More economics questions

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by AnonCastillo

On that subject, Odjn, what part of the country do you live in?

The best part.

[Kepor]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

What about lower taxes on businesses bringing businesses back to the US? Is that fact or myth?

Probably a myth, as a major factor in industry flight is cost of labor.

Also, as for the disparity in incomes, while it's a good thing that standard of living for the poor classes has risen from olden times, a wide gap between poor and rich tends to lead to economic stagnation.

[Fifthfiend]

Glad to see you're just as condescending as ever.

Originally Posted by AnonCastillo

And you guys accuse me of living in a fairy tale capitalist world. :P

When you raise the minimum wage, two things happen to varying degrees: companies raise prices to offset the loss of wages, and companies lay off their least productive workers and hire fewer workers from groups they tend to discriminate against (whether it be teenagers, the elderly, minorities, women, what have you). True, the cost of their own production workers is only a portion of their budget, but the cost of purchasing things produced by other businesses' workers, which will go up in price with an increase in minimum wage, stacks on top of that cost and drives prices up further.



The disparity is greater because the rich have more, not because the poor have less. You argue about this disparity as though it's a bad thing, as though all people should have an equal share of everything; why? Each person is different. Each person contributes a different amount to his or her fellow human beings, and what they receive back should be proportional to what they give. I agree that many of the rich today are there not because they are capable managers or because they contributed a good invention or discovery to humanity, but because they are able to manipulate our political system for their own gain, but I'm at least as strongly opposed to corporatism as you are. There should be disparity in society, so long as that disparity is based upon the contributions people have made to society. Also, just because the rich are getting richer much faster than the poor does not mean the poor are not getting richer (or weren't until recently); I know plenty of people who live in the ghetto and would be considered lower class who own cell phones with internet connections, big screen tvs, and have multiple cars per household. Are they poor relative to todays rich? Sure. Are they as poor as the poor of 50 years ago? Fuck no.



God, capitalism was one of the forces that helped spread democracy by creating a middle class that fought for the rights of the non-aristocratic. It's also helped develop countries, first to industrial age levels and then to modern technological levels. What a horrible system of economics! Who wants voting rights and modern technology when we could all live off the land under a monarch?

I fail to see how capitalism being a driving force behind democracy is a bad thing, but I do see how the current corporatist investment in our democratic republic is harmful, but removing the influence of big business from government is another discussion altogether.



Due to capitalism, our workforce is more mobile today than it has been at any time in history, and was becoming more mobile every year for a while. Maybe it's peaked, but I think the work force would be continuing to become more mobile were it not for the failings of American auto makers as well as the current global economic crisis, both of which are the fault of corporatism for protecting failing businesses, not capitalism, which would let failing businesses die to make room for new ones. Do you sometimes get "feifdoms" of wages based on geographical economic conditions? Sure, but would more capitalism and less regulation still help those areas? Usually, yes.

I live in Nebraska, one of the reddest states in the country, a right to work/non-union state, and Taco Bell was hiring people at $8/hour when the minimum wage was $5.15. While our state is feeling a bit of the global economic crisis, we're feeling it a hell of a lot less than most of the rest of the country. The states feeling it the most are generally the most liberal, the west coast states and new england. In 2002, when we hit the first bush recession, what was the only state in the country to gain industrial sector jobs instead of losing them? Nevada, one of the states with the lowest taxes and fewest regulations on business.

On that subject, Odjn, what part of the country do you live in?

Glad to see you're still justifying it

[Kurosen]

While our state is feeling a bit of the global economic crisis, we're feeling it a hell of a lot less than most of the rest of the country. The states feeling it the most are generally the most liberal, the west coast states and new england.

...Because the sharp decline in real estate value is a pretty big factor of the economic crisis and that's where the most real estate value is in the US, so of course they'll be hit harder than Nowhere, Midwest USA. It has nothing to do with how many blue or red states are in those regions. Good god.

[Kepor]

Concerning the point of industry flight and mobility of labor; it's not that the labor force isn't mobile, but that labor is much less mobile than capital. So then it's easier for business to move from place to place than it is for workers to move from place to place.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

Doing this from a cell phone.

What about lower taxes on businesses bringing businesses back to the US? Is that fact or myth?

Also thanks for the responses so far, going to dole out some rep when I get home.

That is a tricky issue and would depend on the industry. It might work for some but for most industries labour is far cheaper overseas so it's easier to get them to do it.
But mostly it seems unlikely.

Originally Posted by AnonCastillo

When you raise the minimum wage, two things happen to varying degrees: companies raise prices to offset the loss of wages, and companies lay off their least productive workers and hire fewer workers from groups they tend to discriminate against (whether it be teenagers, the elderly, minorities, women, what have you). True, the cost of their own production workers is only a portion of their budget, but the cost of purchasing things produced by other businesses' workers, which will go up in price with an increase in minimum wage, stacks on top of that cost and drives prices up further.

Only true in the very short term. Not in the long term which is what actually counts.

And you still have no idea where business costs actually are. It's in management, it's in adminstration, it's in the offices. Factories are cheap as piss.

