|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On October 31 2011 06:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
We lack job opportunities for a variety of reasons, many of which I won't get into right now, but a lot of it has to do with the devaluation of education in our society. The people who should be earning lots of money aren't, and that's a problem. Some of them don't even have jobs, and it isn't really a fault of their own.
Who should be earning lots of money that aren't?
|
On October 31 2011 09:14 dOofuS wrote:
Money can't buy happiness. Wealth redistribution isn't going to make anyone happy.
Demanding the government take money from one group and give it to another isn't a trend I want continuing. I'd rather chop the arms off a government that's been meddling in our economy and personal lives for way too long.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee you'll be rich, but you have every right to pursue wealth and achieve personal success unhindered by government intervention. That's freedom.
Money doesn't buy happiness. Keep slaving, people, and keep making more, billionaires, it doesn't change anything. What's important is your freedom. God Save America, land of the free.
Look. Wealth redistribution won't make anyone happy. Wealth inequality, in the other hand is putting millions of your fellow citizen in misery every year, while one percent of corporate wankers own half of your country.
If you think people should live in misery and get exploited to death because after all money is not everything that's great. I guess some people want to live decently.
American "freedom" is basically "kill everybody on your way to climb on the top or stay in your ghetto". Your "freedom" is an injunction to follow the rules of competition and of the war of concurrency or suffer the consequences. It's a joke of a freedom, degree 0 of the concept of liberty. It's the freedom of the animal that has to eat or be eaten.
Freedom means having the possibility to feed your family, to have an education, to be able to go to the hospital when you are sick even if you or your parents didn't "succeed", and then decide for yourself what you want to do with your life. If you think black people without any future in Harlem feel free, I think you are wrong.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On October 31 2011 09:18 radiatoren wrote:
Looking at market as completely generic: Everyone can produce everything and transportis free, while government, culture and education are the same in all countries, then you are probably right about loosing jobs by taxing the rich harder. However, when you consider those factors it is not as easy as you think. The only place to move to for companies selling in USA would be Mexico or Canada. I have no idea of how good it is in Mexico and most likely Canada is just as expensive as USA, if not more!
Mexico is the new China.
Especially for the automobile industry.
|
Frankly i'm fine with low skill labor moving else where but education reform is needed in the US, not education de investment which is what been occurring. Mainly i would love for high school to end at 10th grade really i don't see much point for 11th and 12th grade but for people not ready for college to catch up who will probably end up going to community college of a trade school anyways if not just flat enter the work force but at least they could start earning it earlier. Ofc that removes the need of compulsory schooling for those years which i frankly always seen as just a reason to keep people off the streets for 2 years before you can give them the boot.
On October 31 2011 09:14 dOofuS wrote:
Money can't buy happiness. Wealth redistribution isn't going to make anyone happy.
Demanding the government take money from one group and give it to another isn't a trend I want continuing. I'd rather chop the arms off a government that's been meddling in our economy and personal lives for way too long.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee you'll be rich, but you have every right to pursue wealth and achieve personal success unhindered by government intervention. That's freedom.
Tell that to the homeless or those who live off food stamps and other government programs just to get though the year. Which could very well be hard working people but just can't be employed at reasonable wages in their area due to high cost of living with low wages for unskilled labor.
|
On October 31 2011 09:23 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 09:18 radiatoren wrote:
Looking at market as completely generic: Everyone can produce everything and transportis free, while government, culture and education are the same in all countries, then you are probably right about loosing jobs by taxing the rich harder. However, when you consider those factors it is not as easy as you think. The only place to move to for companies selling in USA would be Mexico or Canada. I have no idea of how good it is in Mexico and most likely Canada is just as expensive as USA, if not more! Mexico is the new China. Especially for the automobile industry.
Or rather China is the new(ish) version of Mexico!
Capital starting fleeing the US for Mexico's border regions in the 80s.
|
On October 31 2011 09:21 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 06:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
We lack job opportunities for a variety of reasons, many of which I won't get into right now, but a lot of it has to do with the devaluation of education in our society. The people who should be earning lots of money aren't, and that's a problem. Some of them don't even have jobs, and it isn't really a fault of their own. Who should be earning lots of money that aren't?
