The Great American Lie: Work Earns Living Wage

[Machismo]

Its your fault you paid a fine based on a specific shade of blue that OSHA never said you needed. You got scammed, then you got further scammed by businesses that pretend their paint is required.

All you've shown is that you're a gullible idiot and want to blame everyone for being ignorant.

Once again, post the law with the specific shade of light blue from OSHA. Win this argument decisively.

Actually, I didn't pay anything. Imagine that, people being gullible for doing what the government tells them to do... and you support the idea of the government doing this. Do you even know what irony is?

[alexw]

In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when. [/I]

We are in the first stages of the rebellion against the zillionaires. There are various movements on both the right and left that are politically turning against the elites. Either the elites willingly accept change and share the fruits of their ill-gotten economic looting, or the anger of the populace will grow. If things still then do not change, the populace will give up on attempting to bring about peaceful political change and will instead resort to violent methods. This playbook is as old as history, and one hopes our current elites are sane enough, and understand where their own best interests lie enough, to understand that if they wait until the violent option comes about they will lose everything, including for many of them, their lives.

[Shadowferal]

We are in the first stages of the rebellion against the zillionaires. There are various movements on both the right and left that are politically turning against the elites. Either the elites willingly accept change and share the fruits of their ill-gotten economic looting, or the anger of the populace will grow. If things still then do not change, the populace will give up on attempting to bring about peaceful political change and will instead resort to violent methods. This playbook is as old as history, and one hopes our current elites are sane enough, and understand where their own best interests lie enough, to understand that if they wait until the violent option comes about they will lose everything, including for many of them, their lives.

First stages indeed.
The article was written just before the Trump/Sanders run-a-thon for outsiders. And after the Obama Admin helped coordinate the shutdown of the Occupy Movement which broke its momentum. (At the behest of Wall Street which was terrified of it)
I firmly believe the stage is set for a lot of shit going down in the next decade. (Historic parallel seems to suggest it. When "communism" was a popular idea in the US...)

[Daerio]

The problem is that tariffs are economically distortive. You end up picking winners and losers. So how much should the tariff be on Chinese steel? How much on Chinese TV's? How much on Chinese childrens toys? Etc, etc. Without setting perfect levels of tariffs you end making some goods more attractive to make and others less so, so that a country ends up specializing in whatever is most over-tariffed rather than what it is best at.

It's not as complicated as you make it; and yet there are people who make entire careers from less. It's actually fairly simple, you take the same calculations for what corporations are deciding they're saving by shipping labor overseas and shorting the American worker, and you apply a flat % tax to all goods from foreign countries based on that figure. I see no reason to break it down by product, or even by what country. We establish that as a baseline, and then perhaps we can make trade deals with countries that do have worker rights that don't have dirt-cheap labor, and we have to "worry less" about American workers being destroyed.

Basically, press reset on all our current trade deals, where the exact opposite has occurred - the political elite have sold their souls to the corporate profit machine, in order to make deals so cheap labor could be effectively exported to our competitors. Which is exactly what they have done.

If Globalism doesn't include worker rights, feel free to be nationalistic.

Myself I prefer the taxation-redistribution method. Adopt Scandinavian levels of taxation and use it to provide healthcare for all, free college for all, a basic income, etc. We had those levels in the past with zero negative economic consequences we can do so again (once the right-wing boomers die off and stop voting against their own interests).

These aren't even close to the "only two" options. They don't even serve to address the same problem.

[Spectral]

Myself I prefer the taxation-redistribution method. Adopt Scandinavian levels of taxation and use it to provide healthcare for all, free college for all, a basic income, etc. We had those levels in the past with zero negative economic consequences we can do so again (once the right-wing boomers die off and stop voting against their own interests).

When would you say the United States had significantly higher effective tax rates? As near as I can tell from a look at historical income and outlays, effective federal tax income has always been ~15-20% of GDP. Nominal rates have changed a lot, but the end result hasn't really looked particularly striking. State and local taxes have had a general up-trend over time, with total federal-state-local spending remaining relatively flat over time as a percentage of GDP.

