|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hyroglyphx writes: It appears you are correct. I cannot find anything that substantiates that it was first designed to be an opt-in program. I honestly have no idea where I heard that, but it must have been at least ten years ago and I failed to fact check it. Rookie mistake I thought of a possibility where you might have picked up this idea and have confirmed it online. Changes to Social Security law in 1950 made it possible for members of some groups previously excluded to voluntarily opt in. Examples are government employees and members of non-profit firms. See The High Cost of Good Intentions: A History of U.S. Federal Entitlement Programs - John F. Cogan - Google Books (the link opens on the correct page, it's in the last full paragraph). --Percy Edited by Percy, : Explain where information in book is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Faith writes: It doesn't seem to bother you, or even occur to you, that you might be expressing a biased partisan point of view against me. The evidence of your own posts supports the accuracy of the observations about you.
I'm leaving. I wonder what your rate of "stomp off in a huff" per year is? If/when you return you might consider letting factual information creep into your discussion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
RAZD writes: Don't know what it means to "lower their taxable value." Do you mean lower the amount they pay in taxes? Lower taxable income by putting profit money where it isn’t taxed, either back into company (bonuses for employees etc) or some tax haven. It's isn't as simple as you think. Money paid for operating expenses isn't taxable, but money paid to expand the business is. Corporations can't make profits go away by investing in their business, something I just learned, which means I have to modify some of my response to Theodoric. Profits used to expand the business or purchase other companies are still profits. Companies that diminish their profits by increasing employee compensation may find that they're both diminishing their competitiveness within their industry and foregoing opportunities for expansion of the business. Companies that pay dividends will be discouraged from reducing profits, since dividends are paid out of profits.
0% unemployment isn't achievable because people lose or leave jobs and it takes time to find another, and there is technological change, economic change (decline of steel industry and coal mining), personal situations, etc. Everybody’s doing something, just some of it is not included in the $$ economy even though it supports it. Stay home parents for example. They aren’t unemployed. Same with artists. The emphasis on earning money imho damages to culture, creativity and wellbeing of people. But what happens to "culture, creativity and wellbeing" when there's insufficient income for food and shelter?
And IF having people unemployed is of value to the economy then they should be compensated. I've never seen it argued that unemployment is of value to the economy. You just said that 5% unemployment was considered good so that it prevented inflation, or did I misinterpret? I think you misinterpreted. What I said in Message 4795 was:
Percy in Message 4795 writes: But the full employment point is also considered the inflation threshold. This is not a hard and fast rule, of course. It just means that once you reach full employment that inflation becomes a risk that has to be carefully monitored. Put another way, as unemployment drops the competition for employees increases, thereby increasing wages, which increases business costs, which causes them to raise prices, which increases inflation thereby diminishing the value of the increased wages, etc., possibly setting off an inflationary spiral. This has happened in recent history. The interest rate on my 1985 mortgage was above 13%.
I'm reminded of the joke, "Under a communist system the Detroit Lions would win the Super Bowl every 32 years" (pick your sport and team), but I understand your point. Well your joke misses the mark imho. It isn't my joke. It's actually a very old joke dating to well before the fall of the Soviet Union. And I think I do understand your point. There is a discernible element of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" in your viewpoint.
There is more to life than making money, the $$ economy ignores that. I don't think it does. I made lifelong friendships while working that are a meaningful part of my life. I still have at least annual get togethers with people I met at work in 1980. I just now confirmed a lunch with friends from the company I retired from five years ago. Our human side doesn't disappear while working. And the larger and more important part of our life outside of work is only made possible by working, or at least that is true for me and everyone I know. I don't know anyone who was able to raise a family while neither parent worked. In fact, I don't think I know anyone who didn't work, family or not. I'm racking my brain here for a ne'er-do-well who didn't work, but I can't think of one. I know they exist, I just don't happen to know any. And working pays for retirement, assuming one saves responsibly, and retirement is a huge part of life.
Should every job pay a living wage? When you and I were kids there was such a thing as paperboys. There were tons of low paying jobs filled by teenagers. And I spent half my earnings at the bakery next to the newspaper building every Saturday (yumm). But if someone spent 40 hours a week at it then yes it should be a living wage ... because they are spending their life to do it. If the employer is buying that time from the employee then they should be fairly compensated, because they can’t do anything else in that time. Why is the number of hours worked the governing factor instead of the value of the work performed? What about the 16-year old who works part time during the school year and full time in the summer?
