defined-benefit system with a defined-contribution one and making automatic adjustments for longer life expectancy.

Most daringly, it has introduced a universal system of school vouchers and invited private schools to compete with public ones. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly. Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist who lives in America, hopes that Sweden is pioneering “a new conservative model”; Brian Palmer, an American anthropologist who lives in Sweden, worries that it is turning into “the United States of Swedeamerica”.

There can be no doubt that Sweden’s quiet revolution has brought about a dramatic change in its economic performance. The two decades from 1970 were a period of decline: the country was demoted from being the world’s fourth-richest in 1970 to 14th-richest in 1993, when the average Swede was poorer than the average Briton or Italian. The two decades from 1990 were a period of recovery: GDP growth between 1993 and 2010 averaged 2.7% a year and productivity 2.1% a year, compared with 1.9% and 1% respectively for the main 15 EU countries.


For most of the 20th century Sweden prided itself on offering what Marquis Childs called, in his 1936 book of that title, a “Middle Way” between capitalism and socialism. Global companies such as Volvo and Ericsson generated wealth while enlightened bureaucrats built the Folkhemmet or “People’s Home”. As the decades rolled by, the middle way veered left. The government kept growing: public spending as a share of GDP nearly doubled from 1960 to 1980 and peaked at 67% in 1993. Taxes kept rising. The Social Democrats (who ruled Sweden for 44 uninterrupted years from 1932 to 1976 and for 21 out of the 24 years from 1982 to 2006) kept squeezing business. “The era of neo-capitalism is drawing to an end,” said Olof Palme, the party’s leader, in 1974. “It is some kind of socialism that is the key to the future.”



The other Nordic countries have been moving in the same direction, if more slowly. Denmark has one of the most liberal labour markets in Europe. It also allows parents to send children to private schools at public expense and make up the difference in cost with their own money. Finland is harnessing the skills of venture capitalists and angel investors to promote innovation and entrepreneurship. Oil-rich Norway is a partial exception to this pattern, but even there the government is preparing for its post-oil future.

This is not to say that the Nordics are shredding their old model. They continue to pride themselves on the generosity of their welfare states. About 30% of their labour force works in the public sector, twice the average in the Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation, a rich-country think-tank. They continue to believe in combining open economies with public investment in human capital. But the new Nordic model begins with the individual rather than the state. It begins with fiscal responsibility rather than pump-priming: all four Nordic countries have AAA ratings and debt loads significantly below the euro-zone average. It begins with choice and competition rather than paternalism and planning. The economic-freedom index of the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think-tank, shows Sweden and Finland catching up with the United States (see chart). The leftward lurch has been reversed: rather than extending the state into the market, the Nordics are extending the market into the state.



Why are the Nordic countries doing this? The obvious answer is that they have reached the limits of big government. “The welfare state we have is excellent in most ways,” says Gunnar Viby Mogensen, a Danish historian. “We only have this little problem. We can’t afford it.” The economic storms that shook all the Nordic countries in the early 1990s provided a foretaste of what would happen if they failed to get their affairs in order.

There are two less obvious reasons. The old Nordic model depended on the ability of a cadre of big companies to generate enough money to support the state, but these companies are being slimmed by global competition. The old model also depended on people’s willingness to accept direction from above, but Nordic populations are becoming more demanding.

Small is powerful

The Nordic countries have a collective population of only 26m. Finland is the only one of them that is a member of both the European Union and the euro area. Sweden is in the EU but outside the euro and has a freely floating currency. Denmark, too, is in the EU and outside the euro area but pegs its currency to the euro. Norway has remained outside the EU.

But there are compelling reasons for paying attention to these small countries on the edge of Europe. The first is that they have reached the future first. They are grappling with problems that other countries too will have to deal with in due course, such as what to do when you reach the limits of big government and how to organise society when almost all women work. And the Nordics are coming up with highly innovative solutions that reject the tired orthodoxies of left and right.

The second reason to pay attention is that the new Nordic model is proving strikingly successful. The Nordics dominate indices of competitiveness as well as of well-being. Their high scores in both types of league table mark a big change since the 1980s when welfare took precedence over competitiveness.

