View Full Version : McJobless !
Melonie
06-08-2012, 12:31 PM
^^^ the only tongue in cheek comment I would make on the topic of US workers being 'displaced' by less expensive imported H-1B workers is that the US workers DO have the option of working at H-1B pay rates !!! This would ( temporarily at least ) stop the 'bleeding'.
From a more serious standpoint, this references back to the point made in earlier postings that US workers of ALL skill levels are now facing truly 'global' competition. If US workers ( or the US gov't ) insist on pay rates that are significantly higher than the 'global' average, the consequences are simple. A. if allowed to, US employers will 'import' equally skilled foreign workers who are willing to work for lower pay rates, or b. US companies will outsource / offshore some portion of their operations to take advantage of skilled foreign workers who are willing to work for FAR lower pay rates.
Arguably, the only way to seriously grow the availability of US jobs ( short of a WW2-like physical destruction of foreign competition and foreign workforces ) is for the cost structure of US businesses to realign itself closer to the 'global' average. Given the vested interests involved, given the political overtones etc. there is simply no way that this is going to happen as a matter of 'choice'. It's possible that it could happen as the result of 'Greek Disease' eventually spreading to the USA ... but that possibility is not an immediate concern.
minnow
06-08-2012, 06:50 PM
I'm actually very glad that you brought this point up. If you read http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2008/july/i_history.pdf you will quickly discover the TRUE reason that the Boeing 707 became a huge commercial success while earlier commercial jets did not. Basically, Boeing and then US commercial air travel market dominator PanAm 'pulled a WalMart' versus Comet / BOAC and Tupolev / Aeroflot by modifying the 707 to accomodate 6 passengers across which provided capacity for 111 passengers ( versus the Comet's 44 passengers or the TU-104's 50 passengers ) ... which lowered the labor and fuel based 'cost structure' of 707 jet air travel such that PanAm could then offer the same low airfares for jet travel as for piston engine aircraft. This development had absolutely nothing to do with the 707 being technologically superior ( i.e. better ) than the Comet 4 or TU-104. The 707 was simply 'bigger' thus less expensive ( on a per passenger basis ) to operate and maintain, thus more profitable for an airline to operate.
This development also had a lot to do with BOAC, Aeroflot, etc. being financed by governments ( which had many other competing demands for their taxpayer money besides purchasing new commercial jet aircraft ), whereas PanAm was financed by private sector investors who were willing to take the economic risk of investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a new fleet of large but expensive 707 jet aircraft. Arguably, the success of the 707 was equally due to a lack of gov't involvement in US airline operations, plus economic risk taking by private sector US investors.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:no_way: Huh??? Isn't building an aircraft with lower seat mile costs ( which you essentially state in opening paragraph) not a better aircraft ? Boeing 707 ( and direct US competitor Douglas DC8 ) were larger, faster, had more non-stop range, and were more technologically advanced than Comet and TU104. The later didn't even have air conditioning.:thumbsdow Virtually every significant airline in the western world bought either the Boeing or Douglas product. The Comet by a handful of Brittish airlines and Mexicana . The TU104 by a few Eastern Bloc airlines. Some modified versions of the DC8 are still flying in revenue service. When was the last time you saw a Comet or TU104 fly?
On another post, an oft raised argument that government employees are "non-productive" is specious. While teachers may not make food or widgets, productive employees don't just sprout up like mushrooms, they need an educational foundation to be productive. Thus, teachers do contribute to a productive society. Furthermore, how many busineses train someone with zero experience in operating complex equipment/machinery, and then task them with operating said equipment worth millions of $$ like the US military does ? Countless businesses are beneficiaries of the training/experience provided by the military at no, or greatly reduced cost to corporations. While I acknowledge that some adequate ammount of "producers" is needed, one cannot discount the individuals/organiztions that contribute to putting forth a skilled labor force.
eagle2
06-08-2012, 10:26 PM
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.
Pretty much everything above is untrue.
Congress implemented the increased mileage standards in the 1970's. You're saying this somehow led to the devastation of the US auto industry 30 years later? That makes no sense. After the standards were implemented, and automakers started building more fuel-efficient cars, auto-makers had their most profitable years in the 1980's. It was after they started to move toward trucks and SUV's, their profits started to decline when the price of gas went up. That was a major factor which led to the "devastation" of the US auto industry. The past few years, auto-makers have again began to put more emphasis on building fuel-efficient cars, and their profits are very high.
There wasn't a "major inflationary recession" during Jimmy Carter's term in office. The recession during Reagan's first term was far bigger than any during Jimmy Carter's term, and even after the recovery, oil consumption was far lower than it was in 1978. Motor fuel is the biggest use of oil in this country, and the consumption of motor fuel declined dramatically, as a result of the fuel efficiency standards. The use of oil for electricity also declined, as a result of switching to alternatives, and making homes more energy-efficient.
There was no mandate for forced substitution of 10% ethanol in the 1970's, which is the period I'm referring to. I find it ironic that you're criticizing using ethanol for gas because it "reduces available levels of discretionary spending for poor and middle class Americans", while at the same time you're criticizing American workers for being paid too much.
The Democratic policies which led to reduced oil consumption were successful in regards to US jobs creation and expansion of the US economy. The policies which led to reduced oil consumption led to an economic expansion in the 1980's as a result of cheap oil. U.S. automakers were having record profits from the fuel-efficient cars they were manufacturing, such as the Ford Taurus and Chrysler K-Cars.
