skirtcafe.org

In other words, you don't have a viable solution.

Now that you have made that clear, would you please belay that bilge and let the rest of us give the democratic process yet another chance.

Our country's been through worse and came out better for the wear: The initial Revolution, the Civil War, the Gilded Age (we toppled that oligarchy without firing a shot), the Great Depression, and WWII, just to name a few biggies that come to mind.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Now that you have made that clear, would you please belay that bilge and let the rest of us give the democratic process yet another chance.

Dave, feel free to put me on "ignore", or better yet we can "agree to disagree" the way that adults do. Stop trying to silence me. Some things need to get aired, and I rather doubt that even you don't see the current situation as being an overt mess for the general population.

Dave,
Remember that Venezuela used to be a free and prosperous country. We have trends in the US, if continued, could result in the US becoming like Venezuela. We can see what is happening in Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as other parts of California.

Except for the Civil War, I don't think there has been as much division in our country as it is now.

OK, mainly for Dave, here are a few ideas.

• Undo the early 1980s inversion of tax rates for earned versus unearned income,
• Use the resulting revenue not as a give-away (which is not sustainable) but to
  • Invest in fixing the badly deteriorated national infrastructure,
  • Rebuild a meaningful domestic manufacturing economy,
  • "Encourage" companies to reinvest in their operations instead of distributing the profits to the corporate officers and preferred shareholders,
  • "Encourage" more equitable pay rates between the highest- and lowest- paid sectors of society
• Set prudent, practical, and achievable goals for the nation,
• Abandon the silly and demonstrably failed "War on {whatever}" notions that pervade mind-space today,
• Reform the intelligence communities so we'll have at least a semblance of a clue what adversaries are thinking/plotting,
• Reduce the size of the standing military using the intelligence gained above,
• Abandon "old thinking" where it clearly produces no viable results and experiment with novel thoughts; they can't do any worse than old thinking

There are just a few. Looking in from the outside at the way the place is being run now, how likely do you think that even one of those ideas will be put into policy and practice? Personally, I posit that the odds are nil. Will the class that profits from any/all of the above not happening allow the above to happen? Who pulls the strings?

But, contemplate -- if just for a moment -- the benefits to society, the national mind-set, and the overall prosperity of the nation.

h Mainly to John H & Carl,

Whatever on earth made either of you think I’m in favor of the status quo?! I’ve only tried to maintain that elections still matter and Carl your constant harping on your theories about the conspiracy of the oligarchy can only lead to the people who listen to you not voting!

Carl, your tax plan is a good start, goes nowhere near far enough. Here’s my additions:

• Restore the Eisenhower era tax brackets, indexed for inflation, but with a top marginal rate of at least 90% and tweaked at the low end so the Earned Income Credit isn’t screwed up
  Adopt Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax Plan (the middle class pays one it’s called the real estate property tax)
  Revamp the Alternative Minimum Tax and add indexing for inflation so it’s restored to its original intent
  Adopt Rep. DeFazio’s securities transaction tax
  As some other Democrat proposed, increase the top brackets of the estate tax so the portion of an estate over $1 billion is taxed at 77%.
  Make sure that the Earned Interest tax preference is repealed
  Along with the tax travesties Trump passed.

For sure we need to invest in infrastructure, but we also need to invest in people by recognizing health care as a right and that college and post high school trade school education are necessities for the our younger generation.

As for manufacturing, we need to spend more on basic scientific research and the necessary R&D to create the green economy. No matter what we do manufacturing is never again going to be that gusher of family wage jobs that it used to be. All over the world the percentage of each nation’s workforce in manufacturing is declining.

In addition, the whole process is too automated now. Even in small factories there are a few very highly skilled, highly paid machines who program and set up the CNC machines and a fair number who feed stock and pull completed parts. As opposed to the whole range of skills and wage rates that you have seen up through the ‘60’s or ‘70’s.

For sure we need at least a $15/hour minimum wage and, I’d say along with Yang, a universal minimum income.

Our intelligence services are among the best in the world, but I agree we need to get them out of our domestic communications, it’s proven to be a total waste of time.

Good luck with killing major weapons systems. Every time one goes into production, the successful bidder’s purchasing managers are tasked with making sure that there’s at least one piece part comes out of every single Congressional District in the country.

What are the odds of all this coming to pass? You’re right, nil ... if you succeed in convincing everyone who agrees with you to not bother to vote because the oligarchy is pulling all of the strings! Or waste your votes on 3rd party candidates who don’t have a hope in Hell.

On the other hand, if you help elect Elizabeth Warren and see to it she has a Democratic House and Senate to support her, what’s to stop those efforts I outlined?

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Carl, your tax plan is a good start, goes nowhere near far enough.