Explore our interactive guide to Europe's troubled economiesThe Nordics do particularly well in two areas where competitiveness and welfare can reinforce each other most powerfully: innovation and social inclusion. BCG, as the Boston Consulting Group calls itself, gives all of them high scores on its e-intensity index, which measures the internet’s impact on business and society. Booz & Company, another consultancy, points out that big companies often test-market new products on Nordic consumers because of their willingness to try new things. The Nordic countries led the world in introducing the mobile network in the 1980s and the GSM standard in the 1990s. Today they are ahead in the transition to both e-government and the cashless economy. Locals boast that they pay their taxes by SMS. This correspondent gave up changing sterling into local currencies because everything from taxi rides to cups of coffee can be paid for by card.

The Nordics also have a strong record of drawing on the talents of their entire populations, with the possible exception of their immigrants. They have the world’s highest rates of social mobility: in a comparison of social mobility in eight advanced countries by Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Stephen Machin, of the London School of Economics, they occupied the first four places. America and Britain came last. The Nordics also have exceptionally high rates of female labour-force participation: in Denmark not far off as many women go out to work (72%) as men (79%).

Flies in the ointment

This special report will examine the way the Nordic governments are updating their version of capitalism to deal with a more difficult world. It will note that in doing so they have unleashed a huge amount of creativity and become world leaders in reform. Nordic entrepreneurs are feeling their oats in a way not seen since the early 20th century. Nordic writers and artists—and indeed Nordic chefs and game designers—are enjoying a creative renaissance.

The report will also add caveats. The growing diversity of Nordic societies is generating social tensions, most horrifically in Norway, where Anders Breivik killed 77 people in a racially motivated attack in 2011, but also on a more mundane level every day. Sweden is finding it particularly hard to integrate its large population of refugees.



The Nordic model is still a work in progress. The three forces that have obliged the Nordic countries to revamp it—limited resources, rampant globalisation and growing diversity—are gathering momentum. The Nordics will have to continue to upgrade their model, but they will also have to fight to retain what makes it distinctive. Lant Pritchett and Michael Woolcock, of the World Bank, have coined the term “getting to Denmark” to describe successful modernisation. This report will suggest that the trick is not just to get to Denmark; it is to stay there.

The final caveat is about learning from the Nordic example, which other countries are rightly trying to do. Britain, for example, is introducing Swedish-style “free schools”. But transferring such lessons is fraught with problems. The Nordics’ success depends on their long tradition of good government, which emphasises not only honesty and transparency but also consensus and compromise. Learning from Denmark may be as difficult as staying there.

 

[Bluto]

What you got against flea markets ese?

Daaaamn Bob! That's what was in my dream last night. U psychic bro!

 

[Bluto]

Hey Polish Leppy good post. I did notice that the Swedes have a top income tax rate of 57%. Also, the Nordic countries seem to be committed to a mix of socialist and capitalist principals. Unfortunately in the US you can't even have a discussion about the pros of applying a socialist approach to certain policies or sectors of society. I suppose one take away for me is that those countries seem to govern with a much more rational and analytical approach when compared to the US. That closing blurb about transparency, honesty and compromise in governance stuck out as well.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Hey Polish Leppy good post. I did notice that the Swedes have a top income tax rate of 57%. Also, the Nordic countries seem to be committed to a mix of socialist and capitalist principals. Unfortunately in the US you can't even have a discussion about the pros of applying a socialist approach to certain policies or sectors of society. I suppose one take away for me is that those countries seem to govern with a much more rational and analytical approach when compared to the US. That closing blurb about transparency, honesty and compromise in governance stuck out as well.

To me this proves that certain policies can work, but Sweden has a model that fits Sweden. The people of Sweden are accustomed to paying certain amounts for certain things. They do without many things that we in the US love. US residents have about a 50% higher amount of real disposible income per capita then Sweeds. Would you want to pay these types of real estate prices?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Is it screwed up? And if so, how? A lot of people look at this wealth disparity and say "wow, that's so wrong." But they can't really articulate why it's wrong in a logical way. Wealth is not a zero sum game. All of the Baltimore Ravens players get a minimum bonus of over $80K for winning the Super Bowl last night, thus getting an instant boost in personal wealth. Is there a group of people out there who are suddenly poorer because that happened?

In the case of the Waltons, it's pretty specific and simple. Full-time Walmart employees are paid so little (because it requires zero skill), that ~80% of them receive government aid. The average Walmart store receives $420,000 in aid from the government because the people are so poor. Walmart last year received $2,660,000,000 in aid to employees, yet the corporation profited >$15,000,000,000.

