Log in

View Full Version : McJobless !



Pages : 1 [2] 3

eagle2
06-04-2012, 11:47 PM
I think the change had more to do with Chairman Mao dying, and being replaced by more pragmatic leaders.

mikef
06-05-2012, 06:04 AM
As the decline continued credit was introduced...... Before easy credit became available, it was pretty hard to live way above your means...... And the rest is history.

Why not try those cash advances?
Why not buy a Saint Bernard?
Why not fly..... Wherever France is?

mikef
06-05-2012, 06:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cejBW0EL26M&list=FLo1ek0sJPrjTP2mXB5Kze4Q&index=30&feature=plpp_video

Melonie
06-05-2012, 08:01 AM
No, the real reason that more Americans are now poor, is because for decades, government policy has been favoring the wealthiest Americans over working class Americans. As a result wages have been stagnant for the average American, while most of the profits and wealth have been going to the wealthiest Americans.

Actually, we're in agreement on this point. US gov't ( actually FED ) policy toward the printing of 'new money' out of thin air since Nixon abandoned the US dollar gold standard has indeed benefitted the rich 'investor' class via the inflation of values for US stock / bond / real estate prices over the course of the past 50 years, while 'hurting' the middle class and the poor via inflating the prices of food, energy and other 'necessities' at a faster rate than their paychecks / gov't benefit checks. US gov't policy toward the taxation of 'capital gains' from stock share price appreciation, qualified bond dividends, and real estate transactions at far lower percentages than apply to 'ordinary income' derived from paychecks has indeed benefitted investors and successful entrepreneurs ( with poster child example being tech company startups making payment of employees via stock options versus high salaries that began in earnest during the 90's ).



The Walton family is worth over $80 billion, while most of their employees are earning minimum wage.

I'm not sure I get the point here. According to ""A full-time Walmart U.S. employee gets an average hourly wage of $12.31. The company considers employees on full-time payroll when they work at least 34 hours a week "". According to Walmart provides jobs for 1.4 million US employees. According to WalMart pays a 32.6% effective US corporate income tax rate ... plus untold millions of additional dollars in state taxes and local / property taxes.

In contrast, according to Apple Computer employs just 43,000 US workers. Apple DOES 'employ' hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers via Foxconn, who are paid $2 an hour and work 60 hour weeks ( see ). According to Apple paid a 9.8% effective US corporate income tax rate ( made possible by transferring software royalty income to offshore subdivisions in low tax countries ). Undoubtedly Apple does pay some amount of state taxes and local / property taxes, but at a level an order of magnitude lower than WalMart. And of course Apple founder Steve Jobs alone was worth 8.3 billion at the time of his death.

Circling back to the thread topic of jobs, and setting politics aside, you tell me which of the two companies contributes more to the USA in the way of jobs creation, tax revenues, etc.

Eric Stoner
06-05-2012, 08:37 AM
No, the real reason that more Americans are now poor, is because for decades, government policy has been favoring the wealthiest Americans over working class Americans. As a result wages have been stagnant for the average American, while most of the profits and wealth have been going to the wealthiest Americans. The Walton family is worth over $80 billion, while most of their employees are earning minimum wage.

No. The real reason more Americans are "poor" is that there is so much competition for their lower end jobs. Illegal immigration has done more than anything else to hold down wages and benefits for unskilled labor. Another reason is unwed motherhood. Most single mothers are "poor". Add in high school drop-outs and criminal histories and you get plenty of poverty.

I know you hate when we post this, but the U.S. has the richest "poor" people in the world. At least when measured by things like rates of home and car ownership.

Sadly, the debate of late is over how to slice the pie as opposed to growing the pie. Too many people focus on trying to give a larger share to lower income people as opposed to trying to shrink their number. Let's assume the Waltons were compelled to pay higher salaries and better benefits. What would happen ? Layoffs. They would figure out how to get more work from fewer people. The reason the Waltons are so wealthy is because they OWN so much stock in Walmart. So do a lot of union pension funds. Your prescriptions would result in lower earnings and a decline in the value of those pension funds. How is that a good thing ?

You know who earns "minimum wage " at Walmart ? Mostly it is new hires. After a while they either get raises or they leave. Walmart also hires a lot of retirees who work part time to supplement their Social Security and pension checks. It is hilarious when you try and compare the Walmart wage scale to Silicon Valley or GM. Instead it is much more akin to McDonald's or major supermarkets. And it should be. Ever see anyone busting their ass at either place ? I certainly haven't.

Eric Stoner
06-05-2012, 08:39 AM
I don't. She mostly pays attention to sites promoting a far-right ideology, rather than unbiased information.

Most of YOUR sources are just as biased and just as slanted against free market capitalism. Sometimes you even accuse her of "making things up" when the numbers are simply what they are and come from the same government sources.

Eric Stoner
06-05-2012, 08:42 AM
No, the oil sheiks raised the price of oil to support the Arab countries fighting Israel. Breaking the dollar linkage to the price of gold did not prevent the price of oil from crashing in the 1980's, due to the increase in supply and decrease in demand for oil, as a result of the oil-sheiks raising the price.

Partly true. As usual, you ignore the effects of Carter's oil policies and the salutary effects when Reagan deregulated the oil industry. Contrary to the shrieking predictions of price gouging, we got more domestic production. And ( another fact you hate ) Reagan's strong dollar policies lowered the price of imported oil. Similar to what is happening now thanks to a stronger dollar.

Eric Stoner
06-05-2012, 08:44 AM
No, the Chinese government completely reversed their economic policies approximately 30 years ago, when they went from a completely state-controlled, and state-owned economy, to a free-market economy, with a significant part of the economy in private hands.

Partly true. A LOT of the Chinese economy is owned and controlled by the government.

Despite their success their economy is slowing and they have a host of horrible problems. The air in Beijing is totally unbreathable.

Kellydancer
06-05-2012, 12:26 PM
So much to respond to but I will state this. I am an educated person and once worked a job where I was paid less than my subordinates. Most didn't have a degree and quite a few didn't have a high school diploma. I was offended that these people were paid more than me and most were extremely overpaid. They weren't doing a job harder than mine, in fact it was lesser since I was in management. That's why when I read statements about unskilled making more than those of us with skills I become livid.

Regarding the welfare issue, we are living in a society where many people are blase about having kids saying "why abstain I can get free welfare". I know people who had babies just for the welfare because in Illinois it is very generous. Of course when talking about welfare what Melonie mentioned is very true and that's about the other issues. It is important to mention (which she does)that before welfare out of wedlock pregnancies were pretty rare, now they are common and in some groups the norm. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that more people having babies on welfare means more unskilled people.

Having said that, the outsourcing problem is destroying this country. While I do think certain fields are overpaid (like my personal experience)the reality is corporations are also greedy too where they get TAX BREAKS to outsource. That disturbs me and nothing pisses me off more than calling a company and speaking to an Indian. I blame both the corporations and yes the unions for this.

mikef
06-05-2012, 01:41 PM
No. The real reason more Americans are "poor" is that there is so much competition for their lower end jobs. Illegal immigration has done more than anything else to hold down wages and benefits for unskilled labor.

The Federal Reserve HATES wage inflation....... Asset inflation... Not so much. :D

mikef
06-05-2012, 01:51 PM
No, the real reason that more Americans are now poor, is because for decades, government policy has been favoring the wealthiest Americans over working class Americans. As a result wages have been stagnant for the average American, while most of the profits and wealth have been going to the wealthiest Americans.