This whole thread, started by you, has been political, with your criticism of minimum wage laws, your criticism of going off the gold standard, and your comment that "if you're a liberal in your 30's, you have no brain". I would prefer you wouldn't start these political threads to promote your ideology, but if you do, I will respond when I strongly disagree with what you post. I strongly disagree with you that Americans should greatly reduce their wages, and I’m sure most Americans would disagree also. What you are proposing would make the economy worse, not better. If workers were making much less money, then businesses won’t have anyone to sell their products to. That would include strip-clubs. There would be far fewer men with money to spend on dances and champagne rooms.
Melonie
06-09-2012, 02:58 AM
In regard to the original 1985 CAFE standards taking effect, the enactment of those standards is precisely the reason that US automakers moved toward more trucks and SUV's in the first place ... since they were originally exempt from those CAFE standards and, at the time, few American customers really wanted to buy US made small cars. It wasn't until 2007 that the CAFE standard exemption for trucks and SUV's was abruptly abolished ... (snip)In December 2007, Congress passed an updated CAFE law mandating that new cars, SUVs, and light trucks together average 35 mpg by 2020, an increase of 40% from the previous 25 mpg average.(snip) from . And a year later the US automakers were seeking bailout money ! So the real question is whether or not the enactment of CAFE laws actually CREATED problems for the US automakers / auto workers as a result of 'unintended consequences'.
As to US fuel use declining as a result of CAFE standards, while the original CAFE law was passed in 1975 the first compliance date was 1985. Of arguably far more importance was the reduction in US oil consumption due to the inflationary recession started in the late 70's which caused US industrial / economic activity to contract ... which persisted into the early 1980's. As to oil prices during that time period, check your historical graphs. Oil prices dropped like a stone the day that Ronald Reagan took office !!!
I strongly disagree with you that Americans should greatly reduce their wages, and I’m sure most Americans would disagree also.
Undoubtedly so. I'm sure that Greek workers feel exactly the same way !!! Nonetheless, when faced with the economic realities of 'global' labor cost competition, workers whose high salaries ( by 'global' measures ) are dependent on ever growing gov't debt levels or ever shrinking employer profit levels will, sooner or later, face a choice of accepting a lower paying job or not having a job. Granted that in the USA this point has been obscured by the availability of 99 weeks worth of gov't debt financed 'emergency' unemployment benefits / food stamp benefits etc. ... which has allowed millions of unemployed Americans to more or less maintain their previous standard of living WITHOUT having to accept a lower paying job. However, now that ~100,000 unemployed Americans are seeing these benefits expire every WEEK, they are being 'forced' to return to the job market. At least in part, this is an underlying reason for the recent 'softening' of the US job market and downward turn in the US economy .
If workers were making much less money, then businesses won’t have anyone to sell their products to.
Finally we get to the question of 'sustainability'. In point of fact, for years now, many US workers have been 'buying' products that they cannot afford based on the availability of 'subprime' credit thus piling up ever higher mounds of personal debt. Yes this provided a temporary boost in economic activity and additional jobs. However, as personal debt levels became unserviceable, serious questions arose as to whether or not these 'subprime' loans would ever be repaid. Or put another way, does a business benefit when it is able to sell products - but the buyer cannot pay for the product after they have purchased it ? Well, the answer depends on who winds up 'holding the bag' ... and in too many cases the 'bagholder' has been the US taxpayer !!! Reference former GMAC Ally Bank piling up a mountain of 'subprime' auto loans in order to facilitate sales of GM and Chrysler vehicles to people that can't actually afford to purchase them. Yes this creates / sustains high paying autoworker's jobs at GM and Chrysler. But at what cost to the US taxpayer ???
That would include strip-clubs. There would be far fewer men with money to spend on dances and champagne rooms.
By living in a 'third world' country, I now get a 'global' view regarding lots of things. One aspect of that 'global' view is that the top 5% of citizens of most countries are doing better than ever. This is borne out by statistics that companies such as Ferrari, Tiffany, Saks 5th Avenue, etc. are experiencing record sales and profits. Dancers who can access these top 5% of customers via upscale strip clubs won't have any problems. However, dancers who cannot access these top 5% of customers will definitely experience the effect of 'global' competition ... i.e. other dancers who are willing to offer 'more' in exchange for 'less' in a manner similar to H-1B workers. So on this particular point, many US exotic dancers have already been 'forced' to accept the consequences of lower pay rates based on 'global' competition ... why should US workers in other professions be exempted from experiencing the same 'global' effects via protective gov't mandates that the US exotic dancers' tax money effectively subsidizes ?
eagle2
06-09-2012, 10:00 AM
In regard to the original 1985 CAFE standards taking effect, the enactment of those standards is precisely the reason that US automakers moved toward more trucks and SUV's in the first place ... since they were originally exempt from those CAFE standards and, at the time, few American customers really wanted to buy US made small cars. It wasn't until 2007 that the CAFE standard exemption for trucks and SUV's was abruptly abolished ... (snip)In December 2007, Congress passed an updated CAFE law mandating that new cars, SUVs, and light trucks together average 35 mpg by 2020, an increase of 40% from the previous 25 mpg average.(snip) from http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-efficiency/cafe-standards/ . And a year later the US automakers were seeking bailout money ! So the real question is whether or not the enactment of CAFE laws actually CREATED problems for the US automakers / auto workers as a result of 'unintended consequences'.
Again, what you are saying is not true. The new CAFE laws had nothing to do with the automakers seeking bailout money. It had everything to do with the financial crisis and economic downturn.
As to US fuel use declining as a result of CAFE standards, while the original CAFE law was passed in 1975 the first compliance date was 1985. Of arguably far more importance was the reduction in US oil consumption due to the inflationary recession started in the late 70's which caused US industrial / economic activity to contract ... which persisted into the early 1980's. As to oil prices during that time period, check your historical graphs. Oil prices dropped like a stone the day that Ronald Reagan took office !!!
