Thread: The strongest economy in the world

Slightly off-topic, but it's a general problem in the industrialised nations. Local small and medium sized companies have had a hard time for some time, and it seems to be getting worse.
And the middle-class small-scale enterpreneurs resent it, it's not necessarily greed. Employers taking a caring role for employees in small family-like run businesses are becoming the exception (my father was another example, there were times he earned less than some of his employees).

Originally Posted by Tippaporn

Surasak, if you were earning minimum wage of $5.15/hr. your total annual income, given 40-hour work weeks, would be $10,712. Your weekly gross income would be $206, and $892 for the month. Not enough to sustain yourself on your own.

That's if you consider the Federal MW. Look at WA and OR, for example. Much higher than the Federal MW, and, frankly I think it should be up to the states to have this kind of flexibility.

What would you choose, the EIC or a minimum wage rate increase? Even at the max. EIC of $399 for a single filer you're looking at $.19/hr.; granted that's the net amount. I fail to see how EIC would be a greater help in the given situation.

Consider also that raising the MW causes prices to increase at places with relatively low margin. Grocery stores, fast food, gas stations, and so on. You think the employers are just going to absorp the difference? No, it will get passed on through higher prices. And, if people at the low end get mandatory wage increases then those higher up will want them as well. Is it fair for a person making $10 an hour not to get an increase while a person lower down get an automatic 10% increase due to a new law?

I don't dispute the fact that many businesses are in a situation that forces them to require cheap labor. What I am saying is that if the value of a service has been driven down to the point where profit cannot be made then it's evident that blood is being squeezed out of a turnip. If a service is necessary then it ought to command enough income to make it viable.

That's not always the case. Service that is valuable but has plenty of competition will always have low value. House cleaning, floor cleaning, washing cars, mowing lawns, the list is endless. A company that provides such services has to have low prices to compete.

Certain areas of manufacturing, metal stamping tool shops for instance, have had their prices beaten down so severely that many owners are questioning whether it's worth the trouble and the risk of staying in business. This is not due to a lack of available money but the redistribution of profits from the samll businessman to the corporations who in many instances dictate to the shopowner what he is allowed to charge for his services.

Don't forget the bigger the corporation the easier it is simply to move manufacturing overseas because the cost of transport via ship is so low that even with shipping factored in the overall cost is much lower than to produce it domestically. Wal-Mart is a good example of this.

Even within the same country a factory has to have a good location near cheap raw materials, good transportation hubs, and cheap labor. All things equal would it be cheaper to run a factory in downtown Manhattan or the middle of Kansas?

I believe increases in the EIC are a better way to tackle the problem because it targets the people who need it the most instead of a blanket band-aid that causes prices to increase for everyone. Adjustments to the EIC cost less and harm the economy less than mandatory price fixing of resources (which is what MW laws do). I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a MW but let the states handle the increases.

Originally Posted by Tippaporn

As an employer once blatantly admitted to me, "I'd rather have the money in my own pocket." Which leads me to believe the the true underlying issue is greed. From my perspective I see greed as America's worst enemy.

I think greed is about the worst of human traits.

Sometimes I wonder: if I were a scientist and discovered a gene that would either switch off cancer or eliminate the traits of greed: what would I choose? I think eliminating greed would be far better for mankind than eliminating cancer.

"Remember the folks who said the tax cuts would 'blow a hole in the deficit?' Well, revenues as a share of the economy are now expected to rise this year to 18.3%, slightly above the modern historical average of 18.2%. The remaining budget deficit of a little under $300 billion will be about 2.3% of GDP, which is smaller than in 17 of the previous 25 years. Throw in the surpluses rolling into the states, and the overall U.S. 'fiscal deficit' is now economically trivial. This would all seem to be good news, but some folks are never happy. The same crowd that said the tax cuts wouldn't work, and predicted fiscal doom, are now harrumphing that the revenues reflect a windfall for 'the rich.' We suppose that's right if by rich they mean the millions of Americans moving into higher tax brackets because their paychecks are increasing. Individual income tax payments are up 14.1% this year, and 'nonwithheld' individual tax payments (reflecting capital gains, among other things) are up 20%. Because of the tax cuts, the still highly progressive U.S. tax code is soaking the rich. Since when do liberals object to a windfall for the government?... As for the 2003 tax cuts, the current revenue boom is one more argument for making them permanent. They are now set to expire in 2010, and, even if they are extended, federal revenues will continue to climb as a share of GDP as more taxpayers earn higher incomes and move into higher tax brackets. If liberal Democrats are really determined to soak the rich-and we don't doubt it for a second-they'll also vote to make the tax cuts permanent."

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

Democrats Clueless About The Economy

By Matt Margolis

Low unemployment, a shrinking deficit, increased tax revenues, higher profits, record homeownership, increased worker confidence... According to Democrats like Hillary Clinton, these are examples of "President Bush and the Republicans of making a mess of the economy."

^ Storekeeper, it's apparent that you're a troll who can mostly cut-and-paste.

When you talk about the "liberals", do you mean "Democrats" as in the US-party, or do just enjoy throwing around labels and generalisations?