Teachers, primarily.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On October 31 2011 09:44 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 09:21 Tien wrote:On October 31 2011 06:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
We lack job opportunities for a variety of reasons, many of which I won't get into right now, but a lot of it has to do with the devaluation of education in our society. The people who should be earning lots of money aren't, and that's a problem. Some of them don't even have jobs, and it isn't really a fault of their own. Who should be earning lots of money that aren't? Teachers, primarily.
I 100% agree with it.
Who employs teachers? Government or corporations?
Are rich 1%ers or the corporations you resent responsible for teachers not making more money?
|
On October 31 2011 09:47 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 09:44 wherebugsgo wrote:On October 31 2011 09:21 Tien wrote:On October 31 2011 06:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
We lack job opportunities for a variety of reasons, many of which I won't get into right now, but a lot of it has to do with the devaluation of education in our society. The people who should be earning lots of money aren't, and that's a problem. Some of them don't even have jobs, and it isn't really a fault of their own. Who should be earning lots of money that aren't? Teachers, primarily. I 100% agree with it. Who employs teachers? Government or corporations? Are rich 1%ers or the corporations you resent responsible for teachers not making more money?
If he wants the 1%-ers to pay more in taxes it could probably be used for teacher saleries. Or am I completely wrong and the corporations actually own the schools?
|
The government employs teachers, yes, but the government can't pay the teachers well enough because taxes on corporations and the rich are so low. If we don't have enough tax revenue, one of the first things that is cut is public education because the American public (and the government) doesn't think that education is important.
The UC system, for example, has taken huge cuts in state funding because the state has a massive budget deficit (thank you Schwarzenegger). It is now more of a "federal" university system than a state university system, since the federal government now actually provides more funding than the state does. If the rich and corporations actually paid a fair share of their taxes, and public education was funded better, we'd see some very good things. Public education is a positive externality; it will positively affect every citizen of the country. Thus, it's in the interest of everyone to pay for it. However, not everyone is paying equally for it, and the middle and working classes cannot afford to pay more for it. However, they are they ones who benefit proportionally more for it. We need public education. The rich don't see as immediate or big of an impact from it. However, they do ultimately benefit greatly from a better educated workforce. It's too bad they're more concerned with short-term profit capitalization. That's the downside of the current system; corporations are rewarded for focusing on short term profit maximization instead of actually investing into their workers and consumers.
Also, engineers ought to get paid more. Nurses should get paid more. Even doctors should get paid more. These are just examples of professions that, in my opinion, are underpaid.
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well.
|
Less developed nations will ALWAYS have an advantage in low or no skilled labor, simply because of how easily those workers can be manipulated by both government and private interests. Lowering the US regulation and compensation in the sector will, at best, boost those job numbers temporarily. Meanwhile, the wealth gap will continue to widen and we'll be back in an even worse position when those temporary job gains are lost.
So, we could prop up the public sector with increased taxes on the richest portion of the population, providing goods and services which can ONLY be met by domestic employees and which the private sector has little interest in investing in. These would include sustained projects that improved roads, power distribution, internet penetration, general transportation, et al. These improvements would increase the living standards of every citizen of the US, as well as increase the returns on our most significant workforces, entrepreneurs and high skilled labor. Since the US seems to be the best place to live if you're wealthy, it's not like they will flee in droves due to a small increase in taxes.
|
On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well.
This is completely stupid. Women get payed less because most women choose shitty careers like math teaching or nursing instead of getting a degree in Engineering or being a doctor.
The same goes to minorities. And in my country college is free, so it's not about money.
|
On October 31 2011 10:02 aksfjh wrote:
Less developed nations will ALWAYS have an advantage in low or no skilled labor, simply because of how easily those workers can be manipulated by both government and private interests. Lowering the US regulation and compensation in the sector will, at best, boost those job numbers temporarily. Meanwhile, the wealth gap will continue to widen and we'll be back in an even worse position when those temporary job gains are lost.