The reason I kept it relatively simple is that an incremental approach will be easier for the population to deal with instead of an everything-at-once approach. Recall that there will be massive pushback on resetting the tax code to something close to equitable -- and much of the population actually believes that the current system is working. I absolutely agree that a meaningful estate tax needs to be in place, but imagine the whining when the elites frame it as a tax on what's left of the middle class.

I like the restoration of the Eisenhower-era brackets, and there is a wealth of evidence that those rates did not hurt the nation in the slightest. However, that won't fly with the unlimited amount of advertising on TV that'll ensue. There's a lot of propaganda out there and, unfortunately, a lot of gullible people.

For sure we need to invest in infrastructure, but we also need to invest in people by recognizing health care as a right and that college and post high school trade school education are necessities for the our younger generation.

Start by dumping Romneycare and break the pernicious misinterpretation that health "insurance" equates to health care. All the for-profit insurance industry does is charge obscene premiums whilst tightening the screws on the folks who need care as well the providers. As far as education goes, start by dropping "no child left behind" which has been a massive drag on municipal economies and start by focussing early; too, we need to make post high-school education affordable again so those just graduating aren't saddled with debts that'll take decades to pay off. Figure out where the money is going in the tuition game.

Here's a novel idea if you're looking for one that's almost as ambitious as going to the moon, and it's directly related to health and well-being: How about a cure for diabetes before the next decade is out? Not a treatment, but a cure.

As for manufacturing, we need to spend more on basic scientific research and the necessary R&D to create the green economy. No matter what we do manufacturing is never again going to be that gusher of family wage jobs that it used to be.

Building a green economy certainly would help, but it'd also help immensely if the components to support it were manufactured here instead of China. Manufacturing is also important for social and economic sustainability; the USA needs to become a net exporter of goods that people want to buy instead of a net importer. Exports are how countries bring wealth into the country; importing puts the flow the other way.

For sure we need at least a $15/hour minimum wage and, I’d say along with Yang, a universal minimum income.

Given the knee-jerk way that US citizens react whenever there's even a hint of Socialism (Gasp! He said a dirty word!) in the air, I suspect that one wouldn't fly in the court of public opinion.

Our intelligence services are among the best in the world, but I agree we need to get them out of our domestic communications, it’s proven to be a total waste of time.

They missed 9/11 flat out, and are pretty rotten at dealing with the Middle East in general. The problem is that the entire thing's mission has largely disappeared with the demise of the Soviet Union and it hasn't been able to reinvent itself to deal with modern threats -- which are vastly more dangerous than the Old Soviet Union was.

What are the odds of all this coming to pass? You’re right, nil ... if you succeed in convincing everyone who agrees with you to not bother to vote because the oligarchy is pulling all of the strings! Or waste your votes on 3rd party candidates who don’t have a hope in Hell.

Believe it or not, I vote. Or, at the very least I go through the motions and have voted in every major election and any number of smaller ones since I hit the age of majority.

On the other hand, if you help elect Elizabeth Warren and see to it she has a Democratic House and Senate to support her, what’s to stop those efforts I outlined?

If Warren or Sanders even gets close to being on the general ballot I'll be entirely and extremely astonished. Unless Biden manages to screw up badly, he'll be the Democrats' chosen one simply because he's safe and won't fiddle with the status quo; he's already stated that he'd retain Romneycare which will certainly endear him to the insurance companies and the fat-cats that run those. Recall that the Democrats pulled the same stupid tactic in 2016 by picking the "safe" one and look what that got us -- even a large chunk of the normally-solid party members couldn't vote for the candidate. Are they going to do it again? The smart money says, "Yes." However, that's not a call or encouragement to walk away from the system no matter how disgusted one is with it.

I agree "No child left behind" is a disaster. Students study to pass the tests and forget what was taught once they take the tests. And it was pushed by that eloquent golden tongue scholar George W. Bush.

We also need policies to encourage stock holders to keep their assets longer and to discourage the churning of stocks so companies will think long term instead of maximizing quarterly (or shorter term) profits.

crfriend wrote:

pdxfashionpioneer wrote:For sure we need at least a $15/hour minimum wage and, I’d say along with Yang, a universal minimum income.

Given the knee-jerk way that US citizens react whenever there's even a hint of Socialism (Gasp! He said a dirty word!) in the air, I suspect that one wouldn't fly in the court of public opinion.

I am the average working class American, uneducated, dimwitted, and without years of time to ponder over economics, I have no issue with people making a decent wage, but what is to stop the overall business community from doubling prices when this new minimum wage is enacted?

They will.

You will say "but it's been proven in cities that already have a $15 minimum wage that prices do not tend to rise"

To that I say, or course not, because those cities are basically an economic "island" a grocery store isn't going to charge $7 for a gallon of milk when shoppers can just drive across the county line where the minimum wage isn't as high and purchase it for $3.50.