So you see how the rich can bitch about welfare programs that "aren't needed," yet they are the ones paying their employees so poorly. The Walton family is worth >$102,000,000,000!!!

If you don't see a potential problem with the richest family (five people) in America being worth more than the bottom 128,000,000 people, then I simply don't know what to say. You might want to revisit revolutions in history for a bit. This problem is worsening:

What happens when 90% of jobs are reduced to the complexity of Walmart workers? Machinery/technology will replace all of the truly difficult stuff within the next fifty years. Do you think it's right for the owners of that capital to live luxuriously while the bottom 90% live in rot? That's hypothetical, of course, but it has happened 10000x before.

Wealth concentration can be a serious, serious problem. The populace is distracted by sports teams and cable television for now, but it could spiral out of control if the wealth keeps concentrating.

 

[BobD]

In the case of the Waltons, it's pretty specific and simple. Full-time Walmart employees are paid so little (because it requires zero skill), that ~80% of them receive government aid. The average Walmart store receives $420,000 in aid from the government because the people are so poor. Walmart last year received $2,660,000,000 in aid to employees, yet the corporation profited >$15,000,000,000.

So you see how the rich can bitch about welfare programs that "aren't needed," yet they are the ones paying their employees so poorly. The Walton family is worth >$102,000,000,000!!!

If you don't see a potential problem with the richest family (five people) in America being worth more than the bottom 128,000,000 people, then I simply don't know what to say. You might want to revisit revolutions in history for a bit. This problem is worsening:

What happens when 90% of jobs are reduced to the complexity of Walmart workers? Machinery/technology will replace all of the truly difficult stuff within the next fifty years. Do you think it's right for the owners of that capital to live luxuriously while the bottom 90% live in rot? That's hypothetical, of course, but it has happened 10000x before.

Wealth concentration can be a serious, serious problem. The populace is distracted by sports teams and cable television for now, but it could spiral out of control if the wealth keeps concentrating.

I'm glad to see some people are starting to realize how devastating Wal-Mart has become to our country.

 

[Bluto]

To me this proves that certain policies can work, but Sweden has a model that fits Sweden. The people of Sweden are accustomed to paying certain amounts for certain things. They do without many things that we in the US love. US residents have about a 50% higher amount of real disposible income per capita then Sweeds. Would you want to pay these types of real estate prices?

Sure it shows that those policies work for those Nordic countries. To me it also shows that those countries govenements and in turn their populations are much more vested in the idea of a "common good".

As for the disposable income thing I guess you would have to ask the question what do those in the US spend their extra disposable income on? Healthcare, education, motor vehicles? Also, you would probably want to look and see if the distribution of that income in each country doesn't skew that. That is to say you would have to compare similar income brackets in each country.

As for the real estate question, I think that has as much to do with limited space as it does fiscal policies. That is to say I'm pretty sure tearing down historic structures in Stokholm, Paris ect... to throw up a 1,000 story space needle looking building is not an option. People is Paris were pissed enough over the glass pyramid thing.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I'm glad to see some people are starting to realize how devastating Wal-Mart has become to our country.

Wal-Mart Is Good For You - Forbes.com

I know this is a bit dated, but the message is still valid. Plus, it doesn't take into consideration how Wal-Mart has revolutionized supply chains across the globe and how much cash that thawed for corporations.

Don't mistake this for me being all pro Wal-Mart, because I am not. I would certainly like to see them change somethings on their end. But, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, it was more good than bad.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Sure it shows that those policies work for those Nordic countries. To me it also shows that those countries govenements and in turn their populations are much more vested in the idea of a "common good".

Its almost a truism that people want a goverenment that promotes the common good.

But it may be that small homogenous populations actually agree on what the common good is, whereas larger more diverse populations do not.

The "common good" can mean very different things for different people: is abortion murder or an issue concerning the autonomy of a woman's body? Is the common goood served by making abortion illegal or enshrining it as a fundamental right? Who says?

Recognizing these differences was a large motivation behind our orignal federalist structure: the States can differ on issues that can be decided locally (moral issues, property, taxes, etc.), while agreeing to compromise on issues of ivevitable national importance. In other words, everyone's conception of the common good at that time included a strong national defense, organized and open commerce, consistent relationships with foriegn powers, etc. So they agreed to cede power to the federal goverenment on those issues.

