Log in

View Full Version : One Set of Facts for Everybody



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 08:13 AM
I pretty much agree with all you've said here in this quote. Regressive taxes...exactly, and that's why a flat system is not equitable nor workable. Sales taxes are always regressive. However, the drug enforcement, punishment and rehab industries are doing pretty well with current govt non-policies.

He problem is that not all people who cannot afford to be 'in the system' (like the stereotypical Ozzie and Harriet) are as you've described. We all know that.

No. EVERY Flat or Flatter Tax proposal that I've seen contains a LARGE personal exemption i.e. the flat tax rate ( or flatter rates) would only apply AFTER a certain income threshold is reached. Thus, like under the current system, poor people would NOT pay income taxes.

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 08:20 AM
No, the economy took off during Clinton's first term. Unemployment was lower during Clinton's first term than it was during the Reagan Administration. The lowest unemployment rate during the Reagan Administration was 5.3%. During Clinton's first term, the unemployment dropped from 7.3% in 1993 to 5.1% in August 1996. By the time the Capital Gains tax cuts were passed, the unemployment rate had dropped to 4.8%. See historical statistics:

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=1948-01&EndYear=2009-03&submit1=Create+Report

In 1957, when the top tax rate was 90%, the unemployment rate dropped to 3.7%, which was far lower than at any time during the Reagan Administration.




Population growth is not a reflection of economic performance. One indicator of economic performance is Gross Domestic Product per capita. If you go by per-capita GDP, high tax New Jersey's GDP is much greater than low-tax Texas. So is high tax Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)





Again, NJ and CT are ranked at the top in per-capita GDP. They're both far ahead of Texas. As of November 2008, the unemployment rates in New York and New Jersey weren't much higher than in Texas. 6.1% vs. 5.7%.


If New Jersey is doing so well economically and Texas so poorly then WHY aren't folks leaving Texas in droves and going to N.J. ? Why is unemployment higher in N.J. than Texas ? Why is N.J.'s pension fund undercapitalized by $34 billion ? Why is their Highway Trust Fund bankrupt ? Why does Texas NOT have a budget deficit? And BEFORE the current recession, WHY was unemployment in Texas so much lower ?

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 08:24 AM
Is there a way I can put "Eric Stoner" on ignore so I can avoid wasting time on his drivel?

You poor Dear !

God forbid you should expose yourself to alternative views and take an occasional break from drinking the intellectual Kool-Aid.

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 08:35 AM
That is all INCORRECT.

It is a well-known fact that the GWHBush recession was very brief and weak. It's effect was lighter for the country as a whole than almost any other modern-day recession. and most certainly very minor compared to this extreme one.

State tax rates (from wikipedia) in decreasing order of total tax burden by PER CAPITA are: Alaska (highest), Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, Connecticut, Minnesota, Delaware, New Jersey, New york, Massachusetts, California, North Dakota.....Texas, New Hampshire, South Dakota (lowest)

State tax rates (from wikipedia) in decreasing order of total tax burden by PERSONAL INCOME are: Alaska (highest), Vermont, Hawaii, West Virginia, Arkansas, New Mexico, Delaware, Minnesota, Wyoming, Maine, North Dakota, Mississippi.....Texas, South Dakota, New Hampshire (lowest)

In the above, Alaska is an exception - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States

I think that just about shoots down your unfounded economic theory.

What are you trying to demonstrate with these lists of states ? What taxes are they talking about ?

We agree that the G.H.W. Bush (41) recession was short and relatively mild. Point being ?

I was comparing high taxes and economic health of various states. Generally, both before and at present during the current recession, low tax states had growing populations of TAXPAYERS. A drain of taxpayers increases the per capita tax burden on those who stay behind.

Which states have the highest budget deficits ? N.Y., N.J. and California. Those deficits must by law be closed ( unlike the Federal Government ).

Btw, there are two kinds of "employment". I focused on PRIVATE sector employment which DECLINED in the 3 aforementioned states while PUBLIC employment grew. Increased public employment requires additional spending for BOTH salary and benefits. It's the health care and PENSION costs that are killing many state budgets.

Melonie
05-11-2009, 09:01 AM
Indeed the 'migrating' state resident numbers are hard to decypher. Local media attempted this in New York and came to the conclusion that the state's loss of residents actually consists of two components. First there is an even larger than published number of TAXPAYERS who are leaving the state to find lower taxes and higher job opportunities. There is also a significant number of low income low education immigrants who are coming TO New York - at least partly because of the comparatively generous social welfare benefits available i.e. public housing, gov't assistance paying utility bills, food stamps, zero deductible medicaid coverage, TANF etc. This of course only aggravates New York's budget deficit demographic ... because instead of 80,000 taxpayers leaving per the initial reports there are actually 120,000 taxpayers leaving offset by 40,000 additional social program recipients moving in !!!

While I'm not aware of any similar study being done in California, you can be certain that far more taxpayers are leaving, and far more social welfare recipients are moving in, than the 'net' figures account for !

Also agreed on the difference between public sector and private sector employment. It was just released that the slightly improved 'official' federal unemployment numbers actually contain a one shot hiring offset of 66,000 new employees of the federal government (mostly tied to the census bureau) !

threlayer
05-11-2009, 09:55 AM
from your CNN quote:
Most of the dropouts were Latino or black, according to a report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Alternative Schools Network in Chicago, Illinois."(snip)
Such low personal expecations in the ghetto areas promotes personal irrsponsibility. The larger problem is the perpetuation of such behavior. Experts have wondered at an eventual genetic predisposition to ghetto-itis.


The subject is also a matter of particular concern to the UAW, who recently slammed GM in restructuring talks due to GM's continuing allocation of funds (including US taxpayer bailout money) toward the construction of new auto plants in both the Pacific Rim and in South America. This is of course occurring at the same time that plants in the US and especially Canada are being permanently closed.
I would expect nothing less from cynical big business than such corporate disloyalty to employees and country that has provided its birth and growth.


I would partially agree if the principle of wealth redistribution were actually confined to the wealthiest citizens, and if the resulting assistance was temporary and incentivized ... but it is not. The 'moral hazard' of the situation is that the eligibility thresholds for social welfare programs which maintain that 'minimum acceptable standard of living' arguably penalize any poor person who attempts to better his financial situation via hard work or non-college level education. As soon as their earnings potential rises from $30k to $40k per year, their actual standard of living will decline ! The reason of course is that, once eligibility is lost, those former gov't subsidies for rent, utility bills, health care, groceries etc. must now be paid out of the person's own pocket. Thus in essence the US federal and state gov't is providing a strong incentive for poor, poorly educated people to stay poor and poorly educated
I believe you are saying that if wealth were distributed (temporary and incentivized) from wealthy citizens to the poor, you would partially agree. Then I believe you state that as this redistributed wealth and hard work and education removes the poor from poverty (around 30-40k$/yr) they become increasingly poor again because their government subsidies are removed.