Make it $15 nation wide and consumers have nowhere to go.

Note I never said that companies can't survive on a $15 minimum wage without raising prices, I'm simply saying most of them wont.

$15 is happening whether it's a good idea or not. Mark my word though, within 5 years of its passing, people will be demanding it be raised to $20 or $25 because as suddenly $15 per hour doesn't go a far as it used to....

'Magine that....

And oh by the way, those of us who have scratched a clawed to finally make a living in the $15-$20 bracket will suddenly find ourselves making minimum wage all over again, with staggering cost of living increases. And I'm sorry, but the 15 year old bag boy at the grocery store who suddenly makes the same amount of money as the 40 year old laborer doesn't have a mortgage, car payment, utility bills, and a table full of mouths to feed.

Unless you find someway to control the cost of goods and services, raising the minimum wage only benefits the ultra wealthy.... the people who own the rights to raw commodities, and the capitalist investors that bring those commodities to consumers.

But to control the cost of goods, services and labor puts us deep into socialist (maybe even a little communist) territory, so I don't know how well that will fly.

We tried wage and price control, initiated by Nixon. It was a disaster as it really distorted the economy. Instead we need to have policies that encourage the creation of jobs so there is competition for employees to raise wages and benefits. I also suspect there is collusion between human resources of companies to hold down wage and benefits.

JohnH wrote:Instead we need to have policies that encourage the creation of jobs so there is competition for employees to raise wages and benefits.

I would tend to agree. And to make it clear, lest I get accused of being some kind of "left wing commie", I'm generally not in favor of price control. I was simply saying that some form of price control would be the only way raising the minimum wage would benefit anyone but the ultra rich.

I'm curious as to the response from those in support [of a min wage hike] to my question of "what's to stop prices for goods and services from doubling?"

They will. Those who think otherwise have way too much faith in the capitalist mindset. It is to make money, afterall.

Lest we forget, these are the same people who shipped our manufacturing base off to Mexico and China in the name of easy profit... what... do these "pro $15 per hour" people actually think that these same industry leaders are going to hold prices down.... because "it's the right thing to do??" They don't give a damn about working class people! They only care about one thing.... $$$

The very notion is laughable!

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:For sure we need at least a $15/hour minimum wage and, I’d say along with Yang, a universal minimum income.

I had never even considered such a concept as a UMI, and would almost dismiss it until I watched a 30 minute video on welfare in general.

Interesting idea, not saying it's the best plan (I don't know what is)... but certainly worthy of additional consideration and study. Though in the video he suggest eliminating the minimum wage all together should a UMI be implemented.

https://youtu.be/s4EuaMxL--s

I can hypothetical a few faults in the logic, or potential issues, but I admit much of this is over my head.

Personally I don't think there is a viable answer at all to any of this. I'm just hoping I don't live long enough to really see the bottom fall out. I'm not being a cynical pessimist, I just know 2+2 always equals 4, and for the last several hundred years humanity in general has operated on the idea that 2+2=5, it doesn't. Sooner or the chickens will come home to roost and everything in the universe balances out.

Good Afternoon Everyone

After going back to page 2 of this thread, trying to find information pertaining to
the original "Topic", I feel like "Alice" as she went down the rabbit hole. The Looking
Glass is not showing ANYTHING near the original post. This is turning into a political
'bashing', if you will, of democratic VS socialistic concepts.

Personally, I don't want to see the U.S.A. turn into a 3rd world country, as Venezuela has
over the past 10 years. I've watched the increase in 'minimum wage', which sounds like a good idea, end up being
passed on to the consumer with higher prices for goods & services.
This is a prime example of Socialism. The "Bernie Sanders" ilk would have you believe that
Socialism works. Then explain to me how Bernie Sanders wants to 'spread the wealth' yet
he drives an $80,000.00 car and has become a millionaire on the back of the U.S. Taxpayers?

I'ld rank Elizabeth Warren next to the Wicked Witch from California, Nancy Pelosi. She wants
"Open Boarders" yet has a 10' tall security wall around her estate. (To protect her property
and family.) Why not protect ALL Americans

I'm not looking through "Rose Colored Glasses" but, the existing 'Liberals'(from the West Coast)
scares the Be-Geebers out of me. If any of them get elected, say hello to Venezuela-American style.

OK - Enough

Yes, I've added my $.02 worth to the fray but let's get back "On Topic" instead of running
a political "3-Ring Circus". I'm starting to see the HEAT building up and we're about
to run out of water to put any fires out.

PLEASE - Be civil enough to understand each member has their opinion.
STOP trying to co-hearse people to YOUR WAY OF THINKING
I am not a 'sheeple', stop treating me like one

Uncle Al


(Trying to find more firetrucks - in case they're needed.)