That is much different than pretending that 51% get to create a "national common good" which must be accepted by large, diverse populations (ehtnically, culturally, relgiously, geographically).

 

[Bluto]

Its almost a truism that people want a goverenment that promotes the common good.

But it may be that small homogenous populations actually agree on what the common good is, whereas larger more diverse populations do not.

The "common good" can mean very different things for different people: is abortion murder or an issue concerning the autonomy of a woman's body? Is the common goood served by making abortion illegal or enshrining it as a fundamental right? Who says?

Recognizing these differences was a large motivation behind our orignal federalist structure: the States can differ on issues that can be decided locally (moral issues, property, taxes, etc.), while agreeing to compromise on issues of ivevitable national importance. In other words, everyone's conception of the common good at that time included a strong national defense, organized and open commerce, consistent relationships with foriegn powers, etc. So they agreed to cede power to the federal goverenment on those issues.

That is much different than pretending that 51% get to create a "national common good" which must be accepted by large, diverse populations (ehtnically, culturally, relgiously, geographically).

Those are some good points.

 

[Black Irish]

In the case of the Waltons, it's pretty specific and simple. Full-time Walmart employees are paid so little (because it requires zero skill), that ~80% of them receive government aid. The average Walmart store receives $420,000 in aid from the government because the people are so poor. Walmart last year received $2,660,000,000 in aid to employees, yet the corporation profited >$15,000,000,000.

So you see how the rich can bitch about welfare programs that "aren't needed," yet they are the ones paying their employees so poorly. The Walton family is worth >$102,000,000,000!!!

If you don't see a potential problem with the richest family (five people) in America being worth more than the bottom 128,000,000 people, then I simply don't know what to say. You might want to revisit revolutions in history for a bit. This problem is worsening:

What happens when 90% of jobs are reduced to the complexity of Walmart workers? Machinery/technology will replace all of the truly difficult stuff within the next fifty years. Do you think it's right for the owners of that capital to live luxuriously while the bottom 90% live in rot? That's hypothetical, of course, but it has happened 10000x before.

Wealth concentration can be a serious, serious problem. The populace is distracted by sports teams and cable television for now, but it could spiral out of control if the wealth keeps concentrating.

Sorry, you still aren't convincing me. With regard to Wal-Mart, you say that Wal-Mart employees are paid so little because they have no skill. Okay, isn't it generally accepted that non-skill and low skill workers don't get paid that well? After all, their skills are not that rare and valuable. Ideally, they acquire skills and become more valuable, and thus demand better compensation. Also, not all Wal-Mart employees are working entry-level, no skill jobs which requires them to be on welfare. People don't become poor because they are working at Wal-Mart, they likely were already poor and were on welfare. Getting a paycheck from Wal-Mart is, hopefully, a step towards getting out of poverty. People don't have to work at Wal-Mart. If the job sucks and doesn't pay well, then either get another job, get a second job to make up the shortfall, or bust your butt to become promotable and earn more money.

With regard to your other line of reasoning regarding wealth disparity, that it causes revolutions, well I don't know what to say to that. Tell rich people to stop being so rich or else the rabble will get so caught up in the "haves-versus-have-nots" rhetoric that they will riot in the streets? People used to riot in the streets because black people were allowed to go to their schools and live in their neighborhoods. I don't think we need to make economic decisions based on what the angry, unwashed masses MIGHT do. Why don't we work on educating them so that they won't be susceptible to silly, inflammatory rhetoric?

As I stated before, wealth isn't a zero sum game. The wealth of the rich is not a result of depriving the poor of money. Warren Buffet is infinitely wealthier than I am. Does that mean I'm somehow getting screwed? Or are they separate and distinct things? I don't want people to be poor and suffer, but I don't see how the top 1% being really rich is somehow responsible for the poverty of the bottom percentile.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm glad to see some people are starting to realize how devastating Wal-Mart has become to our country.

It honestly has very little to do with Walmart. It has more to do with capitalism's inherent concentration of wealth.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Sorry, you still aren't convincing me. With regard to Wal-Mart, you say that Wal-Mart employees are paid so little because they have no skill. Okay, isn't it generally accepted that non-skill and low skill workers don't get paid that well? After all, their skills are not that rare and valuable.

I'm not arguing that, which is why I stated it. That is exactly what Marx says will happen.