If this is your idea of the effects of an altered system, wh,y as part of that alteration, aren't those conceptual subsidy structures altered as well toward incentivation? Why, in your changed system concept, do you hinder the positive aspects by sticking also with the negative aspects? It would appear that you are saying that nothing can be improved because something will always impede improvement. Remember, these are man-made structures, not immutable laws of mathematics and physics. They can be altered toward improvement by our collective wills. Whereas we really do have to repect the natural laws, not ignore them at our self-centered personal convenience.

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 10:12 AM
from your CNN quote:
Such low personal expecations in the ghetto areas promotes personal irrsponsibility. The larger problem is the perpetuation of such behavior. Experts have wondered at an eventual genetic predisposition to ghetto-itis.


I would expect nothing less from cynical big business than such corporate disloyalty to employees and country that has provided its birth and growth.


I believe you are saying that if wealth were distributed (temporary and incentivized) from wealthy citizens to the poor, you would partially agree. Then I believe you state that as this redistributed wealth and hard work and education removes the poor from poverty (around 30-40k$/yr) they become increasingly poor again because their government subsidies are removed.

If this is your idea of the effects of an altered system, wh,y as part of that alteration, aren't those conceptual subsidy structures altered as well toward incentivation? Why, in your changed system concept, do you hinder the positive aspects by sticking also with the negative aspects? It would appear that you are saying that nothing can be improved because something will always impede improvement. Remember, these are man-made structures, not immutable laws of mathematics and physics. They can be altered toward improvement by our collective wills. Whereas we really do have to repect the natural laws, not ignore them at our self-centered personal convenience.

Corporations owe loyalty to exactly one ( 1 ) class of people: their shareholders.
Not their employees; not the government; not the country. They DO have an obligation to obey and comply with all applicable laws.

Historically, CAPITALISM, FREEDOM and ECONOMIC GROWTH have created far more wealth and eliminated more poverty than all government programs put together.

Socialism, Statism, high taxes, burdensome regulation and attempts at redistribution have created and perpetuated more poverty than anything else.

Look at South Korea vs. North Korea ; Taiwan and Hong Kong vs. China ; Singapore vs. Malaya; U.S. vs. Mexico etc. etc.

You could do yourself a gigantic favor and READ Adam Smith's WEALTH Of NATIONS and Milton Friedman's CAPITALISM And FREEDOM. There are certain basic immutable laws of economics based on certain unchanging characteristics of human beings. Despite numerous attempts by various governments ; movements and philosophies; they haven't changed.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 10:12 AM
...Eagle - How do YOU explain the poor economic performance of high tax states like N.Y., N.J., California and Rhode Island compared to other low tax states like Idaho, New Hampshire and Texas ? What accounts for the declining populations of the high tax states and the growing populations of low tax states ?

New Jersey is a perfect example <snip>

So would you please point to a high tax state that is doing well economically ?

The above was the source of my argument. I linked a source for the information of total state taxation. I did not attempt to find state budget deficit information, only state taxes allocated to its citizens. Also the time perios is not necessarily completely current. Obviously deficits and corporate income must also be taken into account. However, it is easy to see that your order of 'high tax' states is not the only factor. A great example of this oddity is West Virginia, ranked very highly in the taxation per personal income table. It is doing poorly because the population income rate is low. NY is doing poorly because a large portion of state funding is from the financial and investment industry in NYC which is doing poorly. I'm saying that many, many factors enter into a states' economic performance, not just personal income taxes.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 10:16 AM
Indeed the 'migrating' state resident numbers are hard to decypher. Local media attempted this in New York and came to the conclusion that the state's loss of residents actually consists of two components. First there is an even larger than published number of TAXPAYERS who are leaving the state to find lower taxes and higher job opportunities. There is also a significant number of low income low education immigrants who are coming TO New York - at least partly because of the comparatively generous social welfare benefits available ...

Not many other states other than southern border states have as much immigration as does NY; this has been the case for more than a century and a half. Ironically a large portion of NYS emigrants (those capable or earning a good living) have moved to North Carolina, which is now doing poorly in spite of its tax situation.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 10:36 AM
Corporations owe loyalty to exactly one ( 1 ) class of people: their shareholders.
Not their employees; not the government; not the country. They DO have an obligation to obey and comply with all applicable laws.This is spoken like a true cynical corporate executive. This hateful attitude and behavior has done more harm to wealthy nations than diseases, catastrophes, and wars. Ironically a corporation's shareholders owe NO loyalty to their corporations. So how stupid of an attitude is this?


Historically, CAPITALISM, FREEDOM and ECONOMIC GROWTH have created far more wealth and eliminated more poverty than all government programs put together.
...There are certain basic immutable laws of economics based on certain unchanging characteristics of human beings. Despite numerous attempts by various governments ; movements and philosophies; they haven't changed.Historically, CAPITALISM, FREEDOM and ECONOMIC GROWTH are products of government and allowed to exist because of government and their laws. Without government and its necessary support by taxation, anarchy would rule and THEFT, CORRUPTION, WARS and SLAVERY would be the result and those perpetuating this behavior would possess practically all the wealth.

Left to their own, with only their own personal welfare to consider, individuals and corporations alike become narcissistic and anti-social. Adam Smith 's economic theory (back in the 1700s) did not consider that factor of the 'good of society' in addition to the 'good of the individual' in their economic decisions. What was life like back in those ways? It was like this: THEFT, CORRUPTION, WARS and SLAVERY.

Is that what we want from our own society? We expect more from the individual and from corporations. Consumers have forced more than one corporation out of business because of self-centered, narcissistic bahavior. And they will do it again.

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 10:44 AM
The above was the source of my argument. I linked a source for the information of total state taxation. I did not attempt to find state budget deficit information, only state taxes allocated to its citizens. Also the time perios is not necessarily completely current. Obviously deficits and corporate income must also be taken into account. However, it is easy to see that your order of 'high tax' states is not the only factor. A great example of this oddity is West Virginia, ranked very highly in the taxation per personal income table. It is doing poorly because the population income rate is low. NY is doing poorly because a large portion of state funding is from the financial and investment industry in NYC which is doing poorly. I'm saying that many, many factors enter into a states' economic performance, not just personal income taxes.