So, we could prop up the public sector with increased taxes on the richest portion of the population, providing goods and services which can ONLY be met by domestic employees and which the private sector has little interest in investing in. These would include sustained projects that improved roads, power distribution, internet penetration, general transportation, et al. These improvements would increase the living standards of every citizen of the US, as well as increase the returns on our most significant workforces, entrepreneurs and high skilled labor. Since the US seems to be the best place to live if you're wealthy, it's not like they will flee in droves due to a small increase in taxes.
Yup, this is true and I highly agree with this.
Outsourcing isn't necessarily bad, but in the current economic situation, the government needs to actually raise taxes a little bit, then spend the revenue on public works projects. Public works projects that improve infrastructure are investments for the future, basically. Better internet networks, transportation networks, schools, hospitals, etc. etc. will all increase productivity and encourage jobs to be created here. The government can employ people to help realize these goals, and then private corporations can use the infrastructure as well. It's a win-win situation for everyone, and rich people will not leave if their taxes are raised from 35% to 39% or whatever.
In addition, corporations that currently pay next to nothing (quite literally) in taxes could be forced to pay 10-15% of their revenues or so, by closing the tax loopholes and whatnot. This is fresh revenue that can be used to expand infrastructure and reduce the deficit as well.
EDIT:
On October 31 2011 10:02 ilovelings wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. This is completely stupid. Women get payed less because most women choose shitty careers like math teaching or nursing instead of getting a degree in Engineering or being a doctor. The same goes to minorities. And in my country college is free, so it's not about money.
This is false.
In the United States college is far from free. Please stop using Argentina's system as some sort of reason as to why this should be true in the U.S. This is not the case.
In the U.S, women and minorities consistently get paid less despite having the same qualifications and doing the same work as their white male counterparts. I'm not talking about average pay across gender or minority lines. I'm talking about compensation for equal pay and equal qualifications.
|
On October 31 2011 10:02 ilovelings wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. This is completely stupid. Women get payed less because most women choose shitty careers like math teaching or nursing instead of getting a degree in Engineering or being a doctor. The same goes to minorities. And in my country college is free, so it's not about money.
That's just wrong and extremely sexiest... Women and minorities pay discrepancy statistics are built from the same state for the same job title. Here is a fun fact, educated women just out of college, unmarried from the age of 24 to i think 32 on avg are payed more then men for the same job. But the over all age is women are payed less, partly becuase women demand less, often not pushing for a pay increase etc so they don't get them.
|
|
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
The government employs teachers, yes, but the government can't pay the teachers well enough because taxes on corporations and the rich are so low. If we don't have enough tax revenue, one of the first things that is cut is public education because the American public (and the government) doesn't think that education is important.
Also, engineers ought to get paid more. Nurses should get paid more. Even doctors should get paid more. These are just examples of professions that, in my opinion, are underpaid.
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well.
http://usdebtclock.org/
Tell me. Is the problem not enough taxes or too much spending on garbage we don't need.
Like 700 bill a year in defense spending.
Or how medicare / caid is increasing in cost by 50 billion a year.
Just do the math. United States is broke, and it isn't because not enough taxes are being paid.
|
On October 31 2011 10:18 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
The government employs teachers, yes, but the government can't pay the teachers well enough because taxes on corporations and the rich are so low. If we don't have enough tax revenue, one of the first things that is cut is public education because the American public (and the government) doesn't think that education is important.
Also, engineers ought to get paid more. Nurses should get paid more. Even doctors should get paid more. These are just examples of professions that, in my opinion, are underpaid.
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. http://usdebtclock.org/ Tell me. Is the problem not enough taxes or too much spending on garbage we don't need. Like close to 800 bill a year in defense spending. Or how medicare / caid is increasing in cost by 50 billion a year. Just do the math. United States is broke, and it isn't because not enough taxes are being paid.
I agree that defense spending is high, but really it's the only thing that can be reasonably reduced.
And since the GOP won't have that, we can't reduce defense spending. If we ever get another Republican president, it'll probably go up even more. It's almost an impossibility from a political standpoint.
Other than defense spending what can we reduce? I don't agree with reducing medicare/social security and other "entitlement" spending; those are very good programs IMO (particularly as social security has been running a surplus, but that surplus has been taken to fund the wars)
Reducing the defense budget won't be easy. The GOP won't ever let that happen without trashing the rest of government first.
|
On October 31 2011 10:18 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
The government employs teachers, yes, but the government can't pay the teachers well enough because taxes on corporations and the rich are so low. If we don't have enough tax revenue, one of the first things that is cut is public education because the American public (and the government) doesn't think that education is important.