I want you to seriously think about this. Just 200 years ago, there might have been a million blacksmiths working in the country. They built everything. Horseshoes, axes, shovels, hammers, etc etc etc. Then some brilliant fellow came around and built a factory with a mechanized press than could churn out all of that at 10% of the cost and 1000x faster. So much wealth was created, people had more disposable income, there are a ton of benefits. Hell--classical poverty as we knew it was destroyed with capitalism. BUT, in regard to that worker...you don't need to be a skilled blacksmith, you need to know how to press a button and little more. You aren't worth as much. Your ability to sell your personal work has been eliminated. That's the goal: eliminate the human element.

Plus, you don't need a million blacksmiths, you need 25% of that total. A few guys to make the prints and the men to operate the factories. The sheer efficiency is amazing is most senses.

Ideally, they acquire skills and become more valuable, and thus demand better compensation.

Absolutely, not question. The entire point is that capitalism replaces that skill with technology. Walmart has it down almost perfectly. I think it's amazing that you can scan an item through the register and the storage warehouse 150 miles away immediately knows. The computer is keeping track of all of the inventory levels, and prints out the necessary shipment orders. The human just drives it and unloads it. The beautiful system has replaced any skill necessary.

We have been seeing for two centuries the amount of skill needed become less and less. The smartest people are worth so much more because they can design systems of automation that replace the need for low-skill people.

Also, not all Wal-Mart employees are working entry-level, no skill jobs which requires them to be on welfare.

80% of Walmart employees are receiving government aid (i.e. SNAP, welfare, etc). When you take into account the legions of smart businessmen working in the corporate offices, and college educated supply chain managers, etc....I assume that leaves just about everyone in the actual Walmart stores.

People don't become poor because they are working at Wal-Mart, they likely were already poor and were on welfare. Getting a paycheck from Wal-Mart is, hopefully, a step towards getting out of poverty. People don't have to work at Wal-Mart. If the job sucks and doesn't pay well, then either get another job, get a second job to make up the shortfall, or bust your butt to become promotable and earn more money.

In theory, that'd be awesome. Evidence is overwhelming to the contrary. Let me say that again, 80% of full-time Walmart employees don't make enough to not qualify for government aid. The key word is full time.

Then you have to add in that the jobs these people qualify for aren't usually the type that promote well. Because after all, the skill element has been taken out of it.

With regard to your other line of reasoning regarding wealth disparity, that it causes revolutions, well I don't know what to say to that. Tell rich people to stop being so rich or else the rabble will get so caught up in the "haves-versus-have-nots" rhetoric that they will riot in the streets? People used to riot in the streets because black people were allowed to go to their schools and live in their neighborhoods. I don't think we need to make economic decisions based on what the angry, unwashed masses MIGHT do. Why don't we work on educating them so that they won't be susceptible to silly, inflammatory rhetoric?

You've got a whole lot going on in this paragraph. I've never told "rich people to stop being rich," I probably qualify as such and come from a family of multiple (successful) business owners. I am certainly not anti-business and am constantly proclaiming the miracle of capitalism (which, as stated, basically eradicated classical poverty).

When I was speaking about the future, I was asking you what happens what the number of people whose skillset has been replaced by technology/machinery/robots gets...dangerous. It's certainly possible if it continues where it's going.

You see, the real wealth gains are for the people who own the capital. The factory worker makes x, the factory owner makes 100x...and now that owner doesn't change. Corporations don't die, you know. Corporatism is ubiquitous, and the thus the wealth is concentrating.

And that's just from 1979. The 1950-onward stuff is eye-opening to say the least.

As I stated before, wealth isn't a zero sum game. The wealth of the rich is not a result of depriving the poor of money. Warren Buffet is infinitely wealthier than I am. Does that mean I'm somehow getting screwed? Or are they separate and distinct things?

Certainly separate. Capitalism showed us that wealth is created, no doubt about that.

I don't want people to be poor and suffer, but I don't see how the top 1% being really rich is somehow responsible for the poverty of the bottom percentile.

They are indirectly on about a hundred different ways. The 1% run the country, and they are failing. For me personally, there are the billionaires whom I respect (e.g. Bill Gates), who invented a product that revolutionized the world. Then there are the Waltons who, to their credit, perfected supply chain management (thus alienating people, btw)....but also undercut millions of hard working people by outsourcing production to China. Gates benefited from creating a revolutionary product, Waltons benefited from globalization and undercutting everyone. Not quite the same and I don't see the Waltons donating a ton of cash like the elite of yesteryear did.

