|
On September 08 2011 08:59 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Wrong. US workers remain far more productive then Chinese workers, by a factor of nearly ten. The industrial output of a typical Chinese industrial worker is around $12,894, while it is $104,606 in the US. Average total compensation from BLS is $58,448 for a US worker, meaning the net output from an average US industrial worker is around 4 times the total output from a Chinese industrial worker. That does not imply that US workers are any better then workers in China, when similarly trained, rather that the industrial jobs that have remained in America are the highly productive ones in Aerospace and technology. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htmhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/business/main3228735.shtml
No i'm not wrong. OFC average productiveness is greater in the US, but in THIS particular case its not.
|
On September 08 2011 08:51 serge wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:38 Brainling wrote:On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote:
I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them. Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class. You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now. I would have to add that the republican party is the worst possible custodian of money due to their tendency of getting involved in all kinds of wars, needlessly increasing the defense budget, and just generally throwing money out of the window as shown by the recent tea party escapades. Republicans support small government in name only. (Except for the tea party. Those guys do support small government.)
Exactly, like i said BOTH parties are/have been terrible, I only currently am supporting the Republican party just as long as they stick to the basics, and i Totally agree with you about the war thing, way too much money is spent on wars that aren't necessary. Don't get me wrong, I got no problem with war but It's too expensive these days to go to war just for the hell of it.
|
On September 08 2011 09:03 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:59 InvalidID wrote:On September 08 2011 08:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Wrong. US workers remain far more productive then Chinese workers, by a factor of nearly ten. The industrial output of a typical Chinese industrial worker is around $12,894, while it is $104,606 in the US. Average total compensation from BLS is $58,448 for a US worker, meaning the net output from an average US industrial worker is around 4 times the total output from a Chinese industrial worker. That does not imply that US workers are any better then workers in China, when similarly trained, rather that the industrial jobs that have remained in America are the highly productive ones in Aerospace and technology. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htmhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/business/main3228735.shtml No i'm not wrong. OFC average productiveness is greater in the US, but in THIS particular case its not.
You guys are using two different words.
As individuals chinese might be more efficient, but thanks to the great capital that the united states has accumulated, workers in the US are more productive in terms of real dollars. Given the same resources, it is possible the chinese would be more productive, but that is very hard to measure.
|
On September 08 2011 09:03 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:59 InvalidID wrote:On September 08 2011 08:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
Productiveness is measured by the output after including incomes and expenses. Given that, Chinese ARE more productive period. You are just being a nationalistic idiot.
Wrong. US workers remain far more productive then Chinese workers, by a factor of nearly ten. The industrial output of a typical Chinese industrial worker is around $12,894, while it is $104,606 in the US. Average total compensation from BLS is $58,448 for a US worker, meaning the net output from an average US industrial worker is around 4 times the total output from a Chinese industrial worker. That does not imply that US workers are any better then workers in China, when similarly trained, rather that the industrial jobs that have remained in America are the highly productive ones in Aerospace and technology. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htmhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/business/main3228735.shtml No i'm not wrong. OFC average productiveness is greater in the US, but in THIS particular case its not.
Sorry, did not see that you were talking about a specific case of an Apple assembly plant, I thought you were talking about productiveness in general.
|
On September 08 2011 08:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 07:45 wherebugsgo wrote:
At no point did the American people want Obamacare as it was passed, yet that's what we got.
Source please? Most of the content of your posts, xDaunt, is as or even more unsubstantiated as you claim the article in the OP is. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_lawThe polling data stretches back all the way to when the bill was signed into law. And for the record, you shouldn't even need to look at a poll to know that the bill was incredibly unpopular when it was developed and passed. Just look at what happened at all of those town hall meetings during the summer before the bill was passed. Also look at how difficult it was for democrats to pass the bill DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAD A FILLIBUSTER-PROOF SENATE MAJORITY AND A MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. Obamacare, more than anything else, led to the huge GOP gains in 2010.
1: That's Rasmussen you're quoting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports
2: Favorable and unfavorable do not reveal spectrum; people might not like the law because they think it goes too far...or because it doesn't go far enough. A better breakdown might cover both other categories as well.
Neutral polling organizations largely agree with Rasmussen's trend, that most people don't like Obamacare. However, once broken down into "too little"/"ok"/"too much"/"repeal", it very slightly favors the "too little"/"ok", within a margin of error. This is a couple months old, so it might have changed recently.
|
On September 08 2011 08:56 Brainling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:51 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 08:38 Brainling wrote:On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote:
I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them. Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class. You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now. People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway. Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months. I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
|
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line of questioning during the last debate.
|
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line up questioning during the last debate.
I keep wondering why it's the governments job to create jobs in the first place, and why people would entrust something so important as jobs to an institution that has made worse nearly everything it has put its hands in.
|
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment.
Full employment is 4-5% unemployment. Google says MA unemployment is currently at 7.5%, with increased nonparticipatory population.
