Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by wistahpatsfan, Jun 14, 2011.
Something's gotta give.
Workersâ€™ share of national income plummets to record low - Yahoo! News
+40% of people are getting government payments, 47% don't pay any federal taxes. Not good.
Very sobering graph.
back to the actual topic of the post, the share of the pie working people get is shrinking. I think that's a bad thing.
Do you think that's good or bad 13?
1947-1996, cyclical and overall consistent.
93-96, drop steeply
96-2000, big rise
Look at the drop 2000-2010!
I get there's a lag of effect from one admin to the next, but this graph shows something different, IMO. There's been an abrupt shift in the wealth, and it isn't from the poor to the rich.
If you ignore the highs and lows you'll see that the trajectory is downward from start to finish, with a much, much sharper decline in the last couple of decades. Basically the chart falls off a cliff. Without knowing the methodology for the chart, I'd point to a number of factors as reasons for the decline. I'd point to explosive government, resulting inflation, the artificial manipulation of interest rates, the inlfux of cheap labor, slashed cap gains rates, free trade, and whatever else you can think of.
Speculating here but I can see a combination of factors. Manufacturing supplied a lot of higher paying jobs, a smaller % of workers are in manufacturing, then there is outsourcing in IT that has taken off since 2000, cheaper to hire programmers in India and Pakistan than hiring guys in Silicon Valley and NYC. This I saw first hand after 9-11. On top of that now we have 15% unemployment so there is an obvious supply and demand issue.
When you look at government policy it doesn't help attract jobs at all. Very high Corp tax rates + a lot of employee overhead (benefits + payroll taxes) make the US a bad place for businesses that can locate in different areas.
IF you look at the NLRB hassling Boeing about where they can manufacture airplanes you understand why GOD jobs are fleeing America. If I am Boeing or another big US company and I see this nonsense next time I just build overseas if I want to be competitive.
On the contrary, if you look at the behemoth, bloated defense and Homeland security budgets.. they have spawned a huge industrial complex and many jobs on your dime.
Boeing is not going to leave america, they are moving to a third world state (South Carolina) and there are union issues.. if they do leave the country, then they should loose all of their defense contracts..
Off the top of my head, this chart doesn't reflect income distribution at all. It shows WORKER'S SHARE OF NATIONAL INCOME. So that means that those who aren't working are not counted or that they do count and they're dragging down the average.
To RW's point, we don't know the methodology nor do we understand the chart's relationship to income distribution.
Question #1 - How is a "Worker" being defined?
I think you said this backwards, unless I'm missing a nuance, right?
(i.e., it isn't from the rich to the poor)
I'm not doing the "gotcha" thing, just making sure I am reading what you mean.
"Workers' share of national income" may just be all private household income as a percent of GDP. If that's the case, off-shoring would dramatically reduce AMERICANS' share of national income.
In my opinion, that is the main point your graph is illustrating. It doesn't really show anything about "Wealth Redistribution" per se. As a matter of fact, your graph includes people with incomes well over $250k...as long as they are "workers".
Finally, my last point is that almost every company has reduced their workforce and increased output. My company hasn't added any significant numbers to our payroll over the past 6 years, but our company has gone from $350MM to almost $1B annually over that same period. So even our employees share of our company's income has declined dramatically. But since my income has increased by over 25% over that time, I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off or anything.
oh, yeah...what you said...
Do you really believe that cutting taxes for Corporations will create jobs in the USA? All tax cuts will do is improve the bottom line and shareholder value for Corporations.
Did you miss the news a few months ago where a lot of Corporations don't pay any taxes?
Cutting taxes and Burdensome regulations also.
Take this situation with the Boeing Plant, the government is telling Boeing where they can and can't build planes in the US (they want them build in non right to work states). They may prevent Boeing from Building and hiring 1,000 people in SC.
Now a CEO seeing this type of bullying by the Feds, when they are making a decision where to make a product may find it much easier to go overseas where they don't have to engage in legal battles with the Federal government and delay getting their product to market.
I would think this would be obvious?
Cutting taxes and "burdensome" regulations won't create any jobs. What are these burdensome regulations you speak of? Do you want to go back to the days where factory's can spew chemicals into the air and rivers/oceans?
That would be awesome
BTW see this article about the new financial regulations:
BLANKLEY: Brother, can you spare a regulation? - Washington Times
Qyestion from CEO of JP Morgan to Geithner:
So the people putting riles in place have no idea as to the cost of compliance...... Would you buy a car or make any investment if you don't know how much it will COST?????????
This sort of incident shows how out of touch the government is.