New York had MAJOR budget problems well before the Market crashed and economy went into recession. So did N.J. California has been a basket case for over a decade.

If you re-read my posts, low marginal tax rates are just one part of the picture. They help ( a LOT ) but fiscal discipline is a BIG factor. For instance, some states tax relatively highly BUT spend a lot on infrastructure thus fostering a healthy business climate. They in effect spend money to make money. But they don't borrow just to stay current on pensions or Food Stamps.

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 10:46 AM
Not many other states other than southern border states have as much immigration as does NY; this has been the case for more than a century and a half. Ironically a large portion of NYS emigrants (those capable or earning a good living) have moved to North Carolina, which is now doing poorly in spite of its tax situation.

Please try to stay up to date. Where do you think California is getting all those Mexicans ? And Arizona ? And Texas ? And ILLINOIS ? And GEORGIA ? And MINNESOTA ?

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 10:55 AM
This is spoken like a true cynical corporate executive. This hateful attitude and behavior has done more harm to wealthy nations than diseases, catastrophes, and wars. Ironically a corporation's shareholders owe NO loyalty to their corporations. So how stupid of an attitude is this?

Historically, CAPITALISM, FREEDOM and ECONOMIC GROWTH are products of government and allowed to exist because of government and their laws. Without government and its necessary support by taxation, anarchy would rule and THEFT, CORRUPTION, WARS and SLAVERY would be the result and those perpetuating this behavior would possess practically all the wealth.

Left to their own, with only their own personal welfare to consider, individuals and corporations alike become narcissistic and anti-social. Adam Smith 's economic theory (back in the 1700s) did not consider that factor of the 'good of society' in addition to the 'good of the individual' in their economic decisions. What was life like back in those ways? It was like this: THEFT, CORRUPTION, WARS and SLAVERY.

Is that what we want from our own society? We expect more from the individual and from corporations. Consumers have forced more than one corporation out of business because of self-centered, narcissistic bahavior. And they will do it again.

This is exactly what I am talking about when I cite your factual delinquencies and philosophical infirmity.

Shareholders OWN the corporation. Management works for the OWNERS. They owe a fiduciary duty to maximize profits.

Governments do NOT create wealth. Individuals do. You're right that we need government to prevent anarchy. However, just as governments can enable wealth creation they can also destroy or retard it.

I don't know of any corporation forced out of business by "Consumers".
Boycotts generally don't work. Governments can and have destroyed businesses. So have unions. So has excessive litigation.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 12:15 PM
...READ Adam Smith's WEALTH Of NATIONS and Milton Friedman's CAPITALISM And FREEDOM. There are certain basic immutable laws of economics based on certain unchanging characteristics of human beings. Despite numerous attempts by various governments ; movements and philosophies; they haven't changed.

you forget that Adam Smith also wrote, and preferred, a book called "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".

"His aim in the work is to explain the source of mankind's ability to form moral judgements, in spite of man's natural inclinations toward self-interest.<snip>In part because Theory of Moral Sentiments emphasizes sympathy for others while Wealth of Nations famously emphasizes the role of self interest, some scholars have perceived a conflict between these works.<snip>But in recent years most scholars of Adam Smith's work have argued that no contradiction exists. In Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith develops a theory of psychology in which individuals find it in their self-interest to develop sympathy as they seek approval of the "impartial spectator". The self-interest he speaks of is not a narrow selfishness but something that involves sympathy.<snip>Rather than viewing the Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments as presenting incompatible views of human nature, most Smith scholars regard the works as emphasizing different aspects of human nature that vary depending on the situation." - from wikipedia's article "Adam Smith"

Looks like you have some more reading to do if you like Smith's theories.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 12:20 PM
Please try to stay up to date. Where do you think California is getting all those Mexicans ? And Arizona ? And Texas ? And ILLINOIS ? And GEORGIA ? And MINNESOTA ?

Let me hazard a guess..... Mars, Taiwan, Oz?
hmmmm....
No, Middle Earth. that's it.

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 12:23 PM
you forget that Adam Smith also wrote, and preferred, a book called "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".

"His aim in the work is to explain the source of mankind's ability to form moral judgements, in spite of man's natural inclinations toward self-interest.<snip>In part because Theory of Moral Sentiments emphasizes sympathy for others while Wealth of Nations famously emphasizes the role of self interest, some scholars have perceived a conflict between these works.<snip>But in recent years most scholars of Adam Smith's work have argued that no contradiction exists. In Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith develops a theory of psychology in which individuals find it in their self-interest to develop sympathy as they seek approval of the "impartial spectator". The self-interest he speaks of is not a narrow selfishness but something that involves sympathy.<snip>Rather than viewing the Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments as presenting incompatible views of human nature, most Smith scholars regard the works as emphasizing different aspects of human nature that vary depending on the situation." - from wikipedia's article "Adam Smith"

Looks like you have some more reading to do if you like Smith's theories.

I've read Smith's THEORY of MORAL SENTIMENTS. Both of his great works take account of human nature.
There is nothing "evil" in The Wealth of Nations. "Greed is good" so long as it is satisfied in legal and ethical ways AND it is even better when the fruits of success are shared via charity. Thus there is nothing inconsistent between Smith's two books. Wealthy people are better able to indulge their "self-interests" including their sympathies and empathies.

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 12:25 PM
Not many other states other than southern border states have as much immigration as does NY; this has been the case for more than a century and a half. Ironically a large portion of NYS emigrants (those capable or earning a good living) have moved to North Carolina, which is now doing poorly in spite of its tax situation.

YOU are the one who claimed that other states do not have as many immigrants as N.Y.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 12:35 PM
This is exactly what I am talking about when I cite your factual delinquencies and philosophical infirmity.

Shareholders OWN the corporation. Management works for the OWNERS. They owe a fiduciary duty to maximize profits.Really? They do? I thought they were just workers in the companies' warehouses, managing stocks of manufactured goods.


Governments do NOT create wealth. Individuals do. You're right that we need government to prevent anarchy. However, just as governments can enable wealth creation they can also destroy or retard it. They just print it. Smith told us that when he ushered the way out of mercantilism. Stockholders can destroy wealth in a just a few hours or days, since it's almost all paper wealth anyway.