Originally Posted by Milkman

^ Storekeeper, it's apparent that you're a troll who can mostly cut-and-paste.

All you do is attack the opinions of people you don't agree with. It doesn't matter if it's in my own words or cut and paste. You have you're own history of being a troll. How many nicks do you have by the way ?

I've been wondering why you always immediately log off after every post you make ? It's becasue even in this forum you're a mulitple nick troll.

off girlie man.

Originally Posted by stroller

When you talk about the "liberals", do you mean "Democrats" as in the US-party, or do just enjoy throwing around labels and generalisations?

If you would have read the cut-n-paste you would have had your answer in the last line. But no ... you wanted to waste not only your time but mine.

The last line in the cut&paste doesn't explain your use of the term 'liberal', which seems to be one of your favorites to throw about when attempting to diffuse or divert.

Originally Posted by stroller

The last line in the cut&paste doesn't explain your use of the term 'liberal', which seems to be one of your favorites to throw about when attempting to diffuse or divert.

I consistently use liberal in the same way ... ALWAYS. You just don't like it ... so you DIVERT a reasonable post by focusing on my use of the term liberal. You're sounding more and more like Milkman.

Yeah, you always use it in an undefined way, and in a derogatory sense.
Am I a "liberal" in your eyes, for example, and is Mhz one as well?

I haven't been in this thread since about the 8th post.
Anyone possibly summarise it for me.
I have a biting headache and feel unable to read through 200 plus posts.
Thanks.

Originally Posted by stroller

Am I a "liberal" in your eyes, for example, and is Mhz one as well?

You're much more liberal than I am. Milkdud is much more conservative than I am. In regards to the singular subject of war in iraq and fighting terrorism ... yes, you are a liberal.

ok, so this thread seems to have little to do with the US and its relative economic strength, might participate in it now.

The topic has digressed, that's partly my fault - sorry.
I'll shut up now.

But the thread has done well, staying on topic for 21 pages.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by stroller

Am I a "liberal" in your eyes, for example, and is Mhz one as well?

You're much more liberal than I am. Milkdud is much more conservative than I am. In regards to the singular subject of war in iraq and fighting terrorism ... yes, you are a liberal.

These issues are not about liberalism, whether one support these issues or not.

The strongest economy in the world is having issues generating wage growth for those with 4 year degrees: flat or negative growth from 2000-2004.

Originally Posted by surasak

The strongest economy in the world is having issues generating wage growth for those with 4 year degrees: flat or negative growth from 2000-2004.

The salary example of the guy in your link example is 77K which puts him well above the median average and doesn't even take into account the cost of living wherever it is he lives. And why does the guy deserve a raise just because he recently completed his degree ? Maybe his work effort doesn't warrant a pay raise. Both of us should be careful not to over-simplify the arguement.

The article stated that he lived in San Jose. $70,000 a year isn't squat in the Bay Area due to housing and transportation costs. That's the equivalent of about $45,000 where I live now.

^^ Good points and post SK, but Surasak also is correct to the fact that wages have been stagnant since 2000 - which means they have declined because of the rate of inflation.

Yes, there is GDP growh, worker efficiency has increased - but wages have not.

If you go into the private sector in the U.S. Storekeeper (which I know you don't plan on doing soon) you will realize have sh*tty the private has become in recent years. I mean, now.

Nothin' has changed since I left Bremerton in March 2004. I didn't agree with the doom and gloom then and I don't now. All people have to do is live within their means and not think they have to have a big gas guzzling SUV ... or the largest flat screen TV on the block.

^
That's right, there is no reason the accumulating wealth should benefit ordinary folks, after all they can make a decent living without it.

Dood boy, SK, a model Republican!

Thanks for the kindergarten response stroller. I'm only suggesting that many Americans could live a very good life if they didn't think they had to keep up with the Smugleys.

Companies are in business to make money and the owners who take the risk shouldn't be expected to fair share the profits in he way you suggest. The risk their capital and bear all the responsibility for the success or failure of the company.

That doesn't mean I don't think employees should be taken advantage of. They should be paid a fair salary. A fair salary shouldn't be determined by anything other than what the market is willing to pay you for your skills or labor. Either accept your lot in life or obtain further education and skills to make yourself competitive for a higher paying job.

"In the past 33 months the size of America's entire economy has increased by 20 percent -- or, as National Review Online's Larry Kudlow put it, "In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy." In the 2 1/4 years before the 2003 tax cuts, economic growth averaged 1.1 percent annually; in the three years since it has averaged 4 percent per year"

OpinionJournal - Outside the Box

^ and ^^^

Good points SK, I do agree. My angle (for some strange reason) has always been, "How much can I save and invest." (Even though in my South East Asia stint for the time being, I am putting away a lot less).

Here's what I've been asking people in Kitsap:

Q: if you make 50K per year, USD, can you save $30,000?" People proclaim "hell no!"

Q2: "how about 20K" per year (Saving a little under 1800 USD per month)?
They answer, "hell no."

I agree with your point. People have to increase their market value. That means learning new skills, getting more ed. etc.

Also, doing a side-business. Some mates are doing darn well doing that, right now.

One cannot just be an employee now.