Public support of art and culture is important. It was once a higher priority than it is today. But it has never been considered a business equivalent occupation. Support has generally relied on the kindness of strangers wealthy patrons, kings, etc. This is not true for all arts and culture, unless you're excluding TV, movies, plays, pop music performers and groups, recorded music, comedians and entertainers, specialty acts (e.g., Cirque du Soleil, Recycled Percussion), etc.
Do you think pure science should be publicly supported or left to the likes of Monsanto for funding? I think all science should receive some public support, and it does through grants (usually to academic institutions) from NIH and NSF.
It’s a question of cultural values. Is becoming a money sucking CEO the best we can aspire to? Is capitalism antithetical to cultural values? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Theodoric writes: Are you not the person that said?
I don't see how that relates to corporate tax rates. You still seem unable to grasp the concept. Thanks for your time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
RAZD writes: God I loved that limit, but you might be right. Has anyone done the calculation to make sure that's sufficient to fix the problem? Or maybe the limit only has to be raised instead of eliminated.
Why should anyone be exempt privileged? If you're asking why should Social Security deductions should be capped, it's because Social Security benefits are capped. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Theodoric writes: I tried multiple times to explain in a way that was straightforward and I thought reasonable. When did "once" become multiple times?
I am unsure how to explain the economics in a way you can understand. Maybe you just haven't found the right insult yet. Insults hint that being right may have taken priority over discussion and developing a mutual understanding. I'm a fiscal conservative, so it makes sense we disagree. We exchanged messages (me: Message 4800, you: Message 4810, me: Message 4869), I thought we would just hash through the issue to reach a mutual understanding, then you went another way (Message 4872 followed by Message 4901). It feels like further discussion is unlikely to be constructive. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
RAZD writes: So pumping money into offshore accounts ... Not sure how this is relevant to what you quoted from me. Unless a corporation is illegally hiding money, the ultimate destination of any cash is unrelated to its exposure to tax laws.
Not so cut and dry,... True of much in economics.
...as this is GOP talking point against minimum wages. I wasn't referring to the minimum wage. Wages increasing generally across the board as in an overheated economy is much more impactful on inflation than minimum wage increases. We need to increase minimum wages because they've fallen behind inflation. The minimum wage in 1968 was $1.50/hour, which in today's dollars is $11.08. Teenage workers still in high school have largely fallen off the map, so there's a strong argument that the minimum wage should be higher than it was in 1968. Somewhere in the general neighborhood of $15/hour seems reasonable.
What happens is that workers have more to spend so demand increases, increasing demand for workers to meet production needs. Of late the problem has been overproduction and stalled demand because people were not spending. But you can't leave inflation out of the equation. Increased worker salaries mean that businesses must raise prices.
Maybe, I am a Democratic Socialist, but my basic position can be stated simply: First - those who benefit most from the economy that is supported by the government should (happily) pay more in taxes to support that government. Second - all people should get equal care for stochastic events/diseases, etc and nobody should make a profit off the misery of another. Thus insurance and healthcare should be non-profit. Third - basic living needs of all people should be met. The measure of a civilization is not how many millionaires exist, but how few starving children exist. We agree on all this.
How many friends are from outside work, and isn’t that a narrow spectrum of people? For the sake of discussion let's say my circle of friends is work dominated and very homogenous. How is that a bad thing? Doesn't that still reinforce my point that there is a richness to work in the people you work with that goes way beyond just the work itself?
I'm racking my brain here for a ne'er-do-well who didn't work, but I can't think of one. I know they exist, I just don't happen to know any. van Gogh I meant among people I know.
Is capitalism antithetical to cultural values? The purpose of unchecked capitalism is to make few people rich and many people poor. Yeah, sure, when I said "capitalism" I really meant "unchecked capitalism." --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
RAZD writes: So? The intent was to provide a living income to retired people. If you mean the original intent back in 1934, no, that wasn't the intent then. If you mean what the intent should be today, I think that's an admirable goal, and I hope it's something we can figure out how to achieve.