I don't know of any corporation forced out of business by "Consumers".
Boycotts generally don't work. Governments can and have destroyed businesses. So have unions. So has excessive litigation. Eric, you really ought to get out more. Ever heard of Grants, A&P, Bennigans, Studebaker-Packard?

threlayer
05-11-2009, 12:36 PM
YOU are the one who claimed that other states do not have as many immigrants as N.Y.

Over the years, this is most certainly so.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 12:42 PM
I've read Smith's THEORY of MORAL SENTIMENTS. Both of his great works take account of human nature.
There is nothing "evil" in The Wealth of Nations. "Greed is good" so long as it is satisfied in legal and ethical ways AND it is even better when the fruits of success are shared via charity. Thus there is nothing inconsistent between Smith's two books. Wealthy people are better able to indulge their "self-interests" including their sympathies and empathies.

Acceptance and purchase is in effect a single vote for the commercial acceptance of a product or service. If there are enough 'votes', then there is a success in the marketplace. People wouldn't buy something if it weren't acceptable, if not optimal to them. But if something is acceptable but its source is undesirable, one weighs the support of that undesirable against other products or services and votes accordingly.

For example products have been avoided when it is well known that they came from organized crime or slave labor or endangered species. This is certainly not universal, but it does occur when both of Smith's principles are adhered to.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 12:46 PM
^^^^ Hoisted by your own factually delinquent petard.

I am trying to place a little humor over your condescending insulting remarks. Hoping to keep you out of trouble with the powers that be. But I'm growing increasingly impatient with your fetid personal remarks. So stop it!


If you can't continue a debate without insulting the other person, you already lost your case.

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 01:10 PM
I am trying to place a little humor over your condescending insulting remarks. Hoping to keep you out of trouble with the powers that be. But I'm growing increasingly impatient with your fetid personal remarks. So stop it!


If you can't continue a debate without insulting the other person, you already lost your case.

I'm very sorry that you have taken personal offense. None was intended. I try to attack ideas and statements that I think are incorrect; not the people holding or saying same. Nonetheless, I've deleted the post that caused you the most upset.

Some of your posts, imo , lack factual support. In particular, you often post things that run counter to generally accepted historical fact.

You posted something about immigration and N.Y. vis a vis states on the Mexican border. Lots of states have large populations of illegal Mexicans and Central Americans that are nowhere near Mexico. I tried to point that out to you. Current periodicals are full of stories detailing and documenting the illegal Mexican and Central American communities in places like Illinois; Georgia; North Carolina; Minnesota etc. Some states have more illegal immigrants on a per capita basis than N.Y. does. And a lot of those illegals are going home thanks to the recession.
That's something the Feds can and ought to pay for : 1 -way tickets to Guatemala and Guadalajara for those who can't afford them.

Eric Stoner
05-11-2009, 01:16 PM
Really? They do? I thought they were just workers in the companies' warehouses, managing stocks of manufactured goods.

They just print it. Smith told us that when he ushered the way out of mercantilism. Stockholders can destroy wealth in a just a few hours or days, since it's almost all paper wealth anyway.

Eric, you really ought to get out more. Ever heard of Grants, A&P, Bennigans, Studebaker-Packard?

Printing money is NOT creating wealth. I think you're talking about "naked short-selling" which can and should be strictly regulated and perhaps even banned outright.

You're right in that consumers can stop buying a product or choose to shop elsewhere. Failure is part of capitalism. I thought you were referring to boycotts and the like.

Damn shame they don't make Packards anymore.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 02:43 PM
Printing money is NOT creating wealth. I think you're talking about "naked short-selling" which can and should be strictly regulated and perhaps even banned outright.

Of course it isn't. Nor is bidding up a stock increasing wealth; profits are made by selling. So the market could be upside and yet when profits are taken, it would have been down again. Whatever margins are required. (Recent loose margin regulations have been a contributing factor in the market problems.) My broker requires 50%.

Actually consumers have caused boycotts that contributed to a company going under; it is not frequent. Companies make mistakes and some recover and some go under. Had any peanut butter lately?
---
You may try to bring up generally accepted historical fact, but you often ignore the reason behind the fact or the consequences after it. I am disupting sometimes your interpretation of these 'facts' not the facts themselves. You do not seem to understand that at all. Further you confuse historical facts with your interpretations of them.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 02:58 PM
"Naked Margins" nice name for a high-roller club.

eagle2
05-11-2009, 05:15 PM
If New Jersey is doing so well economically and Texas so poorly then WHY aren't folks leaving Texas in droves and going to N.J. ? Why is unemployment higher in N.J. than Texas ? Why is N.J.'s pension fund undercapitalized by $34 billion ? Why is their Highway Trust Fund bankrupt ? Why does Texas NOT have a budget deficit? And BEFORE the current recession, WHY was unemployment in Texas so much lower ?

None of the factors above are measurements of a state's prosperity. The average income of state residents and the poverty rate of the state are. New Jersey does far better than Texas in both measurements. I doubt very much that people are leaving New Jersey in droves to move to Texas either. I know I would rather have a much higher income and pay more taxes as New Jersey residents do on average, than have much less income and pay less taxes, like people in Texas do on average.

eagle2
05-11-2009, 05:23 PM
New York had MAJOR budget problems well before the Market crashed and economy went into recession. So did N.J. California has been a basket case for over a decade.


A decade ago California was booming from its tech industries.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 07:19 PM
New York's problems were mostly political, and that is what led to manufacturers and other larger businesses, as well as workers, leaving the state. Taxes were only part of it; the financials in NYC were a huge source of business taxes; local taxes affected moslty residents. Very high energy problems and onerous business regulations were also major factors. I've been here a long time, and I've heard a lot.

eagle2
05-11-2009, 08:24 PM
speaking to the first question ... http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/05/dropout.rate.study/index.html

(snip)WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly 6.2 million students in the United States between the ages of 16 and 24 in 2007 dropped out of high school, fueling what a report released Tuesday called "a persistent high school dropout crisis."

The total represents 16 percent of all people in the United States in that age range in 2007. Most of the dropouts were Latino or black, according to a report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Alternative Schools Network in Chicago, Illinois."(snip)


I was referring to your statement, "There are simply not enough non-transportable service job opportunities available to ever provide this segment of America's population with gainful employment."

You don't know what type of job opportunities there will be for unskilled workers and what types of wages they will be able to receive in the future.