[alexw]

It's not as complicated as you make it; and yet there are people who make entire careers from less. It's actually fairly simple, you take the same calculations for what corporations are deciding they're saving by shipping labor overseas and shorting the American worker, and you apply a flat % tax to all goods from foreign countries based on that figure. I see no reason to break it down by product, or even by what country. We establish that as a baseline, and then perhaps we can make trade deals with countries that do have worker rights that don't have dirt-cheap labor, and we have to "worry less" about American workers being destroyed.

Basically, press reset on all our current trade deals, where the exact opposite has occurred - the political elite have sold their souls to the corporate profit machine, in order to make deals so cheap labor could be effectively exported to our competitors. Which is exactly what they have done.

If Globalism doesn't include worker rights, feel free to be nationalistic.



These aren't even close to the "only two" options. They don't even serve to address the same problem.

Errr it certainly is that complicated. Do you realize how many hundreds of thousands of companies there are? How many things are made by all these different companies in different places around the globe? Getting the tariff values correct to adjust for the savings in outsourcing production is virtually impossible. This is a well known and understood problem in economics which is why economists pretty much all advocate for the removal of tariffs. Tariffs make markets inefficient. It picks winners and losers not dependent on who is most efficient and always has done.

Oh and imposing tariffs in the way you describe in such a broad way increases market inefficiencies the most. Take for example a company producing baseball bats and caps. If the bat making jobs are shipped to china and $3 per bat are saved, while the cap making jobs are shipped to India and $1 per bat saved, if you put in an average $2 tariff on the company instead of the individual goods then you immediately under-price the bat and over-price the cap in terms of market incentives.

And the underlying problem is not jobs but income and how it is shared out across the nation. So yes there are many ways to solve the problem.

[Daerio]

Errr it certainly is that complicated. Do you realize how many hundreds of thousands of companies there are? How many things are made by all these different companies in different places around the globe? Getting the tariff values correct to adjust for the savings in outsourcing production is virtually impossible. This is a well known and understood problem in economics which is why economists pretty much all advocate for the removal of tariffs. Tariffs make markets inefficient. It picks winners and losers not dependent on who is most efficient and always has done.

Oh and imposing tariffs in the way you describe in such a broad way increases market inefficiencies the most. Take for example a company producing baseball bats and caps. If the bat making jobs are shipped to china and $3 per bat are saved, while the cap making jobs are shipped to India and $1 per bat saved, if you put in an average $2 tariff on the company instead of the individual goods then you immediately under-price the bat and over-price the cap in terms of market incentives.

And the underlying problem is not jobs but income and how it is shared out across the nation. So yes there are many ways to solve the problem.

You're talking about a flat dollar tax on a product when I specifically said a flat percentage tax.

If you're taxing foreign-made bats and hats at 40%, it doesn't matter that one costs 3$ and one costs 1$.

Again, you're trying to make it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Trade deals are the same way; unnecessarily convoluted bullshit.

[alexw]

When would you say the United States had significantly higher effective tax rates? As near as I can tell from a look at historical income and outlays, effective federal tax income has always been ~15-20% of GDP. Nominal rates have changed a lot, but the end result hasn't really looked particularly striking. State and local taxes have had a general up-trend over time, with total federal-state-local spending remaining relatively flat over time as a percentage of GDP.

Ahh by that I meant we had much higher levels of taxation on the wealthiest segments of society, such that taxation incidence and overall income distribution (given that high taxes on the rich deter over-compensation of the already rich) were shifted, so as to give a much more even income distribution. Though given how much more the rich now take, high taxes on the wealthy would pump up the overall tax share of GDP, vs the past when high taxes didn't given they took so much less of the economic pie, though I'd also expect the disincentive effect of high taxes to kick in over time to lower the wealthy's share of the economic pie.

- - - Updated - - -

You're talking about a flat dollar tax on a product when I specifically said a flat percentage tax.

If you're taxing foreign-made bats and hats at 40%, it doesn't matter that one costs 3$ and one costs 1$.