Logically that should be available to all, regardless of how much they make. Agreed.
One amount applicable to all retired workers, spouses of retired workers (esp those who never worked in the $$ economy), disabled etc. There are significant regional differences in cost of living and of healthcare.
Wrap all social assistance into one package. If it can be done then that would be great, but personally I don't think this kind of simplicity is possible. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Theodoric writes: Doesn't explain why you are unable to understand... Thank you for your time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...d9-29cc419287eb_story.html, says the headline in today's Washington Post. Everyone is appalled at Pelosi's behavior, tearing up his speech and criticizing Trump after today's Prayer Breakfast and his later comments about impeachment.
What's truly astounding is that Pelosi's behavior is receiving the bulk of the criticism when Trump's is far, far worse. This could only be because people realize that Pelosi cares while Trump does not. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
I didn't even know who Joe Walsh was, let alone that he was running for president, until I read his column in today's Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/...taught-me-my-party-is-cult. This column's a must read, here's a taste:
quote: What I'm afraid of is that not Joe Walsh, not any Democrat, not any person in the world including the Pope, could defeat Trump's wall of lies. We still wonder today how the Germans and Italians could have so blindly followed Hitler and Mussolini. We're seeing it again before our very eyes, but it remains inexplicable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
You've mentioned this before, that's why I have a copy now. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
RAZD writes: But you can't leave inflation out of the equation. Increased worker salaries mean that businesses must raise prices. But if the change is how profits are distributed within a company, inflation should not be an issue. I was speaking of entire industries increasing worker salaries, thereby increasing prices which contributes to inflation. I wasn't speaking of single companies. But considering just a single company, you suggest taking funds that would have been a company's profits and instead routing them to increased employee compensation. A company unilaterally raising wages within its industry would experience a number of negative consequences, including but not limited to lower competitiveness, increased cost of borrowing, lower dividends (if offered), lower stock price, decreased proceeds from stock offerings, and a diminished ability to expand the business or increase competitiveness.
Curiously I am amused by people so ready to accept a feudal type organization of corporations, when we fought a revolutionary war to get feudal type government out and replaced by a democratic system. You find it curious that you're amused?
The answer, of course, is worker owned cooperatives, where all the workers decide major company policies, like pay and benefits, and they hire and fire managers. Not surprisingly they are successful and have high worker satisfaction. They also seem to be more robust in startups than your standard business model companies. Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia is a huge success story. I'm in favor of any successful way of running a company, of which there is more than one.
van Gogh I meant among people I know. And you don't wonder why there are no "van Gogh" type people in your circle of friends, but think you have a well rounded group. Interesting. I guess you don't know what you don't miss. You're responding to something never said. No claim of "well rounded" was ever made. You said "the $$ economy ignores" that "there is more to life than making money," and I responded that the larger and more important part of our lives outside of work is only made possible by working, that I don't know any families where neither parent worked, that I don't even know anyone who never worked. The point is that working makes possible the richness in our lives that we build outside of work. In personal terms, everyone I know is rich in terms of family and friends, which would not have happened had they not worked and earned money.
Yeah, sure, when I said "capitalism" I really meant "unchecked capitalism." "Capitalism" without any modifiers defaults to unchecked capitalism. What modifier should I use? Checked capitalism? Bridled capitalism? Restrained capitalism? Anyway, whatever modifier that might be, if you assume it's there every time anyone uses the word unmodified then you'll be right an astounding amount of the time. But getting to the point, you said, "It's a question of cultural values," and asked if we can't aspire to more than being a "money sucking CEO." Repeating the question, is capitalism antithetical to cultural values?
Capitalism is amoral, while socialism provides a moral culture. Done democratically it is OF the people FOR the people BY the people. I don't like the word "socialism" because it's become a loaded term, but if I understand you then we agree, social programs are very important. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
RAZD writes: But considering just a single company, you suggest taking funds that would have been a company's profits and instead routing them to increased employee compensation. A company unilaterally raising wages within its industry would experience a number of negative consequences, including but not limited to lower competitiveness, increased cost of borrowing, lower dividends (if offered), lower stock price, decreased proceeds from stock offerings, and a diminished ability to expand the business or increase competitiveness. Why? Because of their reduced profits relative to other companies in their industry.