Just FYI.
|
On September 08 2011 08:43 darmousseh wrote:
None of this information is new. These are common political tactics and ploys. I imagine that democrats have similar things going on.
Word's like "obamacare" and "the patriot act" are similar to "the new deal" or "no child left behind". Naming something has a powerful way of persuading uninformed citizens. Obama ran on a very popular hispanic saying "Si se puede". He knows the power of rhetoric as do politicians of both partys.
Politicians are always playing rhetorical games in order to garner votes and win elections. The only surprising thing here is that these strategies were actively discussed.
As far as his economics statement, saying things like "X company was profitable so why aren't they hiring people" is an obvious economic fallacy. Corporations are driven by profits. If hiring someone lowers their profit margin, then why would they do it?
And finally, his analysis of the small "wealth" christianity movement is correct. The republicans are known for supporting churches to be non-profit organizations even in situations where it's obvious that they are in it for more. Fortunately, this is a very small minority of christians and is unlikely to ever become mainstream.
Overall, this article doesn't really provide any insight beyond what was already known or speculated to be known. The only thing that surprised me was the apparent openness about the political strategy.
After reading the whole article, he just appears to be disenchanted with the republican party and maybe the whole political system as a whole, but it seems to me that he must have been very naive to begin with.
The entire system is based around getting voters and finding a majority of voters in order to win an election. Notice how republicans have backed off the gay marriage issue lately? They are realizing that a significant number of potential republicans are turned away by that issue. By not talking about it, they don't have to confront potential voters with an issue that would immediately turn them away.
Don't think democrats are innocent either. Democrats know exactly how to appeal to hispanic and latino voters in this country. By using words such as "union", "si se puede", and etc they are capturing a group of voters that in the end are probably idealistically closer to the republican party.
All in all, this is why I will vote for Ron Paul. The only candidate that does not engage in this political discourse and is truly the most honest politician in all of Washington. He is running as a republican in hopes of rebranding the party to become more libertarian leaning and the tea party is a direct result of his influence (the real tea party, not this neo con tea party nonsense).
I largely agree with this post.
Also just look at the last three decades of elections:
Reagan defeats Carter
Reagan defeats Mondale
Bush defeats Dukakis
Clinton defeats Bush
Clinton defeats Dole
Bush Jr defeats Gore
Bush Jr defeats Kerry
Obama defeats McCain
(yes I know, Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and you can debate Florida. Still the other 7 were reasonably decisive)
In each case the candidate who had better branding and a better emotional appeal to voters won. Reagan and Clinton in particular understood this and had the qualities to win people over on a personal level, and their re-elections were never seriously in doubt. Yes, I think you can argue that Obama had this magical quality during his 2008 campaign and has since failed to connect with people. If the 2012 election is close, that might have been something that could have made a difference at the margins.
Also as darmousseh mentions, there are examples where Democrats have won the language battle and used it to further their policy agenda. Civil rights, gay rights. ("rights" are a positive thing) Choice as a code word for abortion. Democrats have done a fantastic job tactically of capitalizing on people's misunderstanding of climate science (in practice, most people "on the street" who believe in it are about as ignorant of the science itself as the denialists are). Voters of both parties are overwhelmingly ignorant about economics.
Unfortunately the proper strategy seems to be to simply do a better job of this than the other side. Probably a reason why politics has become more of two cultures who shriek at each other and have contests of turnout rather than a forum where large swaths of undecideds are wooed by policy debates. (and if this is about who wins the culture war, then Democrats should be very concerned about the next ~8 years and very optimistic about everything beyond that, given the diverging patterns in voting by age)
|
|
|
On September 08 2011 08:29 Fleebenworth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote:
I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them. No one is demonizing the rich, but simply asking that they pay increased taxes seeing as how they have benefited disproportionately from the post-war economic gains, while at the same time having to do little actual work for that money (grilling your hedge fund manager doesn't count).
I find it ridiculous that you'd try to use how hard someone works as justification for taxing, that's so insanely subjective. Most new investment bankers work significantly harder than any minimum wage worker in retail, and most likely harder than a large portion of manual laborers (that are legally paid at least minimum wage). These are the people that aren't making outrageous $/hr on WallStreet, but end up making so much money because they are averaging 80-100 hrs per wek year long. It's completely grueling. For a fair comparison in terms of hours, you'd need to compare to someone working 2 jobs "full time." And then they only come out to making slightly more than twice as much - which isn't really that much more at all when you consider they most likely attended a prestigious college, got good grades, etc. compared to the minimum wage worker who may or may not have his high school diploma.
Overall, I don't think you should be able to support a family on minimum wage, nor do I think it's good policy whatsoever to fact effort into the equation when arguing income tax.
|
On September 08 2011 09:13 Bulldog654 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line up questioning during the last debate. I keep wondering why it's the governments job to create jobs in the first place, and why people would entrust something so important as jobs to an institution that has made worse nearly everything it has put its hands in.
