Originally posted by: conjur
Topic Title: What's wrong with the economy?
Topic Summary: EPI report mirroring exactly what I've been saying for months
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Zebo
The recovering economy is all smoke in mirrors have a look at this graph. People are trading thier home equity for trinkets (usually chinese ones) as our industrail base and jobs with it disappears before our polly anna eyes.
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/cpuplava/2006/images/0125.a.gif
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm
It doesn't look pretty, does it. I do have to say that inflation is better then having a major depression, but I still think they need to crank the interest rates up some.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: UptheMiddle
Originally posted by: bamacre
Our economic woes are the direct result of inefficient and just plain poor education. The unemployment numbers are high, yet there are tons of jobs out there waiting to be filled. Teachers' salaries need to be raised, making the job more competitive. But without teachers' also being held accountable, throwing money at the problem won't work.
I don't know how many of you have had experience working with minimum-wage workers doing low-skilled jobs, but around here, most of them are horrible. They can barely read/write, they lack responsibilty and accountability. I blame their parents just as much as the education system.
This isn't an R or D issue, both have their share of blame for all of this. The current admin and past Republican admin's have been throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into "protecting" America from boogeymen, and the Democrats have spent more money and resources trying to parent our children rather than actually teach them a useful skill.
UP the salary of teachers? You're out of your mind. For the amount of time worked per year (7-8 months), benefits package, and the retirement packages, I'd say that the rate of pay is WAY out of line. And increase gov't spending, great idea.
The US education system has failed MISERABLY and you want to reward that?
Obviously, you failed to read what I said in total...
But without teachers' also being held accountable, throwing money at the problem won't work.
But I forgive you, maybe you're just a victim of our poor education system. But yes, teachers make crap, and the job is not competitive. Why teach accounting when you can make more practicing it?
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Good reading. Good stuff. So what are we going to do about it? How can we fix it? Why is this happening and how can we stop it? That's what I want to know.
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: conjurVouchers won't do sh*t. Drop the worthless NCLB and allow teachers to teach instead of training kids to take tests. Hold them accountable, yes, but develop curricula to help them teach kids to learn instead of just rote lessons.
Actually the few places vouchers have been implemented, they have forced the public schools to improve. THis is not even a debatable topic.
Go ahead and develope that curricula, but how are you going to show the kids are learning? Oh yeah, that is going to require tests. If you have a different way ot monitoring student performance, let us know.
I think mandatory classes in high school teaching kids how to file taxes, what their FICO score is and how to keep it in good shape and keep an eye on it, how to budget for once they're out of college (or go into the work force and leave the parents), what it's like to buy a car or a house, etc. will prepare them for when they're on their own and help them develop a mindset with savings in mind.
A personal finance class at the high school level would be wonderful. MIght as well include retirment planning in there as well.
I also think parents need to be held more accountable for the failures of their kids in schools. Some states are only just now starting to crack down on truancy. A good first step.
I dont have a problem with that either. But lets also crack down on the known failed schools. Why should we force good parents to send their kids to known bad schools. Let there be accountability in both directions.
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Good reading. Good stuff. So what are we going to do about it? How can we fix it? Why is this happening and how can we stop it? That's what I want to know.
Simple public funding of campaigns is the key to get the minority rich from running our governement and it's policy - It's no accident there is a huge gap between how our political leaders vote on immigration, trade and outsourceing from what the public wants. It's the opposite and they are paid to to vote that way by powerful intrests whom reap trilions from these positions. They have also invested heavily in public relations campaigns to create the impression that American jobs have to be outsourced and foreign workers brought into the US. Candidates like George Bush and John Kerry would both find themselves at a disadvantage under public financing rules and the more populist candidates like a Buchanan or a Dean would rise.
Holy Crap!! :shocked:Originally posted by: Zebo
The recovering economy is all smoke in mirrors have a look at this graph. People are trading thier home equity for trinkets (usually chinese ones) as our industrail base and jobs with it disappears before our polly anna eyes.
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/cpuplava/2006/images/0125.a.gif
[/quote]And guess what happens in just a few weeks? M3 stops being published.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Good reading. Good stuff. So what are we going to do about it? How can we fix it? Why is this happening and how can we stop it? That's what I want to know.
Quit buying crap and pay of your debts. Hope all your neighbours do the same.
Get Politicians to deal with the Deficit and other Fiscal issues. Be prepared for Tax Increases or loss of recent Cuts, might suck, but is worth it if the Politicians deal with the Deficit.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Good reading. Good stuff. So what are we going to do about it? How can we fix it? Why is this happening and how can we stop it? That's what I want to know.
Quit buying crap and pay of your debts. Hope all your neighbours do the same.
Get Politicians to deal with the Deficit and other Fiscal issues. Be prepared for Tax Increases or loss of recent Cuts, might suck, but is worth it if the Politicians deal with the Deficit.
It is intriguing that since Bush's pronouncement that Americans need to go . . . "shopping" after 9/11:
1) American consumers rushed to comply buying (homes) then cars and a bunch of other stuff that depreciates.
2) Much of that consumption was pure debt b/c wages have been in the pooper . . . assuming you've got a job.