The Republicans let the minimum wage get to one of its lowest poinst ever (in constant dollars), which kept wages low for unskilled workers. Now that the Republicans are no longer in power, we can expect to see a minimum wage at a more acceptable level. In addition, the nation's biggest employer, Walmart, keeps the wages of it's employees low, many earning minimum wage. If Walmart employees ever become unionized, or Walmart is forced to pay its employees higher salaries to prevent them from unionizing, there will be a significant difference in wages. These and other changes can significantly improve the opportunities for unskilled workers.



Speaking to the second point, all of your cites of 'successful' US industries involve 'skilled employees' that are both well educated and well trained. Such employers are not going to 'invest' in providing specialized training to a new employee who lacks basic math skills, basic reading skills, basic English language skills, logical deduction skills etc. At least this will be the case if the employers are allowed a free choice regarding which candidate they hire.

It doesn't take skilled labor to assemble many of the products I mentioned.





This is technically true today, but built on a 10 year old paradigm. The future competition, that which industry leaders must base todays strategic decisionmaking on (and thus decide the future of US jobs), clearly follows a different paradigm. Tata , Mahindra , Chery , and even eastern european Fiat represent tomorrow's competition ! The lower prices made possible by much lower labor costs, environmental costs, and work rules costs. will smoke both the Detroit 3 and the US facilities of foreign owned automakers.


You're just assuming that following your ideology guarantees success. It doesn't. According to your logic, the Yugo would have been a resounding success. It wasn't. Price isn't the only factor for consumers when purchasing a vehicle. The quality of a vehicle is even more important to most consumers. As it is, Chery is having trouble meeting minimum safety standards to enter the US market. In addition, you don't know what the wages are going to be like in China, India, and Eastern Europe in the future. In the future China may have a labor shortage as a result of it's one child per family policy, which could significantly drive up the cost of labor.

threlayer
05-11-2009, 09:08 PM
It seems here that the most conservative among us would prefer to see wages for poor Americans decrease, their poverty subsidies terminated, and their jobs transported to the Pacific Rim. Apparently they do not believe these people would or could become more self-sufficient because of their own inborn natures. They seem to want to eliminate all programs that sustain their lives, probably including healthcare, foodstamps, and subsidized education. They seem to completely despise any assistance that society gives them and would have them basically completely marginalized. If that would somehow occur, the nightmare that would be sure to follow would look like this:

(1) These people would become, by force of their natural survival instinct, a huge social societal nightmare, the extent of which this country has never seen nor imagined possible. Theft would become rampant with many of them, resulting in deaths, starvation and disease; deaths would occur all over; police and National Guard would be just as overworked as are firefighters in a Southern California conflagration; social unrest would become unbearable; politicians would be physically fighting in Legislatures and Congress over ways to stymie the country-wide rebellions. There would be no place big enough to house all those that would be captured by armed authorities, so many holding pens would be quickly assembled with many of them infested with vermin because of shoddy, quick construction. And probably the wealthy financial conservatives would be emigrating out of the hellhole they created, leaving the rest of us wondering how we would be able to survive the resultant anarchy.
OR
(2) Deportation to some outback, abandoned country which would be nearly impossible because what existing country would accept such a deluge of refugees. Well, possibly Chad or the Sudan or Niger or Mali could be bribed into it by our providing better access to water and food.
OR
(3) These people would have to be gathered up into concentration camps and exterminated as the only way to avoid the foreseen alternatives (1 or 2). This would be looked upon favorably, as it would be more humane than (2)placing this multi-million mass of people in a countries where starvation is a way of life or (1) destroying this country.

Well, it would take a Limbaugh- or Bush-like mentality to actually accomplish this Mad-Max-like scenario.

I'm saying that these most conservative can't get to where they (seem to) want to go from here; you need a much better plan and outlook on these problems. Better yet, rather than just criticizing the status quo, come up with a realistic 'incentivization' plan that recognizes where we are now and that this will require more resources temporarily that are allocated more effectively than has been done in the past.

Eric Stoner
05-12-2009, 07:50 AM
None of the factors above are measurements of a state's prosperity. The average income of state residents and the poverty rate of the state are. New Jersey does far better than Texas in both measurements. I doubt very much that people are leaving New Jersey in droves to move to Texas either. I know I would rather have a much higher income and pay more taxes as New Jersey residents do on average, than have much less income and pay less taxes, like people in Texas do on average.

I think you and I are like the blind men trying to describe the elephant. Income is a legit measure of prosperity BUT, a BETTER measure is disposable income. If two people both earn $50,000 and one lives in N.J. and the other in Texas, who do you think is going to have the higher standard of living ? I would argue the latter based both on lower taxes and a lower cost of living.

New Jersey also has plenty of poor people. Check out Newark, Patterson, Trenton and Camden. The higher social spending of the last four decades not only has not reduced poverty, but some programs have helped to increase it.

Eric Stoner
05-12-2009, 07:54 AM
A decade ago California was booming from its tech industries.

It was Republicans like Wilson and Deukmajian ( sp. ? ) who created the conditions that fostered the boom in Silicon Valley.

That was a decade ago. What about since the "dot-com." bubble burst ?

As I've repeatedly posted, California's politicians are primarily responsible for failing to reduce spending; continually raising taxes; over-borrowing and creating "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants.

Eric Stoner
05-12-2009, 07:59 AM
New York's problems were mostly political, and that is what led to manufacturers and other larger businesses, as well as workers, leaving the state. Taxes were only part of it; the financials in NYC were a huge source of business taxes; local taxes affected moslty residents. Very high energy problems and onerous business regulations were also major factors. I've been here a long time, and I've heard a lot.

Again, we agree.

Rockefeller, Carey, Cuomo and Pataki all overspent and fostered conditions that hurt and often killed manufacturing. None of them lifted a finger to provide cheaper energy. Time was, N.Y. produced more and cheaper electricity than any other state.

It was very seductive to become so dependent for so much on an industry that does NOT create wealth but just moves it around i.e. "Wall St."