The disparity is greater because the rich have more, not because the poor have less. You argue about this disparity as though it's a bad thing, as though all people should have an equal share of everything; why? Each person is different. Each person contributes a different amount to his or her fellow human beings, and what they receive back should be proportional to what they give. I agree that many of the rich today are there not because they are capable managers or because they contributed a good invention or discovery to humanity, but because they are able to manipulate our political system for their own gain, but I'm at least as strongly opposed to corporatism as you are. There should be disparity in society, so long as that disparity is based upon the contributions people have made to society. Also, just because the rich are getting richer much faster than the poor does not mean the poor are not getting richer (or weren't until recently); I know plenty of people who live in the ghetto and would be considered lower class who own cell phones with internet connections, big screen tvs, and have multiple cars per household. Are they poor relative to todays rich? Sure. Are they as poor as the poor of 50 years ago? Fuck no.

You know where a lot of American corporations workers are? In Africa and Asia. And they are as poor as 50 years ago and live in tremendous poverty because of attitudes like that.
Why do we need disparity and diversity? It has been shown (though a bit tentaviely) that with our current technology and resources the entire world could be supported such that everyone can live a healthy life. I mean, really now, do you actually think the world we live in is better than that.

And contributions to the society? The 1930s called and wants its ideology back. The key determanent to how much someone to contribute to society is not their inherent personal characteristics, it is the environment that are born into it. So basically what you are saying is, If I'm born into immense poverty and therefore can't get an education, can't get enough to eat and thus spend my life on the streets not contributing to society my poverty is my own fault for not contributing to society?
The only way that view can possibly ever be justified is if everyone had exactly the same opportunities and lifestyle from birth. But that is antithetical to capitalism.

God, capitalism was one of the forces that helped spread democracy by creating a middle class that fought for the rights of the non-aristocratic. It's also helped develop countries, first to industrial age levels and then to modern technological levels. What a horrible system of economics! Who wants voting rights and modern technology when we could all live off the land under a monarch?

Complete rot. Capitalism helped develop our tremendously undemocratic systems of government which are about as democratic as dictatorship.
In addition the creation of the middle class was one of the forces which helped stunt democratic development, particularly in the US and England, and vest power in few hands.
And key democratic authours like Voltaire, like Payne, like Diderot- they complained about the exact same things back then. Voltaire saw what would happen with unrestrained development, just like Marx did a hundred years later.
I don't know how you can look upon the political systems that have developed alongside capitalism as a good thing.
I suggest you read A New American History by Eric Foner- a good introduction to this topic.

Due to capitalism, our workforce is more mobile today than it has been at any time in history, and was becoming more mobile every year for a while. Maybe it's peaked, but I think the work force would be continuing to become more mobile were it not for the failings of American auto makers as well as the current global economic crisis, both of which are the fault of corporatism for protecting failing businesses, not capitalism, which would let failing businesses die to make room for new ones. Do you sometimes get "feifdoms" of wages based on geographical economic conditions? Sure, but would more capitalism and less regulation still help those areas? Usually, yes.

Seriously?
You do realise capitalism is the very reason for the lack of mobility I was talking about. You realise that the car and airplane industries have been powerful enough that they have stopped any developments in transport technology because it would cost money to reoutfit thier factory.
We still drive in 1920s designs and fly in 1950s designs. People have designed vastly more efficient cars using electronic systems and people have designed jets which don't cost millions of dollars in airfuel every time you add a few extra seats.
Why haven't we seen any of these? Because the very lifeblood of capitalism is short-term profit. While these technologies might make money in the long run for the big corporations, it is far too expensive and hugely risky in the short run to produce them. So they stamped out anybody with ideas. Capitalism is inherentely reactionary as it is the way big business stays on top. And they can easily afford to shut down competitors.
The global recession is EXACTLY the fault of capitalism because it is BUILT INTO THE VERY SYSTEM OF CAPITALISM. What part of boom and bust don't you understand? People have been predicting this recession since the early 90s far before government protectionism was all the rage. Shit, Marx predicted the cycle of the recessions in the 1840s. The global recession is not only an outcome of capitalism but IS PART OF THE POINT OF CAPITALISM.
As for mobility, you are seriously deluding yourself. The average worker is no more mobile than he was in the 1950s. You can only work in your local area as you need to get to and from work every day. And these people often have to work multiple jobs which makes it even worse. There is only so far you can drive and thanks to the auto
As for selecting an area, they are far too poor to do that.
To get proper mobility not only do you need a state that can fund full public transport as well as invest in new technologies but you need people rich enough to move around. And that's a total fantasy land.

I live in Nebraska, one of the reddest states in the country, a right to work/non-union state, and Taco Bell was hiring people at $8/hour when the minimum wage was $5.15. While our state is feeling a bit of the global economic crisis, we're feeling it a hell of a lot less than most of the rest of the country. The states feeling it the most are generally the most liberal, the west coast states and new england. In 2002, when we hit the first bush recession, what was the only state in the country to gain industrial sector jobs instead of losing them? Nevada, one of the states with the lowest taxes and fewest regulations on business.