3) GM and Ford dug themselves a similar hole.
4) The federal government dug an even deeper hole.
What? We are not!!Originally posted by: charrison
IT is not time to sound the alarm on our debt just yet. Ir is still reasonable levels(less thany EU for sure) and we are growing the economy faster than debt at this point. Its beginning to look alot like previous business as far as the debt is concerned.
Originally posted by: conjur
What? We are not!!Originally posted by: charrison
IT is not time to sound the alarm on our debt just yet. Ir is still reasonable levels(less thany EU for sure) and we are growing the economy faster than debt at this point. Its beginning to look alot like previous business as far as the debt is concerned.
Damn, son:
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/cpuplava/2006/images/0125.a.gif
And need I re-remind you of:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/05/17/AR2005051701238.html
Originally posted by: conjur
Improved? I should hope so! Tax revenues were at a 40-year low vs. GDP!
Originally posted by: conjur
Is this the Seattle area? If so, I'm surprised the minimum wage isn't higher. That's a very expensive place to live, esp. on a minimum wage salary. At least WA finally did the right thing and tied minimum wage increases to inflation.Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Where did I say federal? Our state's minimum wage is now at $7.63 an hour and the locally owned restaurant I work at has to keep raising it's prices to keep up and older folks living on fixed income are starting to complain. Only places unaffected by this seem to be the corporate chain stores and restaurants.Originally posted by: conjur
When's the last time minimum wage was raised? Long time ago.Originally posted by: BlancoNino
If we would quit raising minimum wages and taxing/regulating businesses at the state and local level, small businesses would flourish and demand for jobs will increase and so will pay.
Here's some info for you to digest:
Last updated January 2006
General Information on the MinimumWage
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwage
chart
The rest of your post is just total nonsense.
And, btw, you're complaining of older folks living on fixed wages but you want to eliminate even that? You're a real piece of work.
Minimum wage increases have not affected the economy in a bad way. Not at all.It all starts at the bottom and major corporations aren't going to have any competition if they're the only ones with the bank big enough to withstand regulations, unions, and minimum wage increases.
And, oh gee, look at this:
Oregon restaurants fare better after minimum wage increase
http://www.ocpp.org/1999/es032399.htm
If we make the minimum wage high enough to where people can live off of it, people aren't going to push themselves to work harder and further their education to reach better paying and more rewarding jobs.
Originally posted by: Zebo
If we make the minimum wage high enough to where people can live off of it, people aren't going to push themselves to work harder and further their education to reach better paying and more rewarding jobs.
If they can't even live off it how are they going to live off it *and* pay for school to find more rewarding work? Not to mention find the time to attend. Anything "rewarding" (you mean financally) is intesive like premed/engineering etc requiring your full attention and usually daytime classes.
They don't - walk though the isles of walmart you'll see plenty of middle aged persons stuck in a rut. You think they like making minimum wage or being a walmart coolie?
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Zebo
If we make the minimum wage high enough to where people can live off of it, people aren't going to push themselves to work harder and further their education to reach better paying and more rewarding jobs.
If they can't even live off it how are they going to live off it *and* pay for school to find more rewarding work? Not to mention find the time to attend. Anything "rewarding" (you mean financally) is intesive like premed/engineering etc requiring your full attention and usually daytime classes.
They don't - walk though the isles of walmart you'll see plenty of middle aged persons stuck in a rut. You think they like making minimum wage or being a walmart coolie?
Like I said. Minimum wage jobs are starter jobs. If these people can't apply for financial aid, work harder to make more money, or get a student loan because they screwed up their credit, then I'd say that's their problem. Of course socialist loonies would love to put the burden on the hard-working so that everyone can go to school for free and do whatever they want.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Zebo
If we make the minimum wage high enough to where people can live off of it, people aren't going to push themselves to work harder and further their education to reach better paying and more rewarding jobs.
If they can't even live off it how are they going to live off it *and* pay for school to find more rewarding work? Not to mention find the time to attend. Anything "rewarding" (you mean financally) is intesive like premed/engineering etc requiring your full attention and usually daytime classes.
They don't - walk though the isles of walmart you'll see plenty of middle aged persons stuck in a rut. You think they like making minimum wage or being a walmart coolie?
Like I said. Minimum wage jobs are starter jobs. If these people can't apply for financial aid, work harder to make more money, or get a student loan because they screwed up their credit, then I'd say that's their problem. Of course socialist loonies would love to put the burden on the hard-working so that everyone can go to school for free and do whatever they want.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Improved? I should hope so! Tax revenues were at a 40-year low vs. GDP!
I just dont see that as a negative as you do. I see that as a positive, as in more economic freedom for us all.
Originally posted by: Future Shock
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Improved? I should hope so! Tax revenues were at a 40-year low vs. GDP!
I just dont see that as a negative as you do. I see that as a positive, as in more economic freedom for us all.
It's only freedom when you have no debt. When you have massive amounts of debt, where the cost of servicing that debt eats a substantial portion of tax revenue each year, your only "freedom" is to continue to spend unwisely...