Eric Stoner
05-12-2009, 08:11 AM
It seems here that the most conservative among us would prefer to see wages for poor Americans decrease, their poverty subsidies terminated, and their jobs transported to the Pacific Rim. Apparently they do not believe these people would or could become more self-sufficient because of their own inborn natures. They seem to want to eliminate all programs that sustain their lives, probably including healthcare, foodstamps, and subsidized education. They seem to completely despise any assistance that society gives them and would have them basically completely marginalized. If that would somehow occur, the nightmare that would be sure to follow would look like this:

(1) These people would become, by force of their natural survival instinct, a huge social societal nightmare, the extent of which this country has never seen nor imagined possible. Theft would become rampant with many of them, resulting in deaths, starvation and disease; deaths would occur all over; police and National Guard would be just as overworked as are firefighters in a Southern California conflagration; social unrest would become unbearable; politicians would be physically fighting in Legislatures and Congress over ways to stymie the country-wide rebellions. There would be no place big enough to house all those that would be captured by armed authorities, so many holding pens would be quickly assembled with many of them infested with vermin because of shoddy, quick construction. And probably the wealthy financial conservatives would be emigrating out of the hellhole they created, leaving the rest of us wondering how we would be able to survive the resultant anarchy.
OR
(2) Deportation to some outback, abandoned country which would be nearly impossible because what existing country would accept such a deluge of refugees. Well, possibly Chad or the Sudan or Niger or Mali could be bribed into it by our providing better access to water and food.
OR
(3) These people would have to be gathered up into concentration camps and exterminated as the only way to avoid the foreseen alternatives (1 or 2). This would be looked upon favorably, as it would be more humane than (2)placing this multi-million mass of people in a countries where starvation is a way of life or (1) destroying this country.

Well, it would take a Limbaugh- or Bush-like mentality to actually accomplish this Mad-Max-like scenario.

I'm saying that these most conservative can't get to where they (seem to) want to go from here; you need a much better plan and outlook on these problems. Better yet, rather than just criticizing the status quo, come up with a realistic 'incentivization' plan that recognizes where we are now and that this will require more resources temporarily that are allocated more effectively than has been done in the past.

This is grotesquely unfair. I've NEVER advocated leaving poor people destitute. On the contrary, I want them helped with programs that work. I want the money to go to the people that need it and not a bunch of social workers and bureaucrats. Most of all, I want to create JOBS for these people and give them the education necessary to fill and hold those jobs. I don't want the unskilled and low functioning to have to compete for low-skilled low-wage jobs with illegal immigrants. I don't want them sold houses that they cannot afford. I want them taught how to food-shop and how to cook in a healthy way. I want positive behaviors ( staying in school; not getting pregnant ; staying out of jail; not getting married before age 21 ) rewarded and reinforced and the negative opposites punished and discouraged.

I can't stand Bush and think he was a terrible President but he never advocated or promoted the kind of cruelty that you claim. Kanye West is a horse's ass and NEVER should have said what he did.

If you actually listen to Limbaugh ( and he can be a pompous blow-hard ), his thinking is closely akin to mine.

Here's a glimmer of hope; Geoffrey Canada's Charter Schools in Harlem showed dramatic increases in both math and reading. Some grades doubled the number of students reading at or above grade level.

threlayer
05-12-2009, 08:24 AM
What killed cheap (hydropower etc) energy in NYS was a combination of Cuomo (Gov 1983-1994) and PURPA laws (1978 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Utility_Regulatory_Policies_Act) with Cuiomo's unrealistic and forced pricing structure. I have discussed this extensively in another thread in the last year. I noted that industry emigration started very soon after this with many complaints about energy costs. Industry was wooed to NYS previously by the promise of cheap energy (PASNY or NYPA), abundant water, and an educated workforce. (Residential power costs doubled within a year or two.)

threlayer
05-12-2009, 08:35 AM
Yes. This is a grotesque scenario, but it certainly seems like what you and particularly Mel (and Bem elsewhere) are getting to. None of you have discussed much in the way of solutions at all, but mostly the opinion that they are the root of most problems. I agree that this is a huge problem, but it is not a result of only ghetto-itis but it is also a social disease in many other places. I read your goals, finally stated, but I don't see any opinions on how to get there from here.

Who is Kanye West? I can't stand to listen to Limbaugh; now if he had a comedy show format, I might get a few laughs from his antics.

Eric Stoner
05-12-2009, 08:36 AM
What killed cheap (hydropower etc) energy in NYS was a combination of Cuomo (Gov 1983-1994) and PURPA laws (1978 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Utility_Regulatory_Policies_Act) with Cuiomo's unrealistic and forced pricing structure. I have discussed this extensively in another thread in the last year. I noted that industry emigration started very soon after this with many complaints about energy costs. Industry was wooed to NYS previously by the promise of cheap energy (PASNY or NYPA), abundant water, and an educated workforce. (Residential power costs doubled within a year or two.)

Cuomo was easily the most anti-business Governor N.Y. has ever had. No Governor did more economic damage than he. The problem is that Pataki fell in love with getting re-elected and "bought" at least one election ( 2002) with reckless spending and , as you know, did nothing to reverse Cuomo's disastrous energy policies. There is an argument that he even made them worse with sloppy de-regulation.

Eric Stoner
05-12-2009, 09:00 AM
Yes. This is a grotesque scenario, but it certainly seems like what you and particularly Mel (and Bem elsewhere) are getting to. None of you have discussed much in the way of solutions at all, but mostly the opinion that they are the root of most problems. I agree that this is a huge problem, but it is not a result of only ghetto-itis but it is also a social disease in many other places. I read your goals, finally stated, but I don't see any opinions on how to get there from here.

Who is Kanye West? I can't stand to listen to Limbaugh; now if he had a comedy show format, I might get a few laughs from his antics.

Kanye West was the untalented hump who went on the Katrina Telethon and said : "George Bush does not care about black people." Even Bush's worst critics have acknowledged that he is personally color blind and tried to improve things for poor people here in the U.S. ( NCLB ) and NO President ( not even America's "First Black President ") did more to fight poverty, disease and AIDS in Africa than Bush.

As for the solutions I have repeatedly proposed : Charter Schools and vouchers so that poor children get good educations; more sex education; more birth control ( A BIG Bush mistake was trying to teach "Abstinence Only" ); discouragement of premature marriage; diversion programs for young drug criminals ( I'd REALLY like to legalize many drugs or at least de-criminalize them). If I could, I would implement much of the late Jack Kemp's agenda BUT I'd start and stay small. I'd try to do it a block at a time as opposed to grandiose projects.

I'd replace Food Stamps and other Federal Aid with a Negative Income Tax so long as there is no reward for having additional children. I'd continue Welfare Reform which, for the most part , has been a success.

With illegal immigration I would be admittedly harsh and ruthless.Like almost every other country in this world. "Keep em out & throw em out" and anyone who knowingly hires them would be hammered with fines. I'd even make it illegal to rent them apts. or sell them a car. Any illegal charged with a felony would be automatically denied bail and immediately turned over to the Feds. And for any illegal who doesn't like it, I'd give them a one way ticket back to their native soil.