Also, engineers ought to get paid more. Nurses should get paid more. Even doctors should get paid more. These are just examples of professions that, in my opinion, are underpaid.
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. http://usdebtclock.org/ Tell me. Is the problem not enough taxes or too much spending on garbage we don't need. Like close to 800 bill a year in defense spending. Or how medicare / caid is increasing in cost by 50 billion a year. Just do the math. United States is broke, and it isn't because not enough taxes are being paid.
? US debt is largely owned by the US the debt is high but not crippling esp considering the rest of the developed world. And it's not just taxes are too low it's issues like medicare/caid which need reforms to make them more powerful not less and all that shit, where the majority would like benefits and it being public but are afraid becuase big daddy warbucks tell em that it's communism and people will be put out of work and nana and pepa will die! The problem with the US is politics make everything half assed nothing is committed to the extent that it needs to be and so everything is just eh that kind of worked.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
I support medicare / social security. The cost structure of those two programs however will bankrupt the country.
Just look at the unfunded liabilities of those two programs. Gives me an effing headache just looking at it.
Americans have much bigger problems than wealth inequality to worry about. I'm pissed off that the politicians are not getting the shit that the OWSers should be giving them.
Basically what I'm saying is OWSer should be directing their movement to Washington and congress. Changing what happens there will effect their lives more than camping out at wall street and complaining about rich bankers.
|
On October 31 2011 09:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 09:14 dOofuS wrote:
Money can't buy happiness. Wealth redistribution isn't going to make anyone happy.
Demanding the government take money from one group and give it to another isn't a trend I want continuing. I'd rather chop the arms off a government that's been meddling in our economy and personal lives for way too long.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee you'll be rich, but you have every right to pursue wealth and achieve personal success unhindered by government intervention. That's freedom. Money doesn't buy happiness. Keep slaving, people, and keep making more, billionaires, it doesn't change anything. What's important is your freedom. God Save America, land of the free. Look. Wealth redistribution won't make anyone happy. Wealth inequality, in the other hand is putting millions of your fellow citizen in misery every year, while one percent of corporate wankers own half of your country. If you think people should live in misery and get exploited to death because after all money is not everything that's great. I guess some people want to live decently. American "freedom" is basically "kill everybody on your way to climb on the top or stay in your ghetto". Your "freedom" is an injunction to follow the rules of competition and of the war of concurrency or suffer the consequences. It's a joke of a freedom, degree 0 of the concept of liberty. It's the freedom of the animal that has to eat or be eaten. Freedom means having the possibility to feed your family, to have an education, to be able to go to the hospital when you are sick even if you or your parents didn't "succeed", and then decide for yourself what you want to do with your life. If you think black people without any future in Harlem feel free, I think you are wrong.
I don't disagree with any of this, but I think you exaggerate the 'eat or be eaten' mentality. Your last paragraph hits the problem most American's are currently engaged in debating. The federal government needs to accept the reality of our situation, and stop spending beyond its means. More borrowing, taxing, or printing of money will not help our situation, regardless of its good intent. The problem is spending, and more spending is not the solution.
I am in open support of Ron Paul, and am proud that his plan begins to actually address the issue of bloated government and runaway spending. I also feel that the progress he and others have made in creating some transparency in the Federal Reserve's dealings will continue to reveal the corrupt state of our governments money printing machine.
|
On October 31 2011 09:25 semantics wrote:
Tell that to the homeless or those who live off food stamps and other government programs just to get though the year. Which could very well be hard working people but just can't be employed at reasonable wages in their area due to high cost of living with low wages for unskilled labor.
If you want to get rid of voluntary unemployment, you have to drop welfare, lower the minimum wage and get rid of unions. Forcing people to ask for a wage the market has no interest in paying, and making the opportunity cost of not looking for a job low isn't doing unemployment any favors.
Cost of living sucks, especially in big cities, but there are plenty of less "cool" cities that have cheaper living and a talent shortage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