We see companies with substantially higher wages making similar or higher profits > Costco for one example, cooperatives for another. Who are you comparing Costco to? What are you comparing cooperatives to?
You seem to miss the point. All wages are paid out of gross profits. Employee compensation is an expense deducted from revenue. At a gross level of detail, revenue minus expenses equals profits.
We currently have businesses with CEO pay 700 times lowest worker wages. CEO compensation is a separate issue from unilaterally raising employee compensation within an industry, but I of course agree that executive compensation is out of control.
The Mondragon cooperatives have a limit of 9 to 1 for highest pay to lowest. They account for substantial portion of the Spanish Economy (~1/3) Spain's GDP was $1.3 trillion in 2017. Mondragon's revenues were $6.5 billion in 2018. It's less than 1% of the Spanish economy.
It's just a matter of how wages are allocated from gross profits. Employee compensation is an expense, not a deduction from profits. Think about it. If employee compensation was paid out of profits, then companies with no profits could not compensate their employees.
Now I would say that doing things with other people makes possible the richness in our lives. I agree, and in most jobs you are doing things with other people.
I have participated in many community orchestras and bands, was a boy scout leader for many years, and other volunteer programs, been part of our towns planning board, etc. and I find friends in all places, several of which I value more than any from work. Our town has an art renaissance zone to promote art and a historic society to preserve local history. To me there is much more to life than work and fellow workers. Of course. That why's I talked of all the richness of life outside of work. Naturally people value all their friends, whether they met them through work or not.
All these volunteer organizations are part of our social economy but not part of the $$ economy. Volunteering is a great way to contribute to the community, but I think most volunteer organizations would be part of the $$ economy. The YMCA has hundreds of thousands of volunteers, but it's definitely part of the $$ economy, as I think most if not all nonprofits would be. And volunteers get significant discounts on member and program fees, so they're compensated for their volunteering. Towns are part of the $$ economy, even if committee work is done by unpaid volunteers. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Percy writes: More conventional wisdom, that is not wisdom. Conservative economic truths seemingly do not survive when the real world is looked at. What "conservative economic truths" are you referring to?
Costco was mentioned as classic case. Mention was all that was done, but my position is that there are many ways to organize successful companies. I'm happy for Costco that they're doing so well (I have only your and RAZD's word for that, I haven't looked this up), but just because Costco is doing well doesn't mean that their corporate approach is the only way of being a successful company.
So how is Kwik Trip doing? They are kicking the competitions ass. Most chains in Duluth-Superior have left. Nothing against Kwik Trip, I know nothing about them, but fact checking your claim, if you enter "duluth mn convenience stores" into Google Maps it displays more Holiday Stationstores than Kwik Trips. "Duluth mn kwik trip" shows 9 locations, while "Duluth mn holiday stationstores" shows 17. I don't consider Google Maps authoritative, but that's the only data I have. You and RAZD are making claims that you're not backing up with evidence. Where does your evidence of the success of Kwik Trip, Costco, cooperatives, etc., come from? When RAZD mentioned Mondragon he included one checkable fact, that it was 1/3 of the Spanish economy, and that turned out to be overstated by a factor of nearly 70. It's actually about 1/200 of the Spanish economy, or half a percent. By way of contrast, the biggest company in the US, Walmart, is 2% of American GDP. Again, I have nothing against Kwik Trip, Costco, cooperatives, Mondragon, or any other company. I think it's wonderful that they're successful, but I'd like to have a fact-based rather than unsupported-claim-based discussion.
I don't like the word "socialism" because it's become a loaded term What term should be used? Instead of coming up with inaccurate words maybe we should actually educate people about what terms like capitalism and socialism mean. I don't think the term "capitalism" is being misused (correct me if I'm wrong), but "socialism" is. Socialism means state ownership of business and industry. What people like Bernie Sanders mean when they say socialism is actually a shortened form of democratic socialism, but that's not all that different from plain old socialism if you look it up: Democratic socialism - Wikipedia. People are in favor of social programs and a social safety net, not socialism. Trump will slaughter anyone embracing the socialist label in November. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024