No one is talking about allowing businesses to pollute the way they do in China, if you don't believe that government actions don't have consequences fine as the US bleeds jobs and unemployment is ~15% and we are told the economy isn't in recession and inflation is not high.
So you complain about federal spending, you complain about the deficit and debt, you complain about a stagnant economy, and your prescription is to cut taxes and deregulate.
Does that seem coherent to you, at all?
All corporations pay taxes. They pay matching payroll taxes, real estate taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, etc. What they don't all pay is corporate taxes on "profit", as "profit" has become something most are good at hiding (or protecting depending on your POV).
I personally would eliminate some of the deductions or breaks given, and reduce the corporate tax rate to 20%, or something that would have reporting profit more common. We really need to make it attractive to stay in the country and do business.
I think you and I are on the same page when it comes to this issue as their are way to many ways for Corporations to hide their incomes.
It doesn't help that States try and lure Corporations from other States with tax breaks, free land, etc.
It seems all 50 States are fighting each other to give a Corporation the best deal ever. Hey, lets take 5,000 jobs from Massachusetts and give 3,000 jobs to New Hampshire. New Hampshire claims a win while 2,000 people say WTF?
Regulate when necessary and regulate intelligently,
Reducing the size and intrusiveness of government will lead to more growth, jobs and wealth. That is the way it works. Government is overhead, and by it's nature inefficient. It should me the minimum required not consuming >40% of GDP
Yah, I'm a pretty anti-states-rights guy on this subject. I don't know if it's changed but a few years back, just about any credit card had a mailing address in Delaware.
Why? The best structure for these companies was (maybe still is) Delaware.
Let's say I have capital requirements for insurance. That is, let's say that in New York, for every dollar I have pledged to pay for a certain insurable event, I'm required to have a dime I can tap (obviously the events won't happen to everyone all at once.)
Now let's say in Jersey, I only have to have a penny on the dollar.
Where do I move the biz? Jersey.
And who wins? The Corporation, which continue to take in big premiums, and only have a penny on the dollar to do the actual insuring.
Who loses? You and me. We pay that same premium, and the states race to the bottom in letting corporations do the ****tiest possible job on their end of the bargain.
I feel as strongly about this in the financial sector (insurance, banking, etc.) as in other sectors.
The states "competing" to attract businesses really equates to a mechanism to advantage businesses against the general population, whether as workers, consumers, or patients.
The problem is actually very simple...... it is based on instant gratification.....
I have recently merged homes with my fiancee, and it is a tale of 2 types of kids..... my kids, who have learned that a balance between saving and spending provides dividends as they split their gift money, baby-sitting money, and other random forms of income right down the middle between saving and spending. the each have several thousand dollars in savings, and the older is preparing to take half of her savings and buy a car (she just got her license). Much of this had to do with an agreed to philosophy between my former souse and I about common principles our kids should have.
her kids have it differently.....their father tried to buy their affection and what that has created is 2 kids with an insatiable appetite for immediate gratification....they are the same age and the older does not have a dime, but still feels that if my daughter buys a car, that he deserves one, too. The problem is that he spends his money as he gets it (I think their incomes are roughly similar) based on the notion that there is no point to have the oney sitting there doing nothing. Good kid, but sadly mistaken about how things should work. Even my 12 year old has a more responsible approach when it comes to economics.
The point here is that the balance of people in our society have shifted to the latter example.
The sad fact is that people can still start from zero and amass wealth, but more and more people simply choose not to do this, opting for the immediate gratification to keep up with their neighbors or to fill the void inside of themselves the easy way.
Sorry.........this calamity is just as self-inflicted as it is anything else
I wish you luck with your merger.
And I mean that from the bottom of my liberal little heart. I've been there, done that and it's not easy - not by a long shot.
Just to keep this on thread topic - I agree, much of the current mess has been self-inflicted.
the funny part is that my daughter is pretty liberal and my step son is pretty conservative.....you'd think that defies logic, but a lack of common-sense is not a political issue
Politics is often a matter of the heart - and the heart is never logical.
They're teenagers. I don't think either has a genuine understanding of what liberal and conservative means in a political context. Good job with your daughter, and good luck with the step son. Hopefully you can instill a few of those money saving principles into that kid before it's too late.
oh, yes they do......both are AP students in several subject, both are top 2 percenters when it comes to their studies.....both make a point to understand everything.
He will learn finances........he won't have a car otherwise. The lesson will be harsh when she hops in her car and drives away, but he'll get it pretty quickly.....he's sharp that way
I do agree that politics has nothing to do with it as their emotional maturity varies from topic to topic......but they know what's going on
Separate names with a comma.