The first compliance date for the CAFE laws was 1978, not 1985. Automakers had to gradually increase the avg. mpg of their fleets from the then current 14 mpg to 27 mpg by 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy#Standards_by_model_ year.2C_1978-2011
Oil prices did not "drop like a stone" the day Ronald Reagan took office. From 1980 to 1981, there was a modest drop in the price of oil from $37.42 a barrel to $35.75. The biggest drop in oil prices during the 1980's was from 1985 to 1986, when the price of a barrel of oil dropped more than $12, from $26.92 to $14.44.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp
This was long after the recession ended, so you can't attribute the huge drop in oil prices to that. The only major factor in the US market to have a major impact on the price of oil was the huge drop in consumption. There was no significant increase in domestic oil production, as the graphs I previously posted show. The decrease in consumption far exceeded any increase in production, and the requirements for auto-makers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles was a major factor.
Undoubtedly so. I'm sure that Greek workers feel exactly the same way !!! Nonetheless, when faced with the economic realities of 'global' labor cost competition, workers whose high salaries ( by 'global' measures ) are dependent on ever growing gov't debt levels or ever shrinking employer profit levels will, sooner or later, face a choice of accepting a lower paying job or not having a job. Granted that in the USA this point has been obscured by the availability of 99 weeks worth of gov't debt financed 'emergency' unemployment benefits / food stamp benefits etc. ... which has allowed millions of unemployed Americans to more or less maintain their previous standard of living WITHOUT having to accept a lower paying job. However, now that ~100,000 unemployed Americans are seeing these benefits expire every WEEK, they are being 'forced' to return to the job market. At least in part, this is an underlying reason for the recent 'softening' of the US job market and downward turn in the US economy .
Paying workers good wages has absolutely nothing to do with the problems in Greece. Workers in Germany and Sweden get paid much higher wages than workers in Greece, and neither of those countries are in dire straits like Greece is.
The recent softening of the economy is because of the government's and fed's unwillingness to further stimulate the economy. The main reason for the slow economic growth in this country, is because consumers aren't spending money, yet you think that lowering the wages of consumers is somehow going to improve the economy?!
Finally we get to the question of 'sustainability'. In point of fact, for years now, many US workers have been 'buying' products that they cannot afford based on the availability of 'subprime' credit thus piling up ever higher mounds of personal debt. Yes this provided a temporary boost in economic activity and additional jobs. However, as personal debt levels became unserviceable, serious questions arose as to whether or not these 'subprime' loans would ever be repaid. Or put another way, does a business benefit when it is able to sell products - but the buyer cannot pay for the product after they have purchased it ? Well, the answer depends on who winds up 'holding the bag' ... and in too many cases the 'bagholder' has been the US taxpayer !!! Reference former GMAC Ally Bank piling up a mountain of 'subprime' auto loans in order to facilitate sales of GM and Chrysler vehicles to people that can't actually afford to purchase them. Yes this creates / sustains high paying autoworker's jobs at GM and Chrysler. But at what cost to the US taxpayer ???
If workers were paid more money, they would have to borrow less.
By living in a 'third world' country, I now get a 'global' view regarding lots of things. One aspect of that 'global' view is that the top 5% of citizens of most countries are doing better than ever. This is borne out by statistics that companies such as Ferrari, Tiffany, Saks 5th Avenue, etc. are experiencing record sales and profits. Dancers who can access these top 5% of customers via upscale strip clubs won't have any problems. However, dancers who cannot access these top 5% of customers will definitely experience the effect of 'global' competition ... i.e. other dancers who are willing to offer 'more' in exchange for 'less' in a manner similar to H-1B workers. So on this particular point, many US exotic dancers have already been 'forced' to accept the consequences of lower pay rates based on 'global' competition ... why should US workers in other professions be exempted from experiencing the same 'global' effects via protective gov't mandates that the US exotic dancers' tax money effectively subsidizes ?
The reason why the "top 5%" are doing so well is because they are holding down the wages of the other 95%. Why should American workers have to work for the same wages as workers in third world countries? Why should all of the profits be going to the "top 5%", instead of paying workers their fair share?
bem401
06-09-2012, 10:16 AM
There wasn't a "major inflationary recession" during Jimmy Carter's term in office. The recession during Reagan's first term was far bigger than any during Jimmy Carter's term, and even after the recovery, oil consumption was far lower than it was in 1978.
So then if Carter wasn't responsible for the mess in the early '80's and Reagan was, that means Bush isn't responsible for the mess we're in now, Obama is. Do I have that right? Just checking.
This whole thread, started by you, has been political, with your criticism of minimum wage laws, your criticism of going off the gold standard, and your comment that "if you're a liberal in your 30's, you have no brain".
Read my siggy:)
Melonie
06-10-2012, 02:00 PM
not to confuse the issue with facts, but ... from
(snip)"Events in Iran and Iraq led to another round of crude oil price increases in 1979 and 1980. The Iranian revolution resulted in the loss of 2 to 2.5 million barrels of oil per day between November of 1978 and June of 1979. In 1980 Iraq's crude oil production fell 2.7MMBPD and Iran's production by 600,000 barrels per day during the Iran/Iraq War. The combination of these two events resulted in crude oil prices more than doubling from $14 in 1978 to $35 per barrel in 1981.(snip)
I would note that by the beginning of 1982, i.e. Reagan's first full year in office, oil prices had fallen to $31 per barrel. And indeed your are factually correct that 1985-6 was a downward turning point for oil prices. However, this had next to nothing to do with reduced US oil consumption, and virtually everything to do with a petrodollar 'deal' cut between the US and the Saudis. From the same link ...