Future Shock
Fresh Air from WHYY, January 26, 2006 · Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin stepped down last fall as director of the Congressional Budget Office. He had been appointed to a four-year term that was to have ended in February of 2007.
During his tenure at the CBO, Holtz-Eakin also served as the office's representative on the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Previously, Holtz-Eakin served as President Bush's chief economist. As director of the CBO, he earned a reputation for being fair and candid in discussing issues from tax rates to government spending.
The office is independent, nonpartisan and its main function is to estimate how much money the government should take in and spend each year. Holtz-Eakin is joining the staff of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has also been an academic economist at Columbia, Princeton, and Syracuse Universities.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) ? You don't need to be a statistician to realize that economic growth in the past 20 years hasn't lifted everyone's boat equally.
The good news is that incomes across the board are up. But so is the income gap. That is, incomes for high-income families have risen faster than for everyone else.
But growth in the income gap has been greater in some states than in others, according to a report released Thursday by two liberal think tanks ? the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (See table below to see where the greatest disparities are.)
For the period between the early 1980s and the early 2000s, the report found that the incomes of the top fifth of families grew faster than those of the bottom fifth of families in 38 states. The states where the gap grew the most were Arizona, New York, Massachusetts, Tennessee and New Jersey.
In only one state ? Alaska ? did income growth for low-income families outpace that of high-income households.
By the early 2000s, the average income of the top 20 percent of families in 32 states was at least 6.4 times higher than that of low-income families. That's a big change since the early 1980s, when no state had a "top to bottom" ratio exceeding 6.4.
When the authors looked at the incomes of the top 5 percent of households in 11 large states, they found sharp disparities. The top 5 percent of families saw their incomes rise as much as 132 percent between 1980 and 2003. The bottom 20 percent of families, meanwhile, saw their incomes rise by no more than 24 percent.
In dollars and cents, average incomes of those in the top 5 percent rose between $80,400 to over $153,000. Increases for the bottom 20 percent in those 11 states, meanwhile, didn't exceed $4,000.
Since the early 1980s, the gap between high-income and middle-income households also rose. The report noted that the top 20 percent of households had incomes more than 2.3 times greater than that of middle-income households in 36 states by the early 2000s. Again, that's a huge difference compared with the early '80s, when that was the case in only one state.
Why the disparity?
The authors of the report point to several factors that have contributed to the widening income gaps since the early 1980s.
Among those they cite as having disproportionately hurt the earnings of low- and middle-income households are: long periods of high unemployment, globalization, the loss of manufacturing jobs, the growth in low-wage service jobs, and a stagnant minimum wage.
The federal minimum wage -- $5.15 an hour ? has remained unchanged since 1997. Only 18 states have set their minimums higher.
They also point to the growth in investment income in the 1990s as another factor that has disproportionately boosted the incomes of higher income households.
Consequences of income inequality
That incomes have grown overall may seem like an unqualified good. But there can be social and political consequences when the income gap widens, some economists say.
Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell University, for instance, found that in counties with the widest income gaps, rates of personal bankruptcy and divorce rates were higher than average.
He also notes that when wealthier families see their incomes rise at a faster pace than everyone else, their spending can create what he calls an "expenditure cascade." That is, the demand for bigger and better homes or safer cars can create new standards for those lower down on the economic scale.
But since their incomes aren't growing as fast, they have a hard time keeping up, leading to what Frank calls "welfare loss." For example, as home prices rise, it becomes harder to afford a home in a neighborhood with good public schools.
And when the majority of households come under financial stress to provide a solid life for their families, voters will be less inclined to pay for public services such as bridge and highway maintenance, port security and food inspection.
And that can adversely affect everyone. Top of page
(table follows)
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From charrison-
"Our interest payments on the debt is still less than it was durning the 90s boom(and that is in unadjusted dollars). If current trends continue, the budget is going to once again in a few years. "
Not true, and exceedingly deceptive.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
It depends on the year in question, and more pertinently on the prevailing interest rates. The genius of the Bushco deception has been in explosive borrowing at times of record low rates. Rising rates will inevitably lead to rising costs, since the debt is structured much like an adjustable rate mortgage. And the recent uptick in tax collections is deceptive, particularly since congress and the admin are cutting taxes again. A short term bump does not make a trend- the trendlines between expenditures and income for the govt are not convergent except in the rosiest admin propaganda and the minds of extremely gullible fanbois...
What's wrong with the economy is the way that the benefits of so-called growth are distributed. There's no "down" in trickledown, only "up". As taxes hav been cut for the financial elite, they have invested more- in China, and India, and Malaysia, and other places like them, offshoring American jobs at an explosive rate. Meanwhile, explosive govt borrowing soaks up excess overseas dollars, maintaining a false high dollar valuation, encouraging and extending the situation.
It is, as George Akerlof pointed out, a form of looting. And, as Warren Buffet claims, if there is class economic warfare occuring, then his class, the wealthy, are winning handily. Which is not surprising, considering that they stated the conflict in the Reagan years, and have been able to obtain complicity from the upper middle class with pissant taxcuts and thinktank generated disinformation campaigns spanning decades...