Again, you're trying to make it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Trade deals are the same way; unnecessarily convoluted bullshit.

Its irrelevant whether its done via percentage or flat dollar value the effect is the same. Tariffs make markets inefficient, and the more broad based the tariffs the more inefficient markets become. Go look up any economic text on the subject if you don't believe me.

[Spectral]

Ahh by that I meant we had much higher levels of taxation on the wealthiest segments of society, such that taxation incidence and overall income distribution (given that high taxes on the rich deter over-compensation of the already rich) were shifted, so as to give a much more even income distribution. Though given how much more the rich now take, high taxes on the wealthy would pump up the overall tax share of GDP, vs the past when high taxes didn't given they took so much less of the economic pie, though I'd also expect the disincentive effect of high taxes to kick in over time to lower the wealthy's share of the economic pie.

Thanks, I agree with this!

Also worth a mention, as capably written by Vox here and discussed by Robert Frank in this podcast, is that some of the consumption by the very wealthy amounts to economic waste as positional goods are driven up in cost. When people value having "the best" of X good, bidding that drives up the cost of X good isn't making a bigger pie to go around.

[Daerio]

Its irrelevant whether its done via percentage or flat dollar value the effect is the same. Tariffs make markets inefficient, and the more broad based the tariffs the more inefficient markets become. Go look up any economic text on the subject if you don't believe me.

It's totally relevant, but anyway.

Tariffs are meant to make the markets "inefficient." Shipping jobs overseas to dirt-cheap labor? That's the "efficiency" we're aiming to correct. You're totally failing to point out any other way to address this, or to explain why correctly implemented tariffs fail to do so.

[alexw]

Thanks, I agree with this!

Also worth a mention, as capably written by Vox here and discussed by Robert Frank in this podcast, is that some of the consumption by the very wealthy amounts to economic waste as positional goods are driven up in cost. When people value having "the best" of X good, bidding that drives up the cost of X good isn't making a bigger pie to go around.

IMO the vox article is flawed. It treats saving as good, and consumption as bad and would drive up savings rates (though the initial treatise is good), which isn't needed. Rather the two are two sides of the same coin and feed off and boost one another in a synergistic manner. What is needed is lower elite consumption and higher average citizen consumption to spur the efficiency, productivity and technological gains our societies thrive on.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

How about you take your hard work talk and pay back the taxpayer that gave your ass a free ride in the armed forces, welfare sponge? You can try paying for your own fucking healthcare through the years before denigriating someone working 40 hours a week to do it alone

Chuckle, you're welcome.

Firstly, I didn't denigrate him. I encouraged him to chase his ambitions. How horrible of me.

Now the ridiculousness of your statement aside, if you think market forces don't affect my job you're insane. I provide a service to a customer at a cost, just like everyone else. When the Iraq war was at it's highest point, our pay and benefits were increased in order to attract more soldiers to go and fight. Since the tempo of our conflicts have lessened, our benefits and pay have been getting cut. We also suffer from layoffs when there is less of a need for our services. The size of the force is currently at it's lowest since prior to WWII. Many people were separated involuntarily despite being within 5 years of retirement.

Now despite all this, the military does provide a good lifestyle for those who can hack it. The reason it does so is because it is difficult for the military to find employees who are able, and more importantly willing to do the job. 75% of our population that is of fighting age is not fit for service. Less than one percent of the people in this country has served. If you're so convinced that it is so easy, grab a rifle and stand a post buddy. I'll see you at 0530 Monday for a 5-mile-run.

[alexw]

It's totally relevant, but anyway.

Tariffs are meant to make the markets "inefficient." Shipping jobs overseas to dirt-cheap labor? That's the "efficiency" we're aiming to correct. You're totally failing to point out any other way to address this, or to explain why correctly implemented tariffs fail to do so.

No. You are inventing your own meanings and then applying those meanings. It doesn't work that way. Shipping jobs overseas has absolutely nothing to do with efficiency. Indeed the people making these goods in China are far less productive than US workers. It is cost effective but that is not the same as efficient.