Someone has to make the jobs. If the government doesn't entice companies to come to america or stay there, then they will go some place where they can make a greater profit margin.
|
On September 08 2011 09:15 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Full employment is 4-5% unemployment. Google says MA unemployment is currently at 7.5%, with increased nonparticipatory population. Just FYI.
Romney was governor from 2003-07.
|
On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line of questioning during the last debate.
Equally silly is praising Perry for having a good job creation record. People in general can't seem to understand more than 1 variable at a time.
How much of this debate have I missed?
|
On September 08 2011 09:15 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Full employment is 4-5% unemployment. Google says MA unemployment is currently at 7.5%, with increased nonparticipatory population. Just FYI.
They're talking about when Romney was governor, at which time Massachusetts had sub-5% unemployment. In fact, Huntsman, in a further demonstration of how retarded he is, just said in the debate that he had a better job creation record than Romney because he created more jobs when Utah had a 5.9% unemployment rate while Massachusetts had a 4.9% unemployment rate at the same time. Brilliant.
|
On September 08 2011 08:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 07:45 wherebugsgo wrote:
At no point did the American people want Obamacare as it was passed, yet that's what we got.
Source please? Most of the content of your posts, xDaunt, is as or even more unsubstantiated as you claim the article in the OP is. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_lawThe polling data stretches back all the way to when the bill was signed into law. And for the record, you shouldn't even need to look at a poll to know that the bill was incredibly unpopular when it was developed and passed. Just look at what happened at all of those town hall meetings during the summer before the bill was passed. Also look at how difficult it was for democrats to pass the bill DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAD A FILLIBUSTER-PROOF SENATE MAJORITY AND A MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. Obamacare, more than anything else, led to the huge GOP gains in 2010.
The public rejection of the healthcare doesn't really suprise - even as rather sporadic consument of american media it was impossible for me to evade the heavy negative and partly quite ridicolous rhetoric (If I had gotten 1€ everytime I heard 'socialist' or 'communist' during those debates...) firework that was used to run it down.
On a sidenote: Did you take a look into the wording rasmussenreports chooses for their polls? I've only had a couple of lectures on data ascertainment, so I'm no expert by any means, but there are some polls in which the language of the questions seems pretty skewed in favor of one specific answer.
A short research afterwards revealed that they had the least accurate election forecasts for 2010 and their polls tend to poll favorable for republicans (and their topics) in comparision to most other pollsters.
The questions for the poll you cited look reasonable (if we are just arguing about the quanity and not the quality of the disapproval), but it is still a rather displeasing fealing to get numbers from a site that seems have a general bias about it, especially if semantics post is true, who makes a good argument on why the results in this poll may despise the bill even though people actually may agree with its (the bills) content.
Edit: Acker made same pretty good points as well 
|
On September 08 2011 09:19 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line of questioning during the last debate. Equally silly is praising Perry for having a good job creation record. People in general can't seem to understand more than 1 variable at a time. How much of this debate have I missed?
Basically nothing. It started 20 mins ago. Romney and Perry went at it a bit.
|
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
|
On September 08 2011 09:18 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:29 Fleebenworth wrote:On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote:
I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them. No one is demonizing the rich, but simply asking that they pay increased taxes seeing as how they have benefited disproportionately from the post-war economic gains, while at the same time having to do little actual work for that money (grilling your hedge fund manager doesn't count). I find it ridiculous that you'd try to use how hard someone works as justification for taxing, that's so insanely subjective. Most new investment bankers work significantly harder than any minimum wage worker in retail, and most likely harder than a large portion of manual laborers (that are legally paid at least minimum wage). These are the people that aren't making outrageous $/hr on WallStreet, but end up making so much money because they are averaging 80-100 hrs per wek year long. It's completely grueling. For a fair comparison in terms of hours, you'd need to compare to someone working 2 jobs "full time." And then they only come out to making slightly more than twice as much - which isn't really that much more at all when you consider they most likely attended a prestigious college, got good grades, etc. compared to the minimum wage worker who may or may not have his high school diploma. Overall, I don't think you should be able to support a family on minimum wage, nor do I think it's good policy whatsoever to fact effort into the equation when arguing income tax.
The thing is, we are not talking twice as rich, we are talking factors of ten or twenty, and you are right that effort should not factor into it. What should factor into it is utility. You need to compare the marginal utility of a dollar for a person making 1,000,000 a year, versus the marginal utility of a dollar for a person making 20,000 a year. The standard of living for the person making 20,000 a year is increased more by that additional dollar, then the standard of living for the person making 1,000,000 a year is decreased.
When you redistribute wealth, you are doing what is called a transfer payment. Ideally a transfer payment neither creates wealth, nor absorbs resources, it simply redistributes it. Obviously when you get to a certain level of taxation then resources begin to be absorbed: the incentive for additional productivity at both the low and high ends are attenuated. This effect does not prevent a happy medium from being found. The fact that current tax rates on high earners are lower then historical norms, would indicate that we are far below the level that would disincentivize the wealthy from contributing further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