Actually, we're in agreement on this point. US gov't ( actually FED ) policy toward the printing of 'new money' out of thin air since Nixon abandoned the US dollar gold standard has indeed benefitted the rich 'investor' class via the inflation of values for US stock / bond / real estate prices over the course of the past 50 years, while 'hurting' the middle class and the poor via inflating the prices of food, energy and other 'necessities' at a faster rate than their paychecks / gov't benefit checks. US gov't policy toward the taxation of 'capital gains' from stock share price appreciation, qualified bond dividends, and real estate transactions at far lower percentages than apply to 'ordinary income' derived from paychecks has indeed benefitted investors and successful entrepreneurs ( with poster child example being tech company startups making payment of employees via stock options versus high salaries that began in earnest during the 90's ).


Of course this is an important agreement to have...... It's the basis of an understanding.

All Good Things
06-05-2012, 02:11 PM
I am only seeking some sort of clarification on the matter.

I see that Minnow tried to answer this, but otherwise it’s been ignored. So let’s see if I can help out.

It’s important to recognize that data, charts, tables, etc. can be used to demonstrate or validate any viewpoint. Anything at all. This can happen inadvertently just as easily as deliberately. In science, a large part of the curriculum focuses on training you how to run analyses to prevent biasing the outcome. This takes a great deal of effort and requires a solid background in statistics, modeling, forecasting and data slicing. There are entire disciplines in science devoted to avoiding this pitfall.

This is not easy to do. A physics student – out of exasperation with organized religion more than anything else – once came up with a graph to demonstrate this fallacy. The quite straightforward plot he came up with purports to show an inverse relationship between the number of pirates in the world and global warming. So any reading of this graph would suggest that the disappearance of pirates over time is responsible for global warming. Here’s the chart:

30650

This is, of course, totally absurd. But the only way you know it’s absurd is that the conclusion is idiotic, so you know there is no causative relationship between the two factors.

There is often no causative relationship between the factors in charts on economic trends. Economics is already insanely convoluted and even people with the best of intentions will come to dramatically different conclusions. Hence the term, “the dismal science.”

This is why you are so upset. Everything is dismal. Carlyle came up with the term “dismal science” as a reaction to Malthus’ theory of catastrophic global starvation due to the population explosion.

Global starvation never happened when Malthus predicted, of course, because his economics had nothing in common with something we call “reality.” Things change for the better as well the worse, and dramatically positive factors – like innovation, Norman Borlaug’s dwarf wheat, progressive scaling in agriculture, etc. – invalidated the panicky conclusions.

Many scientists would tell you that economics is no science at all, and much closer to phrenology or witchcraft. Or even religion.

The reason for these crazy passions about economics is that just under the surface lurk some of our most powerful and firmly-held beliefs about work, life, fairness, justice and self-worth. Those inflammations massively bias everything about the analyses, point to wrong-headed conclusions, conspiracies, outrage and doom.

These things will not happen. They are far more indicative of the power of passions than of any underlying reality connected to economic data or trends.

Oh, and about the importance of a college education.

It’s the college education that taught me – as well as many other people – how to analyze data, evaluate assumptions, test conclusions and dismiss fallacies. It taught me the skills to come to hard-earned conclusions on whose basis I can with some degree of confidence laugh at what people tell me is “true” when in fact it is not true.

Much of what you’ve seen in this thread is not true. (Sorry.)

This ability to actually interpret quantitative data and approach is a critical skill in a world where every single commercial “information” source out there – from the New York Times to the Economist to Fox News and especially the blogs – have their own interests in mind and are solely (yes, solely) interested in what you can do for them, rather than what the truth actually is. Truth does not pay salaries, does not have a positive impact on profit numbers, does not translate into clicks on the Web, and will not make a business venture successful.

So they don’t really give a shit.

Aside from the chart I used above to show the fallacy of purported quantitative analyses, you’ll notice that I did not need to sprinkle random web links that supported my view throughout this post.

So a college education can teach you how to think on your own. And that – as they say in the VISA commercials – is priceless. :)

Siddarth
06-05-2012, 06:49 PM
Sophia, even people with degrees and experience are having a hard time finding jobs. I met a Ph.D scientist (I think it was in something like physicist)who has been unemployed 2 years. I know teachers and lawyers unemployed. What is going to happen (it's already happening)is we are going to become a nation with very poor and very rich and it will not matter whether you have a degree or not because there won't be jobs in most cases. The few jobs that can't be outsourced will be given to viased workers.


I am so sorry to hear that your friend who has a PhD in 'physicist' is unable to get a job. I hope things will turn around for you and your friend. Best wishes!

eagle2
06-05-2012, 10:27 PM
Actually, we're in agreement on this point. US gov't ( actually FED ) policy toward the printing of 'new money' out of thin air since Nixon abandoned the US dollar gold standard has indeed benefitted the rich 'investor' class via the inflation of values for US stock / bond / real estate prices over the course of the past 50 years, while 'hurting' the middle class and the poor via inflating the prices of food, energy and other 'necessities' at a faster rate than their paychecks / gov't benefit checks. US gov't policy toward the taxation of 'capital gains' from stock share price appreciation, qualified bond dividends, and real estate transactions at far lower percentages than apply to 'ordinary income' derived from paychecks has indeed benefitted investors and successful entrepreneurs ( with poster child example being tech company startups making payment of employees via stock options versus high salaries that began in earnest during the 90's ).


I'm referring to government policies which have resulted in lower wages for workers, such as anti-union/'right to work' laws, keeping the minimum wage low, free-trade agreements allowing corporations to move manufacturing to very low-wage countries.

I agree that taxing capital gains and dividends at much lower rates has greatly benefited the wealthiest Americans.




I'm not sure I get the point here. According to http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-10-21/industries/30747113_1_health-care-coverage-national-health-expenditures-health-care ""A full-time Walmart U.S. employee gets an average hourly wage of $12.31. The company considers employees on full-time payroll when they work at least 34 hours a week "". According to http://walmartstores.com/download/2230.pdf Walmart provides jobs for 1.4 million US employees. According to http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/general-electric-pays-shocking-corporate/ WalMart pays a 32.6% effective US corporate income tax rate ... plus untold millions of additional dollars in state taxes and local / property taxes.


If you exclude managers, assistant managers, and professionals such as pharmacists, I'm sure the average hourly wage would be much lower. Some warehouse contract workers aren't even being paid minimum wage.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/lawsuit-walmart-contractor-paid-3-dollars-hour




In contrast, according to http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all Apple Computer employs just 43,000 US workers. Apple DOES 'employ' hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers via Foxconn, who are paid $2 an hour and work 60 hour weeks ( see http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2012/06/01/2003534205 ). According to http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2012/04/30/did-new-york-times-get-apples-effective-tax-rate-wrong/ Apple paid a 9.8% effective US corporate income tax rate ( made possible by transferring software royalty income to offshore subdivisions in low tax countries ). Undoubtedly Apple does pay some amount of state taxes and local / property taxes, but at a level an order of magnitude lower than WalMart. And of course Apple founder Steve Jobs alone was worth 8.3 billion at the time of his death.

Circling back to the thread topic of jobs, and setting politics aside, you tell me which of the two companies contributes more to the USA in the way of jobs creation, tax revenues, etc.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up Apple. Apple is probably just as bad as Walmart, and is another example of how government policies are helping the wealthiest Americans become even wealthier, while the poor and middle class become worse off. By moving their manufacturing from California to China, Apple's executives and shareholders have become much wealthier, while America's workers are made poorer.

eagle2
06-05-2012, 10:57 PM
No. The real reason more Americans are "poor" is that there is so much competition for their lower end jobs. Illegal immigration has done more than anything else to hold down wages and benefits for unskilled labor. Another reason is unwed motherhood. Most single mothers are "poor". Add in high school drop-outs and criminal histories and you get plenty of poverty.