(snip)"From 1982 to 1985 OPEC attempted to set production quotas low enough to stabilze prices. Repeated failures occured because various members of OPEC would produce beyond their quotas. Saudi Arabia acted as the swing producer cutting its production to stem the free falling prices. In August of 1985 they tired of this role and linked their oil prices to the spot market and in early 1986 increased production from 2 MMBPD to 5 MMBPD."(snip)
Paying workers good wages has absolutely nothing to do with the problems in Greece.
why do I bother ... from
(snip)"One in three Greeks works for the government. Government employees enjoy higher wages, more munificent benefits, and earlier retirements than private-sector employees. Civil servants can retire after 35 years of service at 80 percent of their highest salary and enjoy lavish health plans, vacations, and other perks. Because they are so numerous, and because Greece is highly centralized, public-sector unions hardly have to negotiate. They simply vote in their preferred bosses. Some civil servants receive bonuses for using computers, others for arriving at work on time. Forestry workers get a bonus for outdoor work. All civil servants receive 14 yearly checks for twelve months’ work. And it’s almost impossible to fire them — even for the grossest incompetence."(snip)
Hopefully I won't be forced to similarly prove that the higher wages and benefits of those one in three Greeks who works at a 'government' job ( including gov't owned railroads, utilities etc. ) have, for the last decade, been financed by the Greek gov't 'borrowing' ever increasing amounts of Euros from other European countries ( mostly Germany ) whose citizens actually work hard and save money !!! Again Margaret Thatcher's famous quote is applicable ... " sooner or later you run out of 'other people's' money" !!! Well, Greece's problem is that the Greek gov'ts access to 'other people's' money has now been cut off because the Greek gov't cannot / will not reduce gov't spending ... a major component of which are the high salaries and generous benefits provided to the 33% of Greeks who are government employees !!! Sorry, but paying 33% of Greek workers high wages is directly traceable to Greece's current problems !!!
Trying to circle back on topic, the question again needs to be asked whether or not NON-SELF SUSTAINING jobs that must be paid for by never-ending gov't subsidies / gov't borrowing / gov't money printing / increased taxation of the 'productive' private sector / do in fact make any positive contribution to a country's economy. Greece's experience ... and numerous other historical examples ... would indicate that the answer is NO.
eagle2
06-10-2012, 09:14 PM
not to confuse the issue with facts, but ... from http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm
(snip)"Events in Iran and Iraq led to another round of crude oil price increases in 1979 and 1980. The Iranian revolution resulted in the loss of 2 to 2.5 million barrels of oil per day between November of 1978 and June of 1979. In 1980 Iraq's crude oil production fell 2.7MMBPD and Iran's production by 600,000 barrels per day during the Iran/Iraq War. The combination of these two events resulted in crude oil prices more than doubling from $14 in 1978 to $35 per barrel in 1981.(snip)
I would note that by the beginning of 1982, i.e. Reagan's first full year in office, oil prices had fallen to $31 per barrel.
You said:
Oil prices dropped like a stone the day that Ronald Reagan took office !!!
Ronald Reagan did not take office in the beginning of 1982.
And indeed your are factually correct that 1985-6 was a downward turning point for oil prices. However, this had next to nothing to do with reduced US oil consumption, and virtually everything to do with a petrodollar 'deal' cut between the US and the Saudis. From the same link ...
(snip)"From 1982 to 1985 OPEC attempted to set production quotas low enough to stabilze prices. Repeated failures occured because various members of OPEC would produce beyond their quotas. Saudi Arabia acted as the swing producer cutting its production to stem the free falling prices. In August of 1985 they tired of this role and linked their oil prices to the spot market and in early 1986 increased production from 2 MMBPD to 5 MMBPD."(snip)
We were talking about U.S. domestic policies, and reducing domestic consumption had a much greater impact on oil prices than any increase in domestic oil production. The world-wide increase in production was also a major factor in falling oil prices during the 1980's.
Oil consumption in the US decreased by close to 4 MMBPD from it's high in 1978. Why is this somehow less significant than Saudi Arabia increasing oil production by 3 MMBPD?
why do I bother ... from http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229705/lessons-u-s-greeces-national-meltdown/mona-charen#
(snip)"One in three Greeks works for the government. Government employees enjoy higher wages, more munificent benefits, and earlier retirements than private-sector employees. Civil servants can retire after 35 years of service at 80 percent of their highest salary and enjoy lavish health plans, vacations, and other perks. Because they are so numerous, and because Greece is highly centralized, public-sector unions hardly have to negotiate. They simply vote in their preferred bosses. Some civil servants receive bonuses for using computers, others for arriving at work on time. Forestry workers get a bonus for outdoor work. All civil servants receive 14 yearly checks for twelve months’ work. And it’s almost impossible to fire them — even for the grossest incompetence."(snip)
Hopefully I won't be forced to similarly prove that the higher wages and benefits of those one in three Greeks who works at a 'government' job ( including gov't owned railroads, utilities etc. ) have, for the last decade, been financed by the Greek gov't 'borrowing' ever increasing amounts of Euros from other European countries ( mostly Germany ) whose citizens actually work hard and save money !!! Again Margaret Thatcher's famous quote is applicable ... " sooner or later you run out of 'other people's' money" !!! Well, Greece's problem is that the Greek gov'ts access to 'other people's' money has now been cut off because the Greek gov't cannot / will not reduce gov't spending ... a major component of which are the high salaries and generous benefits provided to the 33% of Greeks who are government employees !!! Sorry, but paying 33% of Greek workers high wages is directly traceable to Greece's current problems !!!