And I have shown why tariffs are bad and how else the same end result can be achieved, whether you like or choose to believe those statements is not the same as me not making them.

[Daerio]

All the self entitlement in the world, on government salary.

Yeah, the military responds to the job market kind of. I guess that's part of where that false world-view comes from.

Tell me all about how that 5 mile run helped you get a job, and how the government is the same as private industry. ^_^

- - - Updated - - -

No. You are inventing your own meanings and then applying those meanings. It doesn't work that way. Shipping jobs overseas has absolutely nothing to do with efficiency. Indeed the people making these goods in China are far less productive than US workers. It is cost effective but that is not the same as efficient.

Indeed, another huge problem in discussion these days are these convoluted terms in economics especially that are meant to make simple ideas seem more complicated in order to hide the fact that it's a huge scam.

Submitting to the idea that you get to re-define what efficiency is as if it wasn't a simple term that practically everyone can understand... lol.

And I have shown why tariffs are bad and how else the same end result can be achieved, whether you like or choose to believe those statements is not the same as me not making them.

You've spoken of wealth re-distribution which has nothing to do with jobs going overseas. Literally nothing.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

All the self entitlement in the world, on government salary.

Yeah, the military responds to the job market kind of. I guess that's part of where that false world-view comes from.

Tell me all about how that 5 mile run helped you get a job, and how the government is the same as private industry. ^_^

Who's entitled? I do a job for an agreed upon price. If they didn't meet my price, I'd take my services elsewhere. If there were no other customers for those services, I'd have to learn another trade. It's the natural order of things. Just because I'm employed by the government does not mean I've no right to believe in market driven economic systems. People who believe there are no services that should be provided as a function of government are just as delusional as those who believe all services should be provided as a function of government. Nations have experimented with private armies many times throughout history. It usually does not end well.

[Kellhound]

It's totally relevant, but anyway.

Tariffs are meant to make the markets "inefficient." Shipping jobs overseas to dirt-cheap labor? That's the "efficiency" we're aiming to correct. You're totally failing to point out any other way to address this, or to explain why correctly implemented tariffs fail to do so.

You are really talking about production, not jobs, returning to the US. Companies are onshoring production currently, but doing so in automated factories using very little labor, and that is the ONLY way production is going to return to the US.

- - - Updated - - -

All the self entitlement in the world, on government salary.

Yeah, the military responds to the job market kind of. I guess that's part of where that false world-view comes from.

Tell me all about how that 5 mile run helped you get a job, and how the government is the same as private industry. ^_^

Enlisted members of the US military are basically fixed-term contract employees of the government. The military does respond its job market, incentives and standards are adjusted to ensure proper manning in all positions.

5-mile run: Physical fitness at the very least. But that is far from what people gain from military service.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Right. And this is a real problem when it comes to low-skill positions (positions, not people). Since applicants to these positions have essentially zero bargaining power, they are basically stuck taking whatever wages are offered. History has shown us that without appropriate minimum wages or collective bargaining, the wages from said jobs are often unlivable. There are a few ramifications of this:
1) Increased taxpayer burden- the already squeezed middle class ends up subsidizing the rest of what these workers need to live
2) Stunted economic growth- disposable income is important for a diversified consumer economy. With welfare jobs, the lower class (obviously) doesn't have much disposable income, the middle class gets squeezed taking care of the lower class, and lots of money gets stashed away at the top
3) Decreased opportunity- investing in bettering one's self takes time and/or money. When you hardly have enough money to take care of yourself, or you have to work multiple jobs to keep up, it makes it harder to get an education, learn a trade, etc. Our poor social mobility compared to other developed nations can attest to this
4) Increases stress on families- money troubles, lower parental involvement, etc.

All of theses sound like negatives to me, but god forbid we tread on the sanctity of the free market and try and do something about it.