An obvious reason why more Americans are poor is there are far fewer jobs for unskilled labor that pay a decent salary. In the 1960's, there were many jobs for unskilled laborers that paid well. Not so much any more.



I know you hate when we post this, but the U.S. has the richest "poor" people in the world. At least when measured by things like rates of home and car ownership.

Conservatives exaggerate how well off poor people in the US are. The fact is, there are hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of Americans that are homeless on any given night, and there are millions of Americans that are food insecure.

From:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html

One approximation of the annual number of homeless in America is from a study by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, which estimates between 2.3 and 3.5 million people experience homelessness. According to a 2008 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development report an estimated 671,888 people experienced homelessness in one night in January 2007. Some 58 percent of them were living in shelters and transitional housing and, 42 percent were unsheltered.

From:
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States 1 (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.)
In 2010, about one-third of food-insecure households (6.7 million households, or 5.4 percent of all U.S. households) had very low food security (compared with 4.7 million households (4.1 percent) in 2007. In households with very low food security, the food intake of some household members was reduced, and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the household’s food insecurity (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v., Nord 2009, p. iii.) .
In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children (3.9 million households.) In one percent of households with children,one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi).
The median [a type of average] food-secure household spent 27 percent more on food than the median food-insecure household of the same size and household composition (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi)..
Background: The United States changed the name of its definitions in 2006 that eliminated references to hunger, keeping various categories of food insecurity. This did not represent a change in what was measured. Very low food insecurity (described as food insecurity with hunger prior to 2006) means that, at times during the year, the food intake of household members was reduced and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because the household lacked money and other resources for food. This means that people were hungry ( in the sense of "the uneasy or painful sensation caused by want of food" [Oxford English Dictionary 1971] for days each year (Nord 2009 p. iii-iv.).






Sadly, the debate of late is over how to slice the pie as opposed to growing the pie. Too many people focus on trying to give a larger share to lower income people as opposed to trying to shrink their number. Let's assume the Waltons were compelled to pay higher salaries and better benefits. What would happen ? Layoffs. They would figure out how to get more work from fewer people. The reason the Waltons are so wealthy is because they OWN so much stock in Walmart. So do a lot of union pension funds. Your prescriptions would result in lower earnings and a decline in the value of those pension funds. How is that a good thing ?

I'm sure Walmart already tries to get as much work as they can from their employees. Paying workers more money does grow the pie. When workers are paid more money, they spend more money, which grows the economy. Workers and consumers are the same people.



You know who earns "minimum wage " at Walmart ? Mostly it is new hires. After a while they either get raises or they leave. Walmart also hires a lot of retirees who work part time to supplement their Social Security and pension checks. It is hilarious when you try and compare the Walmart wage scale to Silicon Valley or GM. Instead it is much more akin to McDonald's or major supermarkets. And it should be. Ever see anyone busting their ass at either place ? I certainly haven't.

I read that it is Walmart's policy to have a high turnover rate for employees because it keeps wages down.

eagle2
06-05-2012, 11:03 PM
Partly true. As usual, you ignore the effects of Carter's oil policies and the salutary effects when Reagan deregulated the oil industry. Contrary to the shrieking predictions of price gouging, we got more domestic production. And ( another fact you hate ) Reagan's strong dollar policies lowered the price of imported oil. Similar to what is happening now thanks to a stronger dollar.

No, it was supply and demand. In the 1980's the demand for oil fell dramatically, and the supply rose. It was Jimmy Carter's and the Democrat's policies which led to lower oil prices. Requiring auto-makers to double the average mpg of vehicles, from 14 to 28, greatly reduced our consumption of oil. I have already documented that the drop in consumption of oil in the US in the 1980's, far exceeded any increase in oil production.

The reason why the price of oil is falling now is because demand is falling as a result of the economic downturn in Europe, slower economic growth in Asia, and decrease in consumption in the US, and because of the increase in supply. Oil production has gone up in the US, Iraq, and Libya.

eagle2
06-05-2012, 11:13 PM
Most of YOUR sources are just as biased and just as slanted against free market capitalism. Sometimes you even accuse her of "making things up" when the numbers are simply what they are and come from the same government sources.

No, I look at the actual results of policies, not the ideology. For example, my claim that increased government spending results in stronger economic growth is based on the fact that we had stronger economy growth in the 1960's when our government was spending a lot more money building new roads, highways, airports, etc.., not because I have an ideological preference.

Melonie does make stuff up. For example, she once said that scientists and engineers from foreign countries were coming here on H-1b visas and working for $30,000 a year, which is not true. She just assumed that because they were from poorer countries, they were working for much less money. She never researched any facts or figures to come up with this.

Eric Stoner
06-06-2012, 07:01 AM
I'm referring to government policies which have resulted in lower wages for workers, such as anti-union/'right to work' laws, keeping the minimum wage low, free-trade agreements allowing corporations to move manufacturing to very low-wage countries.

I agree that taxing capital gains and dividends at much lower rates has greatly benefited the wealthiest Americans.




If you exclude managers, assistant managers, and professionals such as pharmacists, I'm sure the average hourly wage would be much lower. Some warehouse contract workers aren't even being paid minimum wage.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/lawsuit-walmart-contractor-paid-3-dollars-hour




I'm not sure why you're bringing up Apple. Apple is probably just as bad as Walmart, and is another example of how government policies are helping the wealthiest Americans become even wealthier, while the poor and middle class become worse off. By moving their manufacturing from California to China, Apple's executives and shareholders have become much wealthier, while America's workers are made poorer.

"Right to work" laws benefit the individual. Look at what happened when Wisconsin made union membership voluntary for state and local workers: more than half left the union.

I have posted my support for moderate, sensible minimum wage laws. It's an issue where Melonie and I somewhat disagree. The theory may say that minimum wage laws depress employment i.e. fewer workers are hired. The practical reality is that it does not a demonstrable effect on hiring.

Eric Stoner
06-06-2012, 07:17 AM
An obvious reason why more Americans are poor is there are far fewer jobs for unskilled labor that pay a decent salary. In the 1960's, there were many jobs for unskilled laborers that paid well. Not so much any more.


Conservatives exaggerate how well off poor people in the US are. The fact is, there are hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of Americans that are homeless on any given night, and there are millions of Americans that are food insecure.

From:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html

One approximation of the annual number of homeless in America is from a study by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, which estimates between 2.3 and 3.5 million people experience homelessness. According to a 2008 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development report an estimated 671,888 people experienced homelessness in one night in January 2007. Some 58 percent of them were living in shelters and transitional housing and, 42 percent were unsheltered.

From:
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States 1 (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.)
In 2010, about one-third of food-insecure households (6.7 million households, or 5.4 percent of all U.S. households) had very low food security (compared with 4.7 million households (4.1 percent) in 2007. In households with very low food security, the food intake of some household members was reduced, and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the household’s food insecurity (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v., Nord 2009, p. iii.) .
In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children (3.9 million households.) In one percent of households with children,one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi).
The median [a type of average] food-secure household spent 27 percent more on food than the median food-insecure household of the same size and household composition (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi)..
Background: The United States changed the name of its definitions in 2006 that eliminated references to hunger, keeping various categories of food insecurity. This did not represent a change in what was measured. Very low food insecurity (described as food insecurity with hunger prior to 2006) means that, at times during the year, the food intake of household members was reduced and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because the household lacked money and other resources for food. This means that people were hungry ( in the sense of "the uneasy or painful sensation caused by want of food" [Oxford English Dictionary 1971] for days each year (Nord 2009 p. iii-iv.).