We were discussing wages for workers in the private sector, not government workers, so I don't know why you are bringing up government workers in Greece. In response to my post where I said most Americans would disagree with you that American workers should greatly reduce their wages, you said:
"Nonetheless, when faced with the economic realities of 'global' labor cost competition, workers whose high salaries ( by 'global' measures ) are dependent on ever growing gov't debt levels or ever shrinking employer profit levels will, sooner or later, face a choice of accepting a lower paying job or not having a job."
We are not seeing "ever shrinking employer profit levels". Corporations are having record profits. Therefore, there is no need to reduce worker wages. Greatly reducing worker wages is what will result in "ever shrinking employer profit levels". If workers' wages are greatly reduced, there will be nobody to buy the employers' products.
Trying to circle back on topic, the question again needs to be asked whether or not NON-SELF SUSTAINING jobs that must be paid for by never-ending gov't subsidies / gov't borrowing / gov't money printing / increased taxation of the 'productive' private sector / do in fact make any positive contribution to a country's economy. Greece's experience ... and numerous other historical examples ... would indicate that the answer is NO.
We are not talking about "non-self sustaining jobs". We are talking about jobs in general. The question that needs to be asked is whether paying workers a good salary does in fact make any positive contribution to a country's economy. Germany's experience, Sweden's experience, Switzerland's experience, the United States' experience... and numerous other historical examples... would indicate the answer is YES.
Almost Jaded
06-10-2012, 09:41 PM
The shift in oil prices had little or nothing to do with CAFE standards; the insolvency of the U.S. automakers had next to nothing to do with the laws applying to SUV's. International politics that had almost nothing to do with consumption laws contributed to the drop in oil prices FAR more than CAFE did; union costs were the single biggest contributing factor to the decline and demise of GM and Chrysler.
Eric Stoner
06-11-2012, 07:51 AM
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.
That's another thing : WHY do we or did we have a nursing shortage ? Or a doctor shortage ? With the doctors it was/is OUR own medical schools restricting admissions for decades. And yet 2/3 of medical malpractice is committed by foreign trained doctors ! Where did the nursing shortage come from ? Why weren't we training more nurses instead of importing them ?
My understanding of the H1B Program is that the Government has to recognize a "shortage". What is it based on ? Who says that there is a shortage ? WHEN is the shortage filled ?
It's bad enough that we import cheap junk made by people who are paid slave wages. Why do we have to import the "slaves" ?
Eric Stoner
06-11-2012, 07:58 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. 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
Oil consumption fell thanks to its high price which promoted more fuel efficient vehicles and buildings. So what ? We've seen the same thing recently. High oil prices coupled with unemployment plus a mild winter has led to reduced consumption. So what ? I know of no Dem or Obama policy that accounts for it. Do you ?
Eric Stoner
06-11-2012, 08:04 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't always have time to respond to everything on internet forums.
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 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.
You are correct about infrastructure spending. Which is why it was so outrageous that so little of Obama's "porkulus" package went for infrastructure spending. Every billion spent generates some 25,000 well paying jobs in construction and related trades and supply.Plus there is an arguable multiplier effect. Made all the worse by such policies as opposing the Keystone Pipeline which would have been PRIVATELY financed.
Eric Stoner
06-11-2012, 08:09 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:no_way: Huh??? Isn't building an aircraft with lower seat mile costs ( which you essentially state in opening paragraph) not a better aircraft ? Boeing 707 ( and direct US competitor Douglas DC8 ) were larger, faster, had more non-stop range, and were more technologically advanced than Comet and TU104. The later didn't even have air conditioning.:thumbsdow Virtually every significant airline in the western world bought either the Boeing or Douglas product. The Comet by a handful of Brittish airlines and Mexicana . The TU104 by a few Eastern Bloc airlines. Some modified versions of the DC8 are still flying in revenue service. When was the last time you saw a Comet or TU104 fly?
On another post, an oft raised argument that government employees are "non-productive" is specious. While teachers may not make food or widgets, productive employees don't just sprout up like mushrooms, they need an educational foundation to be productive. Thus, teachers do contribute to a productive society. Furthermore, how many busineses train someone with zero experience in operating complex equipment/machinery, and then task them with operating said equipment worth millions of $$ like the US military does ? Countless businesses are beneficiaries of the training/experience provided by the military at no, or greatly reduced cost to corporations. While I acknowledge that some adequate ammount of "producers" is needed, one cannot discount the individuals/organiztions that contribute to putting forth a skilled labor force.
You are talking about apples and oranges. Nobody is saying we do not need teachers. Some of us are arguing for GOOD teachers who know HOW To Teach ! And thiose teachers have to be paid for ( including health and pension costs ). Likewise, we need a military. Who says we don't ?
Eric Stoner
06-11-2012, 08:33 AM
Pretty much everything above is untrue.
Congress implemented the increased mileage standards in the 1970's. You're saying this somehow led to the devastation of the US auto industry 30 years later? That makes no sense. After the standards were implemented, and automakers started building more fuel-efficient cars, auto-makers had their most profitable years in the 1980's. It was after they started to move toward trucks and SUV's, their profits started to decline when the price of gas went up. That was a major factor which led to the "devastation" of the US auto industry. The past few years, auto-makers have again began to put more emphasis on building fuel-efficient cars, and their profits are very high.