I don't think you are incorrect about any of this, except in that you think minimum wage and collective bargaining can solve these problems. Artificially inflating the value of a person's labor or expertise inevitably pushes that labor and expertise towards obsolescence. Consumers will always demand the lowest price for goods and services. Competitive producers will always meet that demand. If government forces the overhead of the producers up, they will simply adapt around these regulations. This is usually accomplished by lowering the number of employees required to bring their goods and services to market.

The only way out of this problem is for individuals to adapt so they may find gainful employment in the modern marketplace. Often that means learning a technical skill, or doing something dangerous, or unpleasant. That is the way of the world. If it wasn't work, nobody would pay you to do it.

Unions may have had something to do with that too.

Indeed they did, but the only reason the unions had leverage was because the companies needed the labor force to produce. If the factories didn't need the labor, the would have told the unions to pound sand. I don't have a philosophical problem with collective bargaining so long as it's not forced by law. I just don't ascribe to the fantasy that by simply banding together, out of demand workers will suddenly be in demand and worthy of generous compensation.

Let's say I go get a skill. Yay, me. Now the company I left is going to hire someone new for that vacant position. Now they are in the same bind. This is why I talk about positions, not people. Until the machines take over, these jobs exist, and companies need somebody to do the work. Improving your marketability is an individual solution. It doesn't work at a societal level, because somebody is still going to have to do the grunt work. Everybody can go learn a marketable skill, but that doesn't mean there is going to be a job available- there are always more foot soldiers than generals. Given the inevitability of people in low-skill positions, we as a society have to ask ourselves what the lowest standard of living should be for productive members of society.

Furthermore, the economy is actually struggling if you aren't already rich. Wages are stagnating for the middle and lower classes. Low-wage industries are the fastest growing sources of new jobs. College grads having a harder time finding relevant work, and minimum wage workers are taking longer to move up. Unlike what some people have said, asking for solutions isn't a sign of laziness or unwillingness to work hard.

I agree with much of this statement, but you must be careful what you are asking for when proposing collective solutions. If you mean there is a societal culture shift which places greater value in blue collar work and that we educate our children to effectively compete in the market we have, then I'm all for it. If on the other hand you see the collective solution as the government creating and subsidizing artificial industries with inflated wages for the purpose of employing people who's skills are not in demand, then I wholeheartedly disagree. In the short term you might enjoy lower unemployment, but eventually that whole ponzi scheme collapses in on itself. Better we adapt to reality than impale ourselves on a fantasy. In the end, the only solutions that really matter are the individual ones. What you choose to do with the reality of your own personal experience will have a far greater effect on the quality of your life than anything a distant government, well-intentioned or otherwise, could have done for you.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like college? Which is currently a massive financial risk.

That depends on what degree you risk all that money on. It's merely a calculation on investment vs return. Going thousands of dollars into debt for a career as an engineer or biochemist makes plenty of sense, as you are likely to find employment that will quickly pay off your loans. Going thousands of dollars for a degree in social work?? Hope you have rich parents who tolerate that kind of stupidity.

[Gestopft]

Goods will be more expensive, yes - but without tariffs, how do you intend on addressing labor moving overseas? Some other, un-thought-of option? Ignore the problem completely?

In most cases it may not be worth it. At this point, only 8% of jobs are in manufacturing, and automation is reducing the number of people required to work at factories anyway. Making consumer goods more expensive for everybody to protect a small and shrinking jobs market may be cutting of the nose to spite the face.

[kamuimac]

In most cases it may not be worth it. At this point, only 8% of jobs are in manufacturing, and automation is reducing the number of people required to work at factories anyway. Making consumer goods more expensive for everybody to protect a small and shrinking jobs market may be cutting of the nose to spite the face.

automation reduces only lowest payed jobs for uneducated crowd - the more machines you introduce into company the more technicians who know how to operate them you need to hire - and those who do know earn significantly more money then regular lowest grade worker would make. most of current generation machines are operated via computer systems and you need someone who know how to operate them perfeckly else you will fuck up whole operation . its reducing jobs for uneducated pleb while at the same time opening quite nicely paid jobs for smart educated crowd.

[Shadowferal]

It's no wonder they're replacing a lot of soldiers with mercs.