I'm sure Walmart already tries to get as much work as they can from their employees. Paying workers more money does grow the pie. When workers are paid more money, they spend more money, which grows the economy. Workers and consumers are the same people.



I read that it is Walmart's policy to have a high turnover rate for employees because it keeps wages down.

Do you have numbers that show that janitorial workers, pea pickers, car wash towel men and landscape workers were better paid in the 1960's ? Not to my knowledge they weren't. Remember "Harvest of Shame" ?

Define "homeless" . Permanently homeless ? Homeless for one night ? For a week ? Most homeless are still mentally ill and/or alcoholics and/or addicts of some kind.
Sadly, Obama has presided over a growth in the homeless population. Btw, the sources you cite is far from unbiased. As for food insecurity, how can that be when Obama has presided over an explosion in the rolls of Food Stamp recipients ? His policies have certainly caused the price of food to go up.

A lot of this "homelessness" and "food insecurity' is caused by what I said caused it : single motherhood. It's not easy for a single mother to feed and house children. Especially when the father(s) is/are deadbeats.

You have some interesting ideas about economic growth. As I have repeatedly told you , that money has to come from somewhere. Before it can be paid to a worker, somebody has to make it.

Nobody is forced to work at Walmart. If they don't like it let them get a job at Target or Home Depot. Let's assume you are right and Walmart likes a high turnover. Duh. Why wouldn't they ? With what they pay, they don't seem to have any trouble getting workers. For most part, they sell low end junk at low prices. Just how much are they supposed to pay people ? It's NOT Nordstrom or Lord & Taylor.

Eric Stoner
06-06-2012, 07:21 AM
No, it was supply and demand. In the 1980's the demand for oil fell dramatically, and the supply rose. It was Jimmy Carter's and the Democrat's policies which led to lower oil prices. Requiring auto-makers to double the average mpg of vehicles, from 14 to 28, greatly reduced our consumption of oil. I have already documented that the drop in consumption of oil in the US in the 1980's, far exceeded any increase in oil production.

The reason why the price of oil is falling now is because demand is falling as a result of the economic downturn in Europe, slower economic growth in Asia, and decrease in consumption in the US, and because of the increase in supply. Oil production has gone up in the US, Iraq, and Libya.

I'm sorry but I am not aware of ANY Carter or Dem policy that led to lower oil prices. The fall of the Shah ? = higher prices. Regulated oil industry ? = higher prices.
As usual, you are partially correct about some of the supply and demand but completely ignore the effects of a strong or weak dollar.

Eric Stoner
06-06-2012, 07:32 AM
No, I look at the actual results of policies, not the ideology. For example, my claim that increased government spending results in stronger economic growth is based on the fact that we had stronger economy growth in the 1960's when our government was spending a lot more money building new roads, highways, airports, etc.., not because I have an ideological preference.

Melonie does make stuff up. For example, she once said that scientists and engineers from foreign countries were coming here on H-1b visas and working for $30,000 a year, which is not true. She just assumed that because they were from poorer countries, they were working for much less money. She never researched any facts or figures to come up with this.

Twer it only true. If it were, you and I would agree more than we do. You look at those results that you like and ignore those that you don't. Many's the time that Melonie and/or I have filled in the blanks and you went totally silent. No response.

If you were right about government spending generating economic growth, then these would be boom times. Government spending as a % of GDP is at levels not seen since W.W.II. You are right that we would benefit, now and in the future from more infrastructure spending. Which I have repeatedly supported btw. What has been the reality ? The Obama "porkulus" package did not go for infrastructure. Rather it was primarily directed to protecting union dues paying state and local jobs. What have California and N.J. been doing with most of their state Highway Trust Funds ? Spending it on maintaining their roads and bridges ? Nope. They've been looting them to pay for pensions and other current expenses.

In 1944 Federal spending as a % of GDP peaked at 41.56%. In 1953 during the Korean War it was only 20.75%. In 1961 it was close to 15%.
During Vietnam it never topped 20%. Under Clinton it consistently DECLINED to well below 20 %. Under Obama it is 25.36 % and climbing.

Melonie happens to have been correct about abuses in the H-1b Visa program. A LOT of companies in Silicon Valley were importing programmers from India to work for less than half what Americans were getting for the same or similar jobs. And they were shipping large chunks of said salaries back home to India. This was widely reported in such "conservative" media as the N.Y. Times and on "60 Minutes".

Eric Stoner
06-06-2012, 07:46 AM
I see that Minnow tried to answer this, but otherwise it’s been ignored. So let’s see if I can help out.

It’s important to recognize that data, charts, tables, etc. can be used to demonstrate or validate any viewpoint. Anything at all. This can happen inadvertently just as easily as deliberately. In science, a large part of the curriculum focuses on training you how to run analyses to prevent biasing the outcome. This takes a great deal of effort and requires a solid background in statistics, modeling, forecasting and data slicing. There are entire disciplines in science devoted to avoiding this pitfall.

This is not easy to do. A physics student – out of exasperation with organized religion more than anything else – once came up with a graph to demonstrate this fallacy. The quite straightforward plot he came up with purports to show an inverse relationship between the number of pirates in the world and global warming. So any reading of this graph would suggest that the disappearance of pirates over time is responsible for global warming. Here’s the chart:

30650

This is, of course, totally absurd. But the only way you know it’s absurd is that the conclusion is idiotic, so you know there is no causative relationship between the two factors.

There is often no causative relationship between the factors in charts on economic trends. Economics is already insanely convoluted and even people with the best of intentions will come to dramatically different conclusions. Hence the term, “the dismal science.”

This is why you are so upset. Everything is dismal. Carlyle came up with the term “dismal science” as a reaction to Malthus’ theory of catastrophic global starvation due to the population explosion.

Global starvation never happened when Malthus predicted, of course, because his economics had nothing in common with something we call “reality.” Things change for the better as well the worse, and dramatically positive factors – like innovation, Norman Borlaug’s dwarf wheat, progressive scaling in agriculture, etc. – invalidated the panicky conclusions.

Many scientists would tell you that economics is no science at all, and much closer to phrenology or witchcraft. Or even religion.

The reason for these crazy passions about economics is that just under the surface lurk some of our most powerful and firmly-held beliefs about work, life, fairness, justice and self-worth. Those inflammations massively bias everything about the analyses, point to wrong-headed conclusions, conspiracies, outrage and doom.

These things will not happen. They are far more indicative of the power of passions than of any underlying reality connected to economic data or trends.

Oh, and about the importance of a college education.

It’s the college education that taught me – as well as many other people – how to analyze data, evaluate assumptions, test conclusions and dismiss fallacies. It taught me the skills to come to hard-earned conclusions on whose basis I can with some degree of confidence laugh at what people tell me is “true” when in fact it is not true.

Much of what you’ve seen in this thread is not true. (Sorry.)

This ability to actually interpret quantitative data and approach is a critical skill in a world where every single commercial “information” source out there – from the New York Times to the Economist to Fox News and especially the blogs – have their own interests in mind and are solely (yes, solely) interested in what you can do for them, rather than what the truth actually is. Truth does not pay salaries, does not have a positive impact on profit numbers, does not translate into clicks on the Web, and will not make a business venture successful.

So they don’t really give a shit.