There wasn't a "major inflationary recession" during Jimmy Carter's term in office. The recession during Reagan's first term was far bigger than any during Jimmy Carter's term, and even after the recovery, oil consumption was far lower than it was in 1978. Motor fuel is the biggest use of oil in this country, and the consumption of motor fuel declined dramatically, as a result of the fuel efficiency standards. The use of oil for electricity also declined, as a result of switching to alternatives, and making homes more energy-efficient.
There was no mandate for forced substitution of 10% ethanol in the 1970's, which is the period I'm referring to. I find it ironic that you're criticizing using ethanol for gas because it "reduces available levels of discretionary spending for poor and middle class Americans", while at the same time you're criticizing American workers for being paid too much.
The Democratic policies which led to reduced oil consumption were successful in regards to US jobs creation and expansion of the US economy. The policies which led to reduced oil consumption led to an economic expansion in the 1980's as a result of cheap oil. U.S. automakers were having record profits from the fuel-efficient cars they were manufacturing, such as the Ford Taurus and Chrysler K-Cars.
This whole thread, started by you, has been political, with your criticism of minimum wage laws, your criticism of going off the gold standard, and your comment that "if you're a liberal in your 30's, you have no brain". I would prefer you wouldn't start these political threads to promote your ideology, but if you do, I will respond when I strongly disagree with what you post. I strongly disagree with you that Americans should greatly reduce their wages, and I’m sure most Americans would disagree also. What you are proposing would make the economy worse, not better. If workers were making much less money, then businesses won’t have anyone to sell their products to. That would include strip-clubs. There would be far fewer men with money to spend on dances and champagne rooms.
You are forgetting your history : Of the 3 major automakers, Chrysler was caught flat-footed the most by the sudden demand for fuel efficient cars in the 1970's ! The maker of the New Yorker, Challenger, Charger,Fury etc. had litle to know capacity to make smaller , more fuel efficient cars. And couldn't raise the money privately to re-tool. That is why they got Federal loan guarantees and under Lee Iacocca used them well and returned to profitability.
GM was no better prepared than Chrysler. Remember the Vega ? Neither was Ford. Who can forget the Pinto ? The difference was that both had more cash on hand the ability to borrow what tehy needed to retool.
Gasohol started in the late 70's. There was no Federal mandate. As oil dropped in price and cars got smaller, there was REDUCED demand for ethanol in the 1980's.So much so that several gasohol plants went bankrupt.
You insist on refusing to focus on Melonie's point. It is that we are part of a global economy and that it is impossible for many of our factory workers to compete with Chinese, Vietnamese and Indian workers who can do the same work for a small fraction of what American workers NEED to survive. We can either institute protectionism which will increase prices for U.S. consumers and result in a trade war that will give us a REAL Depression OR we can focus on industries where we still lead the world like aerospace, computers etc. One thing we could and should do is to start punishing China for its outrageous thievery of our software and other technology.
You seem to be clinging to ancient union dogma. The days of the ILGWU in this country are OVER. 95% of our clothes are made overseas and it is going to stay that way. The same for many other industries built on unskilled labor. Rather than wring our hands over the changes wrought we ought to try and be nimble enough to change and adapt so that we remain competitive in an overall way.
One area where I am starting to agree with you is the widening gap in incomes. A LOT of that is because we have overemphisized Wall Street. Not a surprise when we have a Tax Code that encourages debt and leverage and discourages innovation and genuine investment. Plus a lot of privatizing profits and socializing losses. Nobody has fought harder for most of that stuff than Democrats like Schumer Dodd and Pelosi. One of the bigest reasons for record corporate profits was lay-offs and reduced salary and benefits as opposed to higher sales. They are sitting on about $2 trillion of money that is not being reinvested. Why ? Uncertainty over the Tax Code and the effects of Obamacare are two biggies.
We TRIED your model and TRIED increasing demand. Twice under Bush The Dumber and once under Obama. None of it worked. That is why many of us want genuine Tax Reform, lower regulations and greater encouragement to work , save and invest.
It is ALL political ! I have posted numerous times that it is impossible to look at any of this stuff in a political vacuum. What we can do is try and avoid personalizing and wring out the advocacy from our posts and just stick to the facts as much as possible.
minnow
06-11-2012, 08:47 AM
[QUOTE=Melonie;2360485]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).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Eric; I was taking issue with above post ( as well as posts by Mel in other threads) that assert that government employees don't really contribute to economic growth. I meant to point out that teachers, and the military do contribute to economic growth in terms not readily apparent in monetary measures. I never said that we don't need teachers, or the military.
Eric Stoner
06-11-2012, 08:50 AM
You said:
Ronald Reagan did not take office in the beginning of 1982.
We were talking about U.S. domestic policies, and reducing domestic consumption had a much greater impact on oil prices than any increase in domestic oil production. The world-wide increase in production was also a major factor in falling oil prices during the 1980's.
Oil consumption in the US decreased by close to 4 MMBPD from it's high in 1978. Why is this somehow less significant than Saudi Arabia increasing oil production by 3 MMBPD?
We were discussing wages for workers in the private sector, not government workers, so I don't know why you are bringing up government workers in Greece. In response to my post where I said most Americans would disagree with you that American workers should greatly reduce their wages, you said:
"Nonetheless, when faced with the economic realities of 'global' labor cost competition, workers whose high salaries ( by 'global' measures ) are dependent on ever growing gov't debt levels or ever shrinking employer profit levels will, sooner or later, face a choice of accepting a lower paying job or not having a job."
We are not seeing "ever shrinking employer profit levels". Corporations are having record profits. Therefore, there is no need to reduce worker wages. Greatly reducing worker wages is what will result in "ever shrinking employer profit levels". If workers' wages are greatly reduced, there will be nobody to buy the employers' products.