 

[BobD]

It honestly has very little to do with Walmart. It has more to do with capitalism's inherent concentration of wealth.

Wal-Mart's business model to the scale that it has become is destroying American jobs in manufacturing and retail because we can't afford to manufacture at their demanded wholesale pricing or offer customer service at their retail margins.

It's a lot like the unions, but in reverse. If you're paid more than the average 4 year college grad. to perform manual labor .....that will drive wholesale and retail costs higher. 50k a year to put seats in a Chevy so you can buy $99 Chinese flat screen TV's at Wally World on credit won't hold up any economy long.

 

[yankeehater]

So much for the cost of health care going down in the ACA according to the IRS!

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News

 

[chicago51]

Been a busy day for me. Just now reading some of today's post.

I got one proposal raise the minimum wage. If you raise the minimum wage significantly enough to get McDonalds and Walmart workers out of poverty. You accomplish many things.

You get people off of Medicaid and food stamps.

Also poor people typically spend their money they don't save it. So there pay gets respent back into the economy stimulating growth.

Also it increases tax revenue to an extent. You still ain't going to get the revenue you get from the higher tax brackets but you get more than you were if you are the federal government.

 

[chicago51]

Obamacare needed the public option to really bring down the cost.

The Obamacare will bring down the cost for lower incomes the problem is once you get beyond 4x the poverty level it skyrockets. So basically the upper mid to upper middle class is going to get nailed. So if make a bit too much you get nailed.

 

[DSully1995]

I have been busy today. After reading today's post I got one proposal raise the minimum wage significantly at least beyond the poverty line.

It does a couple things.

Gets workers of Walmart and McDonalds off of Medicaid and food stamps saving money.

Poor people typically don't save they spend. So more money circulating will help stimulate the economy.

Also a bit more tax revenue from the low income bracket.

Your then paying a Walmart employee more than hes worth, great for him, but walmart gonna cut jobs. So while trying to help the poor you end up ****ing alot of them over. MacroEcon 101, one of the basic ideas why there is unemplyment is minimum wage

 

[Buster Bluth]

Wal-Mart's business model to the scale that it has become is destroying American jobs in manufacturing and retail because we can't afford to manufacture at their demanded wholesale pricing or offer customer service at their retail margins.

It's a lot like the unions, but in reverse. If you're paid more than the average 4 year college grad. to perform manual labor .....that will drive wholesale and retail costs higher. 50k a year to put seats in a Chevy so you can buy $99 Chinese flat screen TV's at Wally World on credit won't hold up any economy long.

I mostly agree. I was simply saying that that has less to do with Walmart per se than with the natural occurrences within the parameters of capitalism.

Capitalism over time will move every industry into an oligopoly, or even an monopoly. We have laws designed to stop monopolies, but almost none to stop oligopolies. Walmart is just one member (the biggest) in the retail oligopoly.

This happens in almost every industry: I'm doing food systems research right now: there are something like 2.5 million farms, and 320 million eaters (not a technical term haha), do you know how many corporations control the market from the soil to your mouth? Five.

Watch things like Beer Wars to see how corporations grew and grew and grew to dominate that market.

Read about the thousand or so car companies in 1910 and the dozenish left by 1960. It happens everywhere.

And all of them undercut their competition by "Economies of Scale." They all outsource and they all are amazingly efficient. And, they've taken the "low-skill" factor out as much as possible.

Think about where it's going though. Back to the food, what happens when migrant workers are replaced by a robot rover that can pull weeds, scan leaves for infection/infestation, vacuum harmful bugs, etc etc. They're useless, literally. And also unemployed.

We've always been able to say "well efficiency in this industry has freed up people to do other jobs," and that has absolutely been true--even if they aren't as well paying. But robotics technology is about to boom and what happens when entire industries don't need people? That Walmart warehouse mentioned earlier will have a Google self-driving truck that will unload itself like an automated trash-truck does, so only 1/10 of the people are there, making sure it doesn't screw up.

 

[yankeehater]

Obamacare needed the public option to really bring down the cost.

The Obamacare will bring down the cost for lower incomes the problem is once you get beyond 4x the poverty level it skyrockets. So basically the upper mid to upper middle class is going to get nailed. So if make a bit too much you get nailed.

What do you consider a bit too much?