Aside from the chart I used above to show the fallacy of purported quantitative analyses, you’ll notice that I did not need to sprinkle random web links that supported my view throughout this post.

So a college education can teach you how to think on your own. And that – as they say in the VISA commercials – is priceless. :)

There is some truth to what you say. The problem with economics is that it does not exist in a vaccuum. It is affected by politics and other events like wars, famines, natural disasters, scientific advances etc. etc.

"Supply and demand" is a basic principle but not an immutable law. Not in a world economy affected by monetary and other factors.

That being said, I would still argue that basic truths are proven to be correct over time. Adam Smith has proven to be far more correct than Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. In fact it is an amusing historical nugget that one of Trotsky's biographers gushed over his brilliance and predictive abilities by highlighting that NONE of his predictions had yet to come to pass. Much of Milton Friedman and Hayek's work is being proven in Greece today. And in Spain. And in Italy. And in California. OPM is a wonderful thing but sooner or later it runs out.

Melonie
06-06-2012, 09:11 AM
Paying workers more money does grow the pie. When workers are paid more money, they spend more money, which grows the economy. Workers and consumers are the same people.

I was sorely tempted to simply back away from this thread ... based on the demonstrated history that some people can never bridge the gap of agreement. But this assertion demands a response.

Debt and Income are not synonymous. And not all paychecks contribute to the US economy. Yes when an American consumer whose income is derived from real world productivity spends money, it does grow the US economy. The real world productivity required to do this, with a few notable exceptions, comes from private sector workers actually 'producing' something ... be it agricultural goods or oil / gas / minerals or manufactured goods or whatever. However, when a US consumer whose income is derived from gov't wealth transfer spends money, it does NOT create a similar growth in the US economy. Be it a teacher whose salary comes from taxpayer dollars, or a social welfare benefit recipient whose benefit check comes from taxpayer dollars, or a defense contractor whose paycheck comes from taxpayer dollars, when a public sector employee spends money it is simply a direct zero sum substitution for the tax money that was 'extracted' from a productive private sector worker ( which said productive private sector worker would have gladly spent themselves if the tax money hadn't been 'extracted' from their paychecks before they every saw it).

This is a version of the basic principle of the 'Broken Window Fallicy' which we have discussed many times in Dollar Den threads ... from

(snip)"The broken window fallacy was first expressed by the great French economist, Frederic Bastiat. Bastiat used the parable of a broken window to point out why destruction doesn't benefit the economy.

In Bastiat's tale, a man's son breaks a pane of glass, meaning the man will have to pay to replace it. The onlookers consider the situation and decide that the boy has actually done the community a service because his father will have to pay the glazier (window repair man) to replace the broken pane. The glazier will then presumably spend the extra money on something else, jump-starting the local economy. (For related reading, see Economics Basics.)

The onlookers come to believe that breaking windows stimulates the economy, but Bastiat points out that further analysis exposes the fallacy. By breaking the window, the man's son has reduced his father's disposable income, meaning his father will not be able purchase new shoes or some other luxury good. Thus, the broken window might help the glazier, but at the same time, it robs other industries and reduces the amount being spent on other goods. (snip)


In this particular version, the tax money 'extracted' from productive private sector workers is analogous to the 'broken window' expense. Similarly, if a business owner is forced to pay higher wages to an employee, this leaves the business owner with less money to spend on consumer goods themselves ( zero sum ), plus perhaps more importantly leaves the business owner less money as investment capital with which to expand his business - and as a result create more jobs. And by 'pure coincidence', that brings us back onto the topic of this thread !!!

Melonie
06-06-2012, 11:36 AM
As to statistics for H1B visa worker pay rates ... agreed that the 'evidence' is fragmented. But that doesn't mean that factual evidence doesn't exist !

from


(snip)"When you look at computer job titles by state, California has one of the biggest differentials between OES salaries and H-1B salaries. The average salary for a programmer in California is $73,960, according to the OES. The average salary paid to an H-1B visa worker for the same job is $53,387; a difference of $20,573.

Here are some other interesting national wage comparisons: The mean salary of an H-1B computer scientist is $78,169, versus $90,146 according to the OES. For an H-1B network analyst, the mean salary is $55,358, versus the OES mean salary of $64,799. And for the title "system administrator," there was a $17,478 difference in salary between the H-1B mean and the OES mean.

H-1B visa workers were also concentrated at the bottom end of the wage scale, with the majority of H-1B visa workers in the 10-24 percentile range. "That means the largest concentration of H-1B workers make less than [the] highest 75 percent of the U.S. wage earners," the report notes.

While it would be difficult to prove that any one particular employer is hiring foreign workers to pay less, the statistics show that, for whatever reason, this is exactly what is happening on a nationwide basis.(snip)

While specific dollar differentials obviously vary from profession to profession, and from location to location, one common thread emerges. Foreign professionals working in the USA under H1-B visas are consistently paid significantly less than their American counterparts. This lower pay scale for H1-B workers creates downward pressure on the ( higher ) pay rates of American workers, as well as some measure of job IN-security.

Arguably, it also directly impacts the 'starting pay rate' for new American graduates in professions where hiring 'equally acedemically qualified' but real world experienced H1-B visa foreign professionals is an available alternative for US employers. And again, by 'pure coincidence, that brings us back to the topic of this thread !!!

Melonie
06-06-2012, 12:01 PM
For most part, they { WalMart } sell low end junk at low prices. Just how much are they supposed to pay people ? It's NOT Nordstrom or Lord & Taylor.


This actually exposes another aspect of my earlier contention that an equial amount of spending by different US consumers doesn't contribute equally to the US economy. A US small business owner, a US 'professional' etc., if not forced to pay ( incrementally ) higher minimum wage, and if not taxed at onerous levels, would very probably choose to spend the additional money on 'quality' products ... from a new US made Lincoln / Cadillac to new US made furniture, to US grown organic foods, etc. In contrast, when a greater amount of money is 'extracted' from US small business owners and professionals, and in turn 'transferred' to ( incrementally ) higher paid minimum wage unskilled workers and social welfare benefit recipients, THEY very probably will spend that transferred money on the lowest cost option ... from a Korean made car to Vietnamese made furniture to Chinese vegetables.

As such, where ( incrementally ) higher paid minimum wage US workers or US social welfare benefits are concerned, a far lower percentage of the dollars they spend is 'recycled' within the US economy ... with a far higher percentage of the dollars they spend wind up expanding the economies of low cost foreign countries that are supplying them the lowest available cost goods ! And this in turn means fewer US jobs but more jobs in low cost foreign countries !!! And, ironically, with fewer discretionary dollars left in the pockets of the US small business owner and US professional as the result of being forced to pay ( incrementally ) higher minimum wage and higher taxes, they may also be inclined to drive a Hyundai and substitute shopping for 'quality' American goods at Lord & Taylor in favor of shopping for somewhat lower cost imported goods at Target and JC Penneys. And this in turn means even fewer US jobs created but even more jobs in low cost foreign countries !!!

Think!
06-06-2012, 01:22 PM
This thread is now cluttered with numbers, charts, graphs, visuals, cut and pasted articles, and citations to support incoherent and vague arguments about the global economy and poverty. Would anyone mind volunteering and summarize their thesis or position in one paragraph or less? :P

Kellydancer
06-06-2012, 01:23 PM
I have lost jobs courtesy of H1-B visas and yes I found out were paid less than an average American would accept (or the company would assume they would take). There is tremendous abuse in this system and it starts in college where many foreign students take taxpayer funded money from American students.