I can hear some of you sharpening your knives for me now but afaic, enough is enough.The ones who have suffered the most from our lax border enforcement are poor people. Native born poor people whose wages have been suppressed; whose apt. buildings have been made more dangerous by illegal subdivision and construcion in neighboring apts.; whose neighborhoods are at the mercy of illegal immigrant gangs like M-13; whose schools are overcrowded with the children of illegals; whose E.R.'s are jammed with uninsured illegals.

I'd replace Medicaid with a combination of Free/ low cost clinics ( depending on the service ) and means tested government subsiidized privately supplied health coverage. In other words I'd have government pick up part (or if necessary, all) of the premiums for private health coverage for LEGAL resident poor people.

More than anything else, I'd keep an open mind to innovative proposals that have genuine promise.

threlayer
05-12-2009, 08:18 PM
...Even Bush's worst critics have acknowledged that he is personally color blind and tried to improve things for poor people here in the U.S. ( NCLB ) and NO President ( not even America's "First Black President ") did more to fight poverty, disease and AIDS in Africa than Bush. You know, Bush did seem to be pretty good about that in general, far as I knew. But he often became tongue-tied when he talked about helping the people so that he didn't seem genuine. (In fact he rarely seemed genuine.)


More than anything else, I'd keep an open mind to innovative proposals that have genuine promise.Sounds like an improvement over Bush. :)

eagle2
05-12-2009, 10:32 PM
I think you and I are like the blind men trying to describe the elephant. Income is a legit measure of prosperity BUT, a BETTER measure is disposable income. If two people both earn $50,000 and one lives in N.J. and the other in Texas, who do you think is going to have the higher standard of living ? I would argue the latter based both on lower taxes and a lower cost of living.


But the avg. income or per-capita GDP in New Jersey is approximately $50,000 while the avg. income in Texas is $37,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

I would prefer the $50,000 in New Jersey. One of the reasons taxes are higher in New Jersey is because New Jersey spends more on education. If I had children, I would definitely prefer they go to a New Jersey public school rather than a Texas public school. Spending more money on education is probably a significant factor in why the average income in New Jersey is much higher than the average income in Texas.





New Jersey also has plenty of poor people. Check out Newark, Patterson, Trenton and Camden. The higher social spending of the last four decades not only has not reduced poverty, but some programs have helped to increase it.

New Jersey's poverty rate is less than half the poverty rate in Texas.

http://www.nemw.org/poverty.htm

Government programs have significantly reduced poverty over the past 50 years. In 1950's, the poverty rate in the US was over 20%. During the Clinton Administration, it fell to 11% and went up to 12% under Bush.

eagle2
05-12-2009, 10:57 PM
Kanye West was the untalented hump who went on the Katrina Telethon and said : "George Bush does not care about black people."

I used to get lap dances from his girlfriend.

threlayer
05-13-2009, 06:44 AM
Though the income vs cost of living balance may be the same in many areas, generally you get more services in the higher income cost of living areas, though you certainly pay for it. How happy you are in an area where income/expenses are in balance is dependent on the services you get compared to what you pay for. For example, climate out of the equation, I would much rather live in New Hampshire than Texas (even if the Texas strippers may be more interesting), even though both are low taxation states. (Another thing, I think the competence of the NH government is much much better than that in TX.)

Eric Stoner
05-13-2009, 07:34 AM
But the avg. income or per-capita GDP in New Jersey is approximately $50,000 while the avg. income in Texas is $37,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

I would prefer the $50,000 in New Jersey. One of the reasons taxes are higher in New Jersey is because New Jersey spends more on education. If I had children, I would definitely prefer they go to a New Jersey public school rather than a Texas public school. Spending more money on education is probably a significant factor in why the average income in New Jersey is much higher than the average income in Texas.



New Jersey's poverty rate is less than half the poverty rate in Texas.

http://www.nemw.org/poverty.htm

Government programs have significantly reduced poverty over the past 50 years. In 1950's, the poverty rate in the US was over 20%. During the Clinton Administration, it fell to 11% and went up to 12% under Bush.

Yes, but poverty in certain areas and among certain groups has proved to be almost intractable despite billions in spending. Poverty is relative. We have more "poor" people owning homes; watching color and even cable T.V. in air conditioned rooms than any other country in the world.

On the surface, you make legitimate arguments but I prefer to dig a little deeper. For instance it has been proven over and over again that increased spending on education does not create better results. Washington D.C. spends more per pupil than any other state and gets the worst results. South Dakota's spending is relatively modest, yet it's students are usually national leaders in achievement. There are dozens of other examples showing the lack of correlation between increased spending and improved education.

Most important are the current and FUTURE trends of the spending you find so laudable. The out-year costs keep growing and growing while economic growth and revenues at best stay flat. The state and local workers have to be paid and get health care and they will collect pensions and continue to receive taxpayer funded health care until they drop dead. If public employment is growing and private sector employment is shrinking ,as it is in a number of states, the structural deficit in their respective budgets is growing and will continue to do so.

Two factors you insist on ignoring are employment and economic growth. Unemployed people cost money. Inter alia they collect unemployment. Duh ! Where do you think that money comes from ? An exodus of taxpayers lowers the tax base and increases the burden on those left behind. Especially when ( as in N.J., N.Y. and Cali ) legal taxpayers are replaced by non-taxpaying illegals. Economic growth increases employment and the tax base which pays for things like roads, bridges, education, law enforcement etc.
N.Y. and N.J. have a BIG problem in that many financial sector jobs have disappeared forever but their legislatures have refused to accept reality and cut spending accordingly. Quite the contrary, they've increased it.

threlayer
05-13-2009, 11:25 AM
That 6 month unemployment was largely paid for by their employers via unemployment tax (UI). Seldomly it is supplemented by the federal government, as it has been extended for 3 months lately. Of course that won't be enough in this financial climate.

But there's always some work around to be paid for; the situation is whether you want to do that work. No one here has ever seen job classified ads where the page is blank

Eric Stoner
05-13-2009, 12:39 PM
That 6 month unemployment was largely paid for by their employers via unemployment tax (UI). Seldomly it is supplemented by the federal government, as it has been extended for 3 months lately. Of course that won't be enough in this financial climate.

But there's always some work around to be paid for; the situation is whether you want to do that work.

And if the employers are out of business ? If the Unemployment Fund goes bankrupt as it has in some states, who makes up the difference ? The states have to out of general revenues.