We are not talking about "non-self sustaining jobs". We are talking about jobs in general. The question that needs to be asked is whether paying workers a good salary does in fact make any positive contribution to a country's economy. Germany's experience, Sweden's experience, Switzerland's experience, the United States' experience... and numerous other historical examples... would indicate the answer is YES.
Again, I am in partial agreement with you but your preferred methods for creating and retaining the "good paying jobs" that we definitely need have been proven failures. I would prefer to see those jobs created in the PRIVATE sector and be filled by Americans or at least legal immigrants. Americans who were properly trained and prepared for those jobs by a school system that works. Who are able to shop around ( including across state lines ) for their own health insurance. Who are responsible for their own retirement and are able to save for same with a 401 K that they control. Who buy their cars and houses with 20 % down.
One encouraging trend that I HOPE is not just an isolated abberration : The two car washes I regularly patronize both had American high school kids working there.
Eric Stoner
06-11-2012, 08:52 AM
[QUOTE=Melonie;2360485]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).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Eric; I was taking issue with above post ( as well as posts by Mel in other threads) that assert that government employees don't really contribute to economic growth. I meant to point out that teachers, and the military do contribute to economic growth in terms not readily apparent in monetary measures. I never said that we don't need teachers, or the military.
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
bem401
06-11-2012, 10:26 AM
I was taking issue with above post ( as well as posts by Mel in other threads) that assert that government employees don't really contribute to economic growth. I meant to point out that teachers, and the military do contribute to economic growth in terms not readily apparent in monetary measures. I never said that we don't need teachers, or the military.
Government employees don't contribute to economic growth in that they don't create wealth like private industry does.
Eric Stoner
06-11-2012, 11:41 AM
Government employees don't contribute to economic growth in that they don't create wealth like private industry does.
It is worse than that. Government emplyees are a net drag on the economy. Now some are undoubtedly necessary. We need cops, firemen, sanitation people, teachers and various types of regulators. But the fact remains that they have to be paid for. And those that pay for them are the producers who do create real value.
Kellydancer
06-11-2012, 11:44 AM
That's another thing : WHY do we or did we have a nursing shortage ? Or a doctor shortage ? With the doctors it was/is OUR own medical schools restricting admissions for decades. And yet 2/3 of medical malpractice is committed by foreign trained doctors ! Where did the nursing shortage come from ? Why weren't we training more nurses instead of importing them ?
My understanding of the H1B Program is that the Government has to recognize a "shortage". What is it based on ? Who says that there is a shortage ? WHEN is the shortage filled.
It's bad enough that we import cheap junk made by people who are paid slave wages. Why do we have to import the "slaves" ?
The shortage issue in many cases is a lie. Last year I went for an interview for a marketing director. When I got there they told me the job was filled and I later found out the person who got it was a Visa worker. In fact all of the manager of this company were all workers from India. Meanwhile they offered me a job assisting the person who got the job and also asking inappropriate questions like do I have kids or smoke because "they will not hire smokers, overweight or moms". Talk about discrimination but that is yet another problem when you hire people from another culture they will enforce their beliefs.
I will not go to an Indian doctor. One of the reasons why is their medical schools do not have the same standards as the USA and many of them are only here to make money then go home. I am convinced my grandma's Indian doctor hastened her death because she kept over prescribing her medicine and sending her to the hospital more than she needed it. Not to mention I have heard Indian doctors tend to require more surgeries than any other doctors. I have friends who had Indian ob/gyn's and they are convinced they were forced to endure more c-sections and other pregnancy issues because of this.
Eric Stoner
06-11-2012, 12:23 PM
The shortage issue in many cases is a lie. Last year I went for an interview for a marketing director. When I got there they told me the job was filled and I later found out the person who got it was a Visa worker. In fact all of the manager of this company were all workers from India. Meanwhile they offered me a job assisting the person who got the job and also asking inappropriate questions like do I have kids or smoke because "they will not hire smokers, overweight or moms". Talk about discrimination but that is yet another problem when you hire people from another culture they will enforce their beliefs.
I will not go to an Indian doctor. One of the reasons why is their medical schools do not have the same standards as the USA and many of them are only here to make money then go home. I am convinced my grandma's Indian doctor hastened her death because she kept over prescribing her medicine and sending her to the hospital more than she needed it. Not to mention I have heard Indian doctors tend to require more surgeries than any other doctors. I have friends who had Indian ob/gyn's and they are convinced they were forced to endure more c-sections and other pregnancy issues because of this.
My questions were partly rhetorical. I think it is obvious that these "shortages" are Bullshit !
I too refuse to be treated by a foreign trained doctor. It ain't so easy. Plus I am being "politically incorrect". I almost caused a riot in an E.R. once because I had the gall toi insist that the doctor attending my mother be able to speak English ! Seriously. I was not my ususal , polite self that night let me tell you. Among my nicer remarks was "How the fuck did you get licensed ? Did you pay someone to take the test for you ? " I'm sorry but it was a "doctor" from Haiti and his English was horrible. It is no joke. Most American who graduate from U.S. medical schools go into research or high paying specialties. The foot soldiers: The Family practicioners, pediatricians and internists are for the most part are foreign trained. That is O.K. with me IF they can demonstrate competence and proficiency AND be able to communicate clearly with their patients and their families. The med mal stats clearly say that they are NOT !
Kellydancer
06-11-2012, 12:47 PM
I have dealt with doctors who couldn't speak English or barely and yes that angers me too. I suspect that part of this shortage (if there is one)is that American doctors can't afford medical school. Maybe the schools could offer more scholarships because I know people who considered medical school but couldn't afford it. I too would be leery of someone from Haiti because that is such a third world country and I can imagine their schools are poor. That is the case in most of these countries.