I do not think an employee at Wal-Mart (or where ever)should make the same or more than a skilled worker. That to me is offensive.

Melonie
06-06-2012, 01:54 PM
Would anyone mind volunteering and summarize their thesis or position in one paragraph or less?

My originally posted author's comments and my subsequent comments in a nutshell ...

Over the past couple of decades, US gov't policy re state / community college academic standards, combined with US gov't policy re 'subprime' student loans, has created a situation where there are FAR more US college graduates than there used to be in terms of percentage of overall population. In many cases, the real world skill set of many of those US college graduates is insufficient in the eyes of potential US employers. Because of this US employers now place more 'faith' in a job applicant with less formal education and more real world work experience than they do in college graduates with more education but no proven skill set as exemplified by previous work experience.

Over the same time period, US gov't policy re H1-B visa workers, re de-facto tax incentives to shift operations / earnings offshore, and re differentials in 'costs of doing business' in the USA versus foreign countries - with much of that differential due to additional gov't mandated cost increases, from a higher minimum wage, to higher energy costs, to higher environmental / worker safety compliance costs, to higher tax rates - have resulted in the arguably permanent loss of US job opportunites / earnings potential for young college educated US professionals. At the same time, thanks in part to the near infinite availability of gov't guaranteed student loans, the 'costs' of obtaining a degree at a US college has increased greatly. As such, recent college graduates who concentrated on their studies, and who as a result have no real world job experience, face a potential double whammy of receiving the cold shoulder from potential employers while also needing to service their student loan debt.

bem401
06-06-2012, 02:01 PM
The problem is there has been a move afoot the last several decades by the Left to create Ameritopia, where everyone is happy, gets everything they want, blah, blah, blah, without considering the fact that such a society does not exist and big government cannot provide or create it. Read the Mark Levin book entitled "Ameritopia" for a detailed explanation.

Think!
06-06-2012, 02:46 PM
The problem is there has been a move afoot the last several decades by the Left to create Ameritopia, where everyone is happy, gets everything they want, blah, blah, blah, without considering the fact that such a society does not exist and big government cannot provide or create it. Read the Mark Levin book entitled "Ameritopia" for a detailed explanation.

Yes, big government is only good when they intervene on behalf of corporations as in the case of the 700 billion corporate bailout in 2008. This is an example of 'corporitopia.'

bem401
06-06-2012, 02:58 PM
Yes, big government is only good when they intervene on behalf of corporations as in the case of the 700 billion corporate bailout in 2008. This is an example of 'corporitopia.'

Conservatives opposed the 2008 bailout and the way it and the stimuli were handled by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Bailing out corporations with taxpayer dollars is not the smart thing to do.

mikef
06-06-2012, 03:29 PM
This thread is now cluttered with numbers, charts, graphs, visuals, cut and pasted articles, and citations to support incoherent and vague arguments about the global economy and poverty. Would anyone mind volunteering and summarize their thesis or position in one paragraph or less? :P



Sure thing.... I can even use a chart.

The American lifestyle has been supported by levels of debt that cannot be paid back..... This is true thoughout the western world.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=4m1

Kellydancer
06-06-2012, 04:14 PM
The problem is there has been a move afoot the last several decades by the Left to create Ameritopia, where everyone is happy, gets everything they want, blah, blah, blah, without considering the fact that such a society does not exist and big government cannot provide or create it. Read the Mark Levin book entitled "Ameritopia" for a detailed explanation.

I see a lot of people today who feel they are entitled to something they didn't work hard for. Like Wal-Mart employees who feel they should make more than skilled workers, or people who feel they deserve to be bosses without moving up the ladder.

bem401
06-06-2012, 04:33 PM
I see a lot of people today who feel they are entitled to something they didn't work hard for. Like Wal-Mart employees who feel they should make more than skilled workers, or people who feel they deserve to be bosses without moving up the ladder.

It's called the entitlement or nanny state. It is at the heart of the liberal agenda. And the minds of plenty on this site (and not just this thread).

Melonie
06-06-2012, 05:01 PM
It's called the entitlement or nanny state. It is at the heart of the liberal agenda. And the minds of plenty on this site (and not just this thread).


In fairness to SW readers, keep in mind that the vast majority of public schools in the US and Europe have presented a .... umm ... let's call it a 'less than objective' ... economic world view over the course of the last two decades. Younger people who don't have a whole lot of real world economic exposure that might cause them to question the 'accuracy' of what they have been taught can't be faulted for believing what their teachers taught them.

Additionally, where camgirls and exotic dancers are concerned, their non-typical ability ( until recently at least ) to earn lots of money with comparatively little effort, combined with their non-typical ability ( until recently at least ) to approach paying taxes as being 'optional', makes support for a liberal economic position much easier. I suspect that as more and more strip clubs and webcam host sites start issuing automatic income reports to the IRS and other tax authorities, and as the IRS and other tax authorities increase their capabilities to track actual spending levels with subsequent automatic cross-checks against reported income thus taxes paid, that the resulting onset of middle class personal economic 'pain' that always accompanies the liberal economic position may prompt some re-evaluations.

What's the old adage ??? If you're not a liberal in your 20's you have no heart ... but if you're still a liberal in your 30's you have no brain !!! This is based in the probable fact that, in their 20's, people are the 'recipients' of other people's money, while in their 30's they discover that they have become the 'other people' expected to supply the money !!!

Siddarth
06-06-2012, 06:34 PM
Think!,

My stance on this is similar to that of Kellydancer's. I too believe that the salaries of H1-B workers is too low. Therefore it gives them an unfair advantage over highly expensive American workers. The solution in my opinion would be to impose a minimum wage restriction on H1-B workers. I would say $100K would be a good number to start at.


I have lost jobs courtesy of H1-B visas and yes I found out were paid less than an average American would accept (or the company would assume they would take). There is tremendous abuse in this system and it starts in college where many foreign students take taxpayer funded money from American students.

I do not think an employee at Wal-Mart (or where ever)should make the same or more than a skilled worker. That to me is offensive.

Think!
06-06-2012, 09:00 PM
I am tempted to call someone out for their barrage of xenophobic commentaries on this thread. Why some are spiteful and filled with hatred is beyond my comprehension. Its unfortunate that anyone loses their job, especially during this period of economic downturn, but for those who deliberately demonize and blame others for their misfortunes, the only advice I offer is that if they work as hard as others do, they too will one day reach the promised land and reap the benefits of the American Dream. After all, this nation is built upon meritocratic principles of hard work, self-motivation and the ideology that anything is possible, right?

disclaimer: I am not a H1-B visa holder.

Melonie
06-06-2012, 09:41 PM
I too believe that the salaries of H1-B workers is too low. Therefore it gives them an unfair advantage over highly expensive American workers. The solution in my opinion would be to impose a minimum wage restriction on H1-B workers. I would say $100K would be a good number to start at.

Circling back to the original topic, the seemingly unspoken point appears to be the fact that for the last 10+ years American workers have been pitted head to head against 'global' workers with similar education and skill levels who are willing to work for much lower pay rates. While the H-1B visa issue pits American versus foreign workers head to head at the same potential US employer, the same point applies to any goods or services that can be provided by workers employed by companies in foreign countries.

Bringing in a point made earlier by another poster, what makes unskilled American workers think that they are 'entitled' to an hourly pay rate that is four times higher than their Asian counterparts ? Similarly, what makes skilled American workers think that they are 'entitled' to a pay rate that is $20,000 per year higher than that which a H-1B foreign worker across the same office is being paid ? These labor cost differentials simply aren't sustainable.