Did you miss my entire point? Sure they may pay you $3 an hour more to attract you but that is completely irrelevant. It is still not in the same galaxy as what the upper levels earn. That will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to cover a poverty gap.
You know, only looking at US states is not a particularly effective sample. Notice how the US is being hit harder by the recession than pratically any other country while also being one of the most unregulated, tax exempt countries around. See I can make examples that prove my point to.
And the phenomenon you are talking about is well known. It is called the economics of fear where during a recession business flees to tax-havens to keep maintaining short-term profit.
Edit: Or what Brian said. I don'tknow the exact details of state by state economies in the US.

[Odjn]

Originally Posted by AnonCastillo

God, capitalism was one of the forces that helped spread democracy by creating a middle class that fought for the rights of the non-aristocratic. It's also helped develop countries, first to industrial age levels and then to modern technological levels. What a horrible system of economics! Who wants voting rights and modern technology when we could all live off the land under a monarch?

Ironically the biggest proponents of capitalism were the merchants who quickly became royalty by having so much money. See the Medicis. While capitalism took power away from the nobles and eventually the monarchs, it was just handed to the merchants.

Originally Posted by AnonCastillo

Due to capitalism, our workforce is more mobile today than it has been at any time in history, and was becoming more mobile every year for a while. Maybe it's peaked, but I think the work force would be continuing to become more mobile were it not for the failings of American auto makers as well as the current global economic crisis, both of which are the fault of corporatism for protecting failing businesses, not capitalism, which would let failing businesses die to make room for new ones. Do you sometimes get "feifdoms" of wages based on geographical economic conditions? Sure, but would more capitalism and less regulation still help those areas? Usually, yes.

I live in Nebraska, one of the reddest states in the country, a right to work/non-union state, and Taco Bell was hiring people at $8/hour when the minimum wage was $5.15. While our state is feeling a bit of the global economic crisis, we're feeling it a hell of a lot less than most of the rest of the country. The states feeling it the most are generally the most liberal, the west coast states and new england. In 2002, when we hit the first bush recession, what was the only state in the country to gain industrial sector jobs instead of losing them? Nevada, one of the states with the lowest taxes and fewest regulations on business.

On that subject, Odjn, what part of the country do you live in?

Proper regulation is a good thing, in the same way saying don't kill people is a good regulation. Anyone who thinks business, especially business in America, should be completely unregulated is giving a registered pedophile the key to a nursery. Anyone who knows what's going on is screaming NO DON'T DO IT.

I've lived in New Jersey and parts of New York. Mentioned this already, as well as the name of the big mall near me.

The mobile workforce is only the middle class. I can afford to drive 30 to 45 minutes to work and back because I make a truly ridiculous amount of money when people are at the bar. The same housekeepers literally go two to five a car and the managers have to organize shifts so they can all drive together.
Gas in NJ is actually cheaper than anything, but you can't really afford to drive somewhere that costs even a gallon of gas when the cheapest apartments run from 650-700 for a studio with a bathroom to 800-900 for a single bed and bath, let alone for a family!

[Jagos]

Proper regulation is a good thing, in the same way saying don't kill people is a good regulation. Anyone who thinks business, especially business in America, should be completely unregulated is giving a registered pedophile the key to a nursery. Anyone who knows what's going on is screaming NO DON'T DO IT.

Hate to say, that's a horrible analogy. I don't think anyone necessarily wants business to have unfettered freedom to charge willy nilly (besides, most people won't afford the prices a business wants until it hits equilibrium) but that's part of the political process.

And the phenomenon you are talking about is well known. It is called the economics of fear where during a recession business flees to tax-havens to keep maintaining short-term profit.

Funny, because when recessions come up, it's the USD that most investors in other countries fall back on. That, and gold.

Only true in the very short term. Not in the long term which is what actually counts.

And you still have no idea where business costs actually are. It's in management, it's in adminstration, it's in the offices. Factories are cheap as piss.

Source?

Because the sharp decline in real estate value is a pretty big factor of the economic crisis and that's where the most real estate value is in the US, so of course they'll be hit harder than Nowhere, Midwest USA.

To add:
California, Nevada and Florida are the hardest hit for taxes on housing.

There's more than one reason people are moving OUT of Cali. Nevada had people moving into a desert town to make it big. People retired in Florida. But notice that these three states didn't really have property taxes, so speculators could go nuts on flipping houses.

So basically what you are saying is, If I'm born into immense poverty and therefore can't get an education, can't get enough to eat and thus spend my life on the streets not contributing to society my poverty is my own fault for not contributing to society?

Or volunteer for the military, do your 20 years and focus on an end objective of a house, children and being well traveled. That's what a lot of guys and girls do to get out of the ghettos of LA or wherever they are. Doesn't work for everyone but honestly, how many people can be kings or high society under a monarchy?

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Or volunteer for the military, do your 20 years and focus on an end objective of a house, children and being well traveled. That's what a lot of guys and girls do to get out of the ghettos of LA or wherever they are. Doesn't work for everyone but honestly, how many people can be kings or high society under a monarchy?

This was a great comment and then I realized you weren't being sarcastic.

[Jagos]

Honestly, you got PTSD, gangsta Marines, and trigger happy kids with SAWs watching your back. Where can you not find comedy?