And how much purchasing do unemployed people do ? How much do they pay in taxes compared to employed people ?

threlayer
05-13-2009, 01:50 PM
And if the employers are out of business ?
That's why it is called INSURANCE. (I figured you knew that.)

You know, it's not always the employee's fault when he is let go and that they deserve to be punished. You imply that you believe that. You know, most people would much prefer to be earning money. If an employer goes out of business and their employees find it difficult to become employed again (as currently), and that former employer's UI 'trust fund' is depleted, the state picks it up (insurance). If the state UI reserve fund runs dry, to me it's a sign of either: (1) the state wasn't taxing high employers enough or (2) many employers have failed, meaning that economic times in the state/nation are pretty bad or (3) the state has used the 'trust fund' for general revenue purposes which is not good.

Well, we could let people beg/steal on the streets and sleep under cardboard boxes, or we as a people could do something about it collectively. Lets us know when this circumstance happens to you. We will probably still help you out.


And how much purchasing do unemployed people do ? How much do they pay in taxes compared to employed people ?
When one is out of funds, one does not purchase much. So they eventually will fall below the taxable levels. I'm surprised you do not realize this. Again, it's not always their fault and even if it is, we can't have them and their families starving on the streets. UI only works for 6months, unless (rarely) extended. If the average period of unimployment elongates to that, we will have lots of people out on the streets. Try it sometime; it's a lot of fun.

threlayer
05-13-2009, 02:04 PM
Look, everyone has a story and a reason for being there. The fact that you don't know it is not your fault. But looking down on unfortunate people and smugly saying, "why don't you just work?" is not going to help you, them, or anyone else. Everyone has a fault that they would be embarassed to bring public.

threlayer
05-13-2009, 02:18 PM
Yes, but poverty in certain areas and among certain groups has proved to be almost intractable despite billions in spending... Often this is because of lack of education and endemic support they have gotten used to during upbringing.

...it has been proven over and over again that increased spending on education does not create better results... There are dozens of other examples showing the lack of correlation between increased spending and improved education.If people have little education they will not find good jobs or a career. I can tell you that education costs money. I know of no teachers that will teach for no pay. So some money is needed, a fact omitted by you. I believe what you meant is that throwing money at education without directing it at specific, measurable goals is wasteful.
"You think education is expensive? Try ignorance."

... Two factors you insist on ignoring are employment and economic growth...An exodus of taxpayers lowers the tax base and increases the burden on those left behind. Especially when ..legal taxpayers are replaced by non-taxpaying illegals. Economic growth increases employment....I see nowhere that anyone contributing to this thread does not believe that. You often seem to imply that others do not know obvious things and then you argue about them. But you are really only arguing with yourself. This is a technique I've seen you use repeatedly. It is not effective and it is tiresome.

Melonie
05-13-2009, 05:13 PM
Wow-I've been floating around the Cay for a couple of days and seemed to have missed a whole lot of excitement.


If Walmart employees ever become unionized, or Walmart is forced to pay its employees higher salaries to prevent them from unionizing, there will be a significant difference in wages. These and other changes can significantly improve the opportunities for unskilled workers.

That is true for the unskilled workers who still have jobs at higher minimum wage pay rates. It is not true for newly unemployed unskilled workers who now have no job as a result of a minimum wage hike. Again the heart of the matter is the differential between the all-in cost of US minimum wage labor and the cost of foreign unskilled labor or automation. As that differential widens, employers are forced to change their business model to counteract rising US labor costs. Arguably this is the very reason that thousands of two gas pump convenience marts have permanently closed ... in favor of fewer 12 pump convenience marts with proportionately fewer minimum wage employees. Arguably this is the very reason that WalMart invested in self-serve checkout machines where 6 machines can be supervised by a single human checkout clerk. Arguably this is the reason that phone banks have been farmed out to India, the reason that vegetables are now grown in Mexico etc. The higher that the US / state gov'ts raise this differential, the stronger the incentive for US / state employers to eliminate minimum wage jobs and the fewer the employment opportunities will be for low skill US / state workers.



As for the solutions I have repeatedly proposed

To keep this short, I'll state that I agree with Eric's proposals in general. In fact I agree with any proposal that provides strong incentive for self-improvement and oppose any program that does not (or worse provides a 'moral hazard' disincentive which encourages the poor and uneducated to remain poor and uneducated). I also support any program that is temporary, and oppose any program that is permanent. I also support any program that incentivizes 'desireable' behavior (like returning to school) and oppose any program that incentivizes 'undesireable' behavior (like pumping out kids to increase the size of the monthly welfare check).



Though the income vs cost of living balance may be the same in many areas, generally you get more services in the higher income cost of living areas, though you certainly pay for it. How happy you are in an area where income/expenses are in balance is dependent on the services you get compared to what you pay for

There are many issues which need further scrutiny when trying to compare the 'real world' standard of living of someone earning $50k in Jersey versus $37k in Texas. First, the difference in disposable income is far less than $13k, because NJ has an income tax and TX does not - also sale tax rates and property tax rates (and their embedded effect on rents) are far higher in NJ. Yes NJ spends far more money per capita on social welfare benefits and public services than TX. However, in general, someone earning $50k a year is not eligible for most of them ! As to NJ schools versus TX schools, check the fine print on public versus private schools. You'll find that NJ public schools preform worse that TX public schools ... but the statistics are skewed because NJ has a far more evolved 'two tier' system of private schools which TX does not (or at least to nowhere near the same degree in terms of % of total enrollment).

All I can say about NJ in general is that, as a former resident of West Paterson, anybody who bothers to drive the 2 miles between Paterson and West Paterson, or Newark and Caldwell, or any major NJ city versus its 'upscale' suburb, will see far more disparaty than anywhere in Texas that is farther than 10 miles beyond the Mexican border.

threlayer
05-13-2009, 06:54 PM
^^ Let me clarify. In my own comparison, I made an assumption: since the question posed did not have any reference to disposable income, I merely assumed that the COLA between the two postulated areas was already taken into account in the postulate. I guess you decided to expand on that quite a bit. We know that the poverty weighting factor relative to school testing results in NJ is very different from that in TX. We also know TX is cheap and NYC area is expensive. Every place has its own story. I would still never live there, either place.

I've never lived in NJ or near the big city or in TX. Living in an area, and it certainly doesn't have to be near NYC, a person develops an expertise on how to minimize one's personal cost of living, at least if s/he has an above-poverty level income and so can be flexible enough.