Melonie
06-06-2012, 09:49 PM
I too believe that the salaries of H1-B workers is too low. Therefore it gives them an unfair advantage over highly expensive American workers. The solution in my opinion would be to impose a minimum wage restriction on H1-B workers. I would say $100K would be a good number to start at.

Circling back to the original topic, the seemingly unspoken point appears to be the fact that for the last 10+ years American workers have been pitted head to head against 'global' workers with similar education and skill levels who are willing to work for much lower pay rates. While the H-1B visa issue pits American versus foreign workers head to head at the same potential US employer, the same point applies to any goods or services that can be provided by workers employed by companies in foreign countries.

Bringing in a point made earlier by another poster, what makes unskilled American workers think that they are 'entitled' to an hourly pay rate that is four times higher than their Asian counterparts ? Similarly, what makes skilled American workers think that they are 'entitled' to a pay rate that is $20,000 per year higher than that which a H-1B foreign worker across the same office is being paid ? These labor cost differentials simply aren't sustainable.

Almost Jaded
06-06-2012, 10:23 PM
They certainly aren't sustainable when the government does nothing to even the playing field for the home team, and in fact seems inclined to support expanding the competition's edge. This benefits only the people at the top - so this is no surprise.

Thank you for the mostly pointless, over-the-top, instigatory comment Siddarth; you finally confirmed something I'd been suspecting for a while now.

Eric Stoner
06-07-2012, 06:55 AM
I don't think it is xenophobic to point to abuses in the system. The original purpose of H1B was to permit immigration of skilled workers to fill shortages of same. Can anyone seriously say that we have a shortage of trained computer engineers and programmers ? I have asked this before : How did the employers get away with these phony "shortages" ? My guess ( although a fairly educated one ) is that "crony capitalism" is /was involved. I am sure the right contributions were made to the right Senators and Congressmen. Of BOTH parties.

We did not get into this current mess in a day or a month or a year. It will take years of reform to level the playing the field. Maybe, just maybe , we might be starting the process. The good news is that people are waking up to the shitty state of our education system ; the shaky state and local finances ; the student loan bubble etc.etc.
We will see.

Melonie
06-07-2012, 01:27 PM
They certainly aren't sustainable when the government does nothing to even the playing field for the home team, and in fact seems inclined to support expanding the competition's edge.

The specific problem here is that 'levelling the playing field', while still maintaining cost creating US gov't policies such as an $8 per hour minimum wage ( with commeasurately higher pay rates for jobs requiring higher skills ), economically 'bankrupting' low cost coal fired electric generators with extremely tight emissions limits thus raising electricity costs for consumers and producers alike, enforcing worker safety rules that ban the use of highly effective chemical processes in favor of environmentally friendly but far more expensive substitutes, an up to 36% tax rate on US businesses ( well, businesses that don't have special tax breaks legislated for them ), etc., can never result in a LEVEL playing field. US businesses will ALWAYS have a significantly higher cost structure than foreign competitors who can pay unskilled workers $2 an hour, who can purchase dirt cheap ( and dirty ) coal fired electricity, who can use highly effective but environmentally unfriendly chemical processes, who only have to pay a 10% tax rate, etc.

What can be done in an attempt to preserve US jobs is for the US to impose quotas and tariffs which restrict the amount of foreign products which can be imported for sale in the USA or which add a specific 'tax' to the cost of foreign products imported for sale in the USA. Or put another way, the US gov't can create a 'restricted' playing field. However, as is already the case with items subject to tariffs, the lowest cost option price for such tariff protected items like rubber tires, ethanol ( = 10% of every gallon of blended gasoline ) wind up being increased significantly to levels that are near enough to the cost basis of US producers of similar items that the US producers can remain profitable. But for poor and middle class Americans, this also means that the lowest available cost set of 4 new tires will now cost $300 instead of $200, that the lowest available cost gallon of gasoline will now cost $3.50 instead of $3.30 etc. In essence, such gov't measures to 'protect' US industries directly result in higher prices ... which in turn leaves less money available to poor and middle class Americans for spending on other non-essential items.

There is no free lunch.

Kellydancer
06-07-2012, 01:53 PM
They certainly aren't sustainable when the government does nothing to even the playing field for the home team, and in fact seems inclined to support expanding the competition's edge. This benefits only the people at the top - so this is no surprise.

Thank you for the mostly pointless, over-the-top, instigatory comment Siddarth; you finally confirmed something I'd been suspecting for a while now.


I don't think it is xenophobic to point to abuses in the system. The original purpose of H1B was to permit immigration of skilled workers to fill shortages of same. Can anyone seriously say that we have a shortage of trained computer engineers and programmers ? I have asked this before : How did the employers get away with these phony "shortages" ? My guess ( although a fairly educated one ) is that "crony capitalism" is /was involved. I am sure the right contributions were made to the right Senators and Congressmen. Of BOTH parties.

We did not get into this current mess in a day or a month or a year. It will take years of reform to level the playing the field. Maybe, just maybe , we might be starting the process. The good news is that people are waking up to the shitty state of our education system ; the shaky state and local finances ; the student loan bubble etc.etc.
We will see.

Agreed with both posts. As someone who does work in the technology field I have lost jobs to visa holders and the sad thing is these companies didn't even try to look for an American, they just went overseas. Also, at least one of these companies was run by foreign workers and they brought over more people from their country. To call someone xenophobic because one doesn't believe in visa workers is just inflammatory insulting trying to cause drama. The reality is xenophobia is not about being mad at people stealing jobs because they are foreign but rather being against immigration. In many visa cases there is no immigration issue because so many go home once the job is done.

I know many computer programmers, etc who have been unemployed for years because they can't compete against visa workers. I don't need to remind anyone that because they aren't working they aren't paying taxes in many cases (though unemployment does tax people). However not all visa workers pay taxes either. Plus many of these workers send home the money and often only buy much needed supplies like food but not things like house or car.

Almost Jaded
06-07-2012, 03:11 PM
Melonie - you are correct, and I understand those things; I was making a simple blanket statement to avoid a super lengthy post. There is no free lunch, and there must be a balance when it comes importing cheap vs tariffs and other restrictions (and yes, that's what I meant by "leveling the playing field"). But our government has done a pretty piss poor job with that balance for a long time now, to the point of allowing the U.S> steel industry to go completely bust before getting around to working out the issue with cheap foreign supplies, for example.

The H1B Visa issue goes way beyond companies not even looking, Kelly - forget that. There are companies who SELL THEM THOSE WORKERS. I know, because I know people who own businesses doing just that. They advertise all over in India and other countries, and get people with education and skills to apply. The company pays for all their travel and expenses to get here. Then they market these inexpensive but skilled workers to U.S. companies as a cost savings measure, for an initial fee. It started with nurses, because there WAS a shortage. It didn't take long to figure out that the government reacts very slowly to things, and that a temporary shortage of say, compiler programmers, meant that the government doesn't know the difference between one programmer and another so there is a programmer shortage. These guys aren't exactly going to tell the government to stop issuing the Visas because 80% of teh programmers aren't even the kind needed; hell no - they make anywhere from $2,000 to $20,000 PROFIT each time they place one of these people.

Kellydancer
06-07-2012, 04:23 PM
I've heard that AlmostJaded and it scares me. I know I once found an Indian paper online and they were advertising jobs in the USA. One of the jobs I applied for that went to a visa worker was a marketing director. There is no shortage of marketing people at all.