Actually, my question is genuine and not meant to be provocative or sarcastic. Dave and Carl alike are both well read, educated people. Dave being an accountant, has a way with numbers, Carl, being in computing also would have a way with numbers. I myself, am but a common layman... but I do wonder, when the cost of labor increases, what would prevent an increase in the cost of goods and services that that labor produces?

My involvement in this discussion isn't meant to be political, as I have tried to avoid naming political leaders other than in historical context, my involvement is simply an exploration into economics, a subject that I find interesting.

I have ran through many hypotheticals in my head, each one was met with hurdles, some worse than others, hence my suggestion that there may simply be no workable answer. I have some deep and involved thoughts on this that I'd be happy to share on a proper keyboard, in the mean time a fresh thread wouldn't offend me as we are indeed light years away from the original topic.

An interesting subject and one i feel we should be able to have without glorifying/demonizing whatever political party is in power at the moment, or whatever "ism" is in vogue these days. Those all shall pass, but the world continues on nevertheless. The flow of money, afterall, cares not who is in power.

Uncle Al - no need to intervene. I’m learning a lot by reading the interactions between Moon, Dave and Carl. Sure, there’s some sniping, but not a lot. I still see respect and restraint flowing. Keep it up, chaps!

Second point. Many European countries have an element of socialism in their social structures. It’s a good thing, not some instrument of terror or fear. Have a read about it if you want. I smile when I read posts like yours. We had a pretty decent Labour government for 10 years or so (give or take a stupid war) and the country did just fine. Not my party of choice but credit where credit is due. IMAO of course!

JohnH wrote:We tried wage and price control, initiated by Nixon. It was a disaster as it really distorted the economy.

The domestic economy was pretty badly distorted when Nixon took that ballsy step -- and, yes, it smacked pretty badly of all-out socialism. My grandfather railed about it at the time, but, in the end, it quite likely saved the entire thing from collapsing even if it did leave a bad taste in the laissez-faire capitalists' mouths.

I enjoy pointing out when others bring up the spectre of "Socialism" that humans band into societies for a reason. Societies are stronger than the sum of their parts. They offer security that the "law of the jungle" does not. They allow us to sleep at night and allow the species to do remarkable things.

Now, don't misread that; unrestrained Socialism is fully as bad as unrestrained (laissez-faire) Capitalism. What's needed is a graceful blend of the two, and the precise blend is unique to each society. So what works in Denmark is not going to work in the US, nor would what "works" in the US work in Greece.

Sometimes it swings back and forth; the US has seen that a few times, most notably with the Gilded Age and the big crash of 1929. Both times, the run-up to, and the panic (to use the old term) that followed caused the government to take action to keep the problem from happening again. Both times, the laissz-faire faction got the regulations and legislation repealed -- with entirely predictable results: another big crash, one in 1929 and a few minor ones in the 1980s and early 2000s followed by another massive one in 2008. Clearly the US hasn't learnt its lesson. Worse still is that even the patchwork attempt to reintroduce back-stop legislation and regulation in 2009 and '10 has all since been repealed. We're right back where we were in 1929 -- and the next big one might well trip off the sorts of insanity seen in the 1930s when everybody goes bust at once. You'd think we'd learn...

Instead we need to have policies that encourage the creation of jobs so there is competition for employees to raise wages and benefits.

Here's where the tax (He said a dirty word!) code can assist. Instead of allowing companies to siphon all the profits (and frequently more) from operations to the Corporate officers and the preferred stakeholders the society (There's that word again.) can place a tax on monies that are being so moved which is a disincentive for companies to engage in that behaviour; benefits can be granted using the tax code to companies that re-invest in their operations and do research and development into new products. If a company paying the CEO ("General Manager") 5,000 times what the janitorial staff makes as a group faces a 90% tax burden on that salary then they're likely not going to pay it; ditto excessive dividends and overt manipulations of the value of the company stock. The money is vastly more likely to go into growing the company and developing new products than paying most of it in tax (and everybody hates those, even corporations).

Dave is correct in saying that employment in the manufacturing sector are never going to be what they were in the 30 years following the big war in the 20th Century; too much is automated -- but somebody needs to design and build the robots and somebody else will need to minister to them when they're broken. Manufacturing, to me, is a strategic need and one required for sustainability, self-sufficiency, prosperity, and security.

I also suspect there is collusion between human resources of companies to hold down wage and benefits.

This I rather doubt. Any sort of coordination at that level would have been exposed by now given how bad the labour market is at the moment. I suspect much of the problem is the amount of idiot-grade automation that goes into the application process. Yes, there is much gaming of the H1-B system, but if the demand for employment is anywhere near what's being claimed companies would abandon the use of automation in the hiring process.