A 3.1 trillion budget bill.
- Korriken
-
Korriken
- Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 05
- Gamer
At 2/5/08 01:01 AM, TheMason wrote:
Okay, I'll try to say this a little more simply. With a 95% employment rate...those jobs going overseas are excess jobs.
Numbers of jobs isn't the only factor here. I'm pretty sure that a clothing or toy manufacturer would pay better than say, McDonalds or Walmart. While employment rate is 95% the poverty rate is 12.3% in 2006. Most of the people living in poverty either don't work, or work at such a very low paying job. Excess jobs are a good thing, it means that companies will have to compete over workers and therefore have to pay a better wage/benefits. if all of our manufacturing jobs go overseas, then all that is left is the retail industry which rarely pays well, the construction industry which is heavily dependent on the status of the economy, and the service industry which rarely pays well. there's always the narcotics industry but I'm talking about legal business.
Collecting taxes takes money out of the economy. Our problem is Social Security and Medicare has been mismanaged and when anyone tries to get it back on track the opposition party and the AARP uses scare tactics too keep reform from saving these programs.
The answer is simple...we need to do things that are painful (reducing government spending) to save our public economy (government budget).
That would help, but the answer is not so simple as people try to make it out to be.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
- Der-Lowe
-
Der-Lowe
- Member since: Apr. 30, 2004
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 19
- Blank Slate
I have read that the situation is actually worse, because that budget overestimates growth it's talking about 2.7% in 2008 and 3% in 2009, which is plain ridiculous. Will the US go back to Reagan-sized deficits?
The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth -- JMK
- JudgeDredd
-
JudgeDredd
- Member since: Aug. 18, 2001
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 37
- Blank Slate
At 2/5/08 11:41 AM, Korriken wrote:At 2/5/08 01:01 AM, TheMason wrote:Okay, I'll try to say this a little more simply. With a 95% employment rate...those jobs going overseas are excess jobs.Numbers of jobs isn't the only factor here.
Mason.. try.. s..i..m..p..l..e..r..
I'm pretty sure that a clothing or toy manufacturer would pay better than say, McDonalds or Walmart.
No. McD's is a service industry. Clothing and stuffed toys can be done by robots, or even cheaper by human robots aka Chinese.
While employment rate is 95% the poverty rate is 12.3% in 2006. Most of the people living in poverty either don't work, or work at such a very low paying job.
Despite being poorer paying for artificially high rents, and monopolized fossil fuels futures, the poor are wearing much better (newly imported) rags.
Excess jobs are a good thing, it means that companies will have to compete over workers and therefore have to pay a better wage/benefits.
100% employment means higher wages right across the board, which means higher cost of production and inflation, which means less exports.
The answer is simple... but the answer is not so simple as people try to make it out to be.
Like blaming the Chinese for perfecting American-style Capitalism.