Melonie
06-11-2012, 01:23 PM
I was taking issue with above post ( as well as posts by Mel in other threads) that assert that government employees don't really contribute to economic growth. I meant to point out that teachers, and the military do contribute to economic growth in terms not readily apparent in monetary measures. I never said that we don't need teachers, or the military.
Government employees don't contribute to economic growth in that they don't create wealth like private industry does.
It is worse than that. Government emplyees are a net drag on the economy. Now some are undoubtedly necessary. We need cops, firemen, sanitation people, teachers and various types of regulators. But the fact remains that they have to be paid for. And those that pay for them are the producers who do create real value.
Thank you for simplifying my point down to it's bare minimum. While the services provided by certain public sector workers are indeed of value, with extremely few exceptions private sector workers do NOT create 'value'. Instead they consume 'value' produced by private sector workers, via gov't transfer of wealth through taxes. Or put simply, every single dollar in the paycheck of public sector teachers, firemen, GI's etc. is a dollar that was first 'taken away' from a private sector business or worker. Every single dollar spent into the economy by a public sector worker is a dollar that a private sector worker or business was unable to spend because it was taxed away and 'given' to a public sector worker.
If 'good paying' public sector jobs actually made a positive contribution to a country's economy, Greece with it's 1/3rd of all workers employed in the public sector with 'good paying' jobs and good employee benefits would be doing great !!!
Siddarth
06-11-2012, 05:16 PM
The shortage issue in many cases is a lie. Last year I went for an interview for a marketing director. When I got there they told me the job was filled and I later found out the person who got it was a Visa worker. In fact all of the manager of this company were all workers from India. Meanwhile they offered me a job assisting the person who got the job and also asking inappropriate questions like do I have kids or smoke because "they will not hire smokers, overweight or moms". Talk about discrimination but that is yet another problem when you hire people from another culture they will enforce their beliefs.
I will not go to an Indian doctor. One of the reasons why is their medical schools do not have the same standards as the USA and many of them are only here to make money then go home. I am convinced my grandma's Indian doctor hastened her death because she kept over prescribing her medicine and sending her to the hospital more than she needed it. Not to mention I have heard Indian doctors tend to require more surgeries than any other doctors. I have friends who had Indian ob/gyn's and they are convinced they were forced to endure more c-sections and other pregnancy issues because of this.
They should have asked you, "What do you bring to the table?"
As far as Indian doctors are concerned, they rock. They tend to be not greedy and above all they care about their patients. Many of them volunteer to organizations that provide free healthcare.
As far as competitiveness of Indian doctors is concerned, they are pretty solid. Medical journals around the globe are full of their accomplishments.
eagle2
06-11-2012, 06:45 PM
It is worse than that. Government emplyees are a net drag on the economy. Now some are undoubtedly necessary. We need cops, firemen, sanitation people, teachers and various types of regulators. But the fact remains that they have to be paid for. And those that pay for them are the producers who do create real value.
Government workers are not a net drag on the economy, as long as the work they are doing is productive. There are many services vital to a modern economy provided by the government, that without them, a modern economy would not be possible. Without government services, such as providing running water, processing sewage, collecting trash, building roads and bridges, running airports and air-traffic control systems, a modern economy could not exist. The "producers who do create real value" would most likely not be able to function without all of these government services.
bem401
06-11-2012, 06:49 PM
It is worse than that. Government emplyees are a net drag on the economy. Now some are undoubtedly necessary. We need cops, firemen, sanitation people, teachers and various types of regulators. But the fact remains that they have to be paid for. And those that pay for them are the producers who do create real value.
The running joke here in RI is the following:
Q : Why don't government workers look out the window in the morning?
A : Because they need something to do in the afternoon.
As far as being treated by as foreign doctor is concerned. I had open-heart surgery for an aortic aneurism along with a valve replacement conducted by a surgeon of Indian descent ( I don't know where he went to college). That being said, he is considered a rock star among doctors in this area.
eagle2
06-11-2012, 06:58 PM
Thank you for simplifying my point down to it's bare minimum. While the services provided by certain public sector workers are indeed of value, with extremely few exceptions private sector workers do NOT create 'value'. Instead they consume 'value' produced by private sector workers, via gov't transfer of wealth through taxes. Or put simply, every single dollar in the paycheck of public sector teachers, firemen, GI's etc. is a dollar that was first 'taken away' from a private sector business or worker. Every single dollar spent into the economy by a public sector worker is a dollar that a private sector worker or business was unable to spend because it was taxed away and 'given' to a public sector worker.
It's not a dollar 'taken away' from a private sector business or worker. The private sector business or worker is paying for a service. It's no different than paying a private sector business for the service. If you travel from Boston to New York on the government-owned and operated Acela, the value provided is approximately the same as if you took a privately operated airline or bus. Just because a service is provided by the government doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
If 'good paying' public sector jobs actually made a positive contribution to a country's economy, Greece with it's 1/3rd of all workers employed in the public sector with 'good paying' jobs and good employee benefits would be doing great !!!
Germany has a higher percentage of workers employed by the government than Greece. China's percentage is much higher.
http://www.happensingreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/chart-of-the-day-public-sector-employment-as-of-total-employment-nov-2011.jpg
According to your ideology, Greece should be doing better than both countries, but is doing much worse. How do you explain this?
The percentage of gdp being paid to the government in Greece is below the EU average.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Greece_EU_average_revenues_1999-2010.png/350px-Greece_EU_average_revenues_1999-2010.png
Why isn't Greece's economy doing above average, compared to the other EU countries?