Siddarth
06-07-2012, 07:12 PM
I am tempted to call someone out for their barrage of xenophobic commentaries on this thread. Why some are spiteful and filled with hatred is beyond my comprehension. Its unfortunate that anyone loses their job, especially during this period of economic downturn, but for those who deliberately demonize and blame others for their misfortunes, the only advice I offer is that if they work as hard as others do, they too will one day reach the promised land and reap the benefits of the American Dream. After all, this nation is built upon meritocratic principles of hard work, self-motivation and the ideology that anything is possible, right?

disclaimer: I am not a H1-B visa holder.

We all know that working hard and smart leads to a better quality of life. But what she is trying to say is that if there were no competion you could make better life without working hard or smart. And my friend, therein lies the genius.

eagle2
06-07-2012, 11:41 PM
I'm sorry but I am not aware of ANY Carter or Dem policy that led to lower oil prices. The fall of the Shah ? = higher prices. Regulated oil industry ? = higher prices.
As usual, you are partially correct about some of the supply and demand but completely ignore the effects of a strong or weak dollar.

I just specifically stated that the laws passed by the Democratic Congress requiring auto manufacturers to make more fuel efficient vehicles led to lower oil consumption and lower oil prices. I don't think you want to acknowledge this because it goes against your ideology. You want to believe that following your ideology; increased oil production, oil deregulation, and a strong dollar; led to lower oil prices. The facts don't support this.

Fact: Oil consumption in the U.S. declined far more than oil production increased.
Fact: Oil production increased more during Carter's presidency than during Reagan's. Oil production actually declined during Reagan's first term.
Fact: Oil prices were low in the early 90's when the dollar was weak

The above facts are based on the following charts:

U.S. Oil Consumption:
http://greenecon.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/oil_cons.jpg
Oil consumption fell from 19 billion barrels a day in 1978 to 15 billion barrels a day in 1984

U.S. Oil production:
http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/us-production.jpeg
From 1977 to 1981, oil production increased from approximately 8 billion barrels a day to approximately 8.5 billion barrels a day
From 1981 to 1989, oil production increased from approximately 8.5 billion barrels a day to approximately 8.7 billion barrels a day

The increase in production of approximately 0.7 billion barrels per day wasn't anywhere near the decrease in consumption of 4 billion barrels a day. Which do you think was the bigger factor?

Price per gallon of gasoline starting in 1993:
http://205.254.135.7/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W
Gasoline was $1 a gallon, despite having a weak dollar

eagle2
06-07-2012, 11:48 PM
Twer it only true. If it were, you and I would agree more than we do. You look at those results that you like and ignore those that you don't. Many's the time that Melonie and/or I have filled in the blanks and you went totally silent. No response.

I'm sorry, but I don't always have time to respond to everything on internet forums.



If you were right about government spending generating economic growth, then these would be boom times. Government spending as a % of GDP is at levels not seen since W.W.II. You are right that we would benefit, now and in the future from more infrastructure spending. Which I have repeatedly supported btw. What has been the reality ? The Obama "porkulus" package did not go for infrastructure. Rather it was primarily directed to protecting union dues paying state and local jobs. What have California and N.J. been doing with most of their state Highway Trust Funds ? Spending it on maintaining their roads and bridges ? Nope. They've been looting them to pay for pensions and other current expenses.

In 1944 Federal spending as a % of GDP peaked at 41.56%. In 1953 during the Korean War it was only 20.75%. In 1961 it was close to 15%.
During Vietnam it never topped 20%. Under Clinton it consistently DECLINED to well below 20 %. Under Obama it is 25.36 % and climbing.


As a percent of GDP, government spending on infrastructure has decreased since the 1950's.

http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/04/30/us/20110430_usc609.gif



Melonie happens to have been correct about abuses in the H-1b Visa program. A LOT of companies in Silicon Valley were importing programmers from India to work for less than half what Americans were getting for the same or similar jobs. And they were shipping large chunks of said salaries back home to India. This was widely reported in such "conservative" media as the N.Y. Times and on "60 Minutes".

Melonie just posted actual figures of salaries of h-1b visas from an actual source. The averages varied from $50,000 to $70,000, depending on the position. That's far higher than the $30,000 Melonie gave in a previous post, that was not based on any sources.

Melonie
06-08-2012, 01:58 AM
I just specifically stated that the laws passed by the Democratic Congress requiring auto manufacturers to make more fuel efficient vehicles led to lower oil consumption and lower oil prices

This is true on the surface. But you didn't mention that it also led to the devastation of a US auto industry whose profitable business model was geared toward trucks and SUV's ... which resulted in the permanent loss of hundreds of thousands of US jobs ... and for which US taxpayers are still carrying a $20 billion + 'loss' in the aftermath of the GM / Chrysler bailout.

Your statistics about US oil consumption starting to drop dramatically after 1978 are also true. But you didn't mention that a primary cause was the onset of a major inflationary recession during Jimmy Carter's term in office. In case you haven't noticed, motor fuel is just one of many uses for oil ... with other major uses ( at that time ) being electric power generation, industrial production, chemicals and plastics etc. So indeed Democratic policies that reduced US industrial production ( and jobs ) also reduced US demand for oil as a direct consequence.

And let's not forget another Democratic policy which mandated a 10% reduction in US gasoline usage by forced substitution of 10% ethanol. Indeed this helped to reduce US oil consumption, but with the consequence of greatly increasing food prices. This in turn reduced available levels of discretionary spending for poor and middle class Americans, and thus reduced other US economic activity ( and jobs ).

My only point here is that citing Democratic policies that led to reduced US oil consumption, and attempting to spin that as a 'positive' in regard to US jobs creation and/or expansion of the US economy ( which are directly relevant to the topic of this thread ), is a HIGHLY dubious assertion. And, arguably, your taking this thread in a blatantly political direction risks violation of the SW politics ban.



Melonie just posted actual figures of salaries of h-1b visas from an actual source. The averages varied from $50,000 to $70,000, depending on the position. That's far higher than the $30,000 Melonie gave in a previous post, that was not based on any sources.

As I specifically posted as a disclaimer, H-1B worker pay rates vary from profession to profession and from location to location. And the dollar figures I posted were specifically tied to high end IT professionals. However, a fact that doesn't appear to vary about 'imported' H-1B workers is that their pay rates consistently fall in the bottom 25% of the salary range paid to all US workers in a particular profession.

And that consistently translates into a US employer being able to 'save' something on the order of 20+ percent in salary costs by 'replacing' a US worker with a H-1B worker. Logically speaking, this in turn leads to unemployed US professionals being offered pay rates for 'replacement' jobs that are 20+ percent lower !!! And that in turn prompts the foreign H-1B 'headhunters' to find future H-1B workers who are willing to work in the USA for even lower salaries ( i.e. the so called 'race to the bottom' ).

And again, by 'pure coincidence', we come full circle back to the original point of this thread. To put it bluntly, direct head to head competition between new US college graduates versus newly imported H-1B workers with 'equal' paper qualifications + real world experience 'devalues' the potential 'return' on their investment of time and money to obtain their US college degree. As the author of my original post pointed out, Americans who choose to pursue college degrees with a laser like focus ( and pass up opportunities to amass real world job experience as a consequence ) may now be doing themselves a dis-service.

Kellydancer
06-08-2012, 11:18 AM
We all know that working hard and smart leads to a better quality of life. But what she is trying to say is that if there were no competion you could make better life without working hard or smart. And my friend, therein lies the genius.

What? I'm not saying that at all (unless you are referring to Melonie). I am saying that with H-1B visas there are people who are taking away jobs from those who worked hard and these visa holders didn't work hard in this country to deserve this preference.