Even our President appears to blame the rich for incomes of the non-rich not rising. I wonder if he is just not being advised of the natural economics that caused this?
In a free market, competition and demand will determine the prices (including the price for services).
When we had a distinct advantage where we (the West) had the industrialization advantage and knew how to market and distribute goods, we prospered - because we were more productive. We had great advantage for many years.
But eventually other countries began to integrate the technology that had been developed, to become more organized for business and they began to compete. Of course, their wages were relatively low. Therefore, the business went to them - they were simply more competitive in price.
Gradually over the last 30 years, the value of what the West could offer was less and less, as we could no longer compete. So there was a downward influence on wages. Actually, the wages driven down were at the lower end, where other countries could compete. High skill manufacturing jobs dropped 17%, while low skill manufacturing jobs declined 34%. But these other countries, so far, have not competed as much in the higher-value knowledge areas - those wages have risen, creating an even wider income disparity.
Meanwhile, quite naturally and understandably, the wealth of the rich compounded basically because they were risking and investing - and professionals and knowledge workers had their compensation increase, while all the other wages did not.
While this is strictly economics, people have blamed the rich for it. But clearly this is "wrong cause", where the cause is neither logically or correctly identified.
See Discussion On Income Disparities.
The solution does not lie in taking wealth away from others, but in empowering as many as possible so that there are more people contributing and are in the higher value areas - and increasing the size of the pie, rather than just splitting it differently. And the only way to do that is to educate people in the higher skill areas and direct those resources to higher value areas, as we will not be competitive with the lower skill items that other countries can do more economically.
Hopefully we can use rational thinking and analysis to direct our efforts - and stop the irrational and political nonsense. What do you think?
The Rational NonPolitician
Showing posts with label Jobs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jobs. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Those Corporations Are Greedy - And They're To Blame
"The corporations are greedy. They just want to make a billion more by shipping jobs overseas. They should not do that. They should hire Americans here. It is their moral obligation."
That is what she said to me.
However, is it right for others to tell these people what to do and then get mad at them for not doing what we want them to do? Was there any agreement made? Who are we to determine what someone else should do? Do we want to get into a totalitarian nation forcing things on others and controlling them?
Do we have the right to take money away from the shareholders of the company? Are they the ones responsible for giving other people jobs here in the US and giving up their money? Do we want pensions for workers to have less money in them from their investments so they can't retire as well?
If this is a moral obligation, does the person who said it strictly buy American? If we all were careful to do that, there would be millions more jobs. But it appears that we try to buy as cheaply as we can. But don't we have a moral obligation to give up some of our bucks so that Americans can have more jobs?
Isn't this is the culture of blame and irresponsibility. Isn't this also irrational thinking without a sound basis, based on assumptions that we are right and have the right to tell others what to do? Though many people are making corporations wrong or bad, does that mean they are correct in asserting that as if it were fact?
If it was a master economist who said it, is he right? Or is he guilty of fallacious thinking, making up assumptions, and insisting with no basis that others do as he wishes. (Krugman and Reich do that.)
Yes, global competition does drive wages down and take jobs that Americans might want to have. But it is not "greedy" corporations who are plotting against us, depriving us of wages and jobs. We cannot expect somebody else to be responsible for our jobs. And how much profit is too much? Isn't that the world of judgment and blame and resentment - which is part of the world of irresponsibility? And isn't it irresponsibility that has caused alot of our problems?
Read about the actual cause of the income and wealth inequality, but don't buy into the "therefore they're 'bad'" argument of the blamers. I don't see any healthy thinking in taking money from others, though I do see the selfish reason for doing so. Of course, we don't want the "fat cats" to be selfish. (One I left off of this draft is that we allow illegal immigration, which brings in more people without educations, which in turn creates more poverty and more inequality of incomes!)
See The Actual Reason For Income And Wealth Disparity.
Note that the person quoted above is not using Rational Thinking and is also not operating from a Personal Responsibility viewpoint.
Yours toward creating a cooperative nation based on rational thinking and decisions such that we do that which makes us powerful,
The Rational NonPolitician
That is what she said to me.
However, is it right for others to tell these people what to do and then get mad at them for not doing what we want them to do? Was there any agreement made? Who are we to determine what someone else should do? Do we want to get into a totalitarian nation forcing things on others and controlling them?
Do we have the right to take money away from the shareholders of the company? Are they the ones responsible for giving other people jobs here in the US and giving up their money? Do we want pensions for workers to have less money in them from their investments so they can't retire as well?
If this is a moral obligation, does the person who said it strictly buy American? If we all were careful to do that, there would be millions more jobs. But it appears that we try to buy as cheaply as we can. But don't we have a moral obligation to give up some of our bucks so that Americans can have more jobs?
Isn't this is the culture of blame and irresponsibility. Isn't this also irrational thinking without a sound basis, based on assumptions that we are right and have the right to tell others what to do? Though many people are making corporations wrong or bad, does that mean they are correct in asserting that as if it were fact?
If it was a master economist who said it, is he right? Or is he guilty of fallacious thinking, making up assumptions, and insisting with no basis that others do as he wishes. (Krugman and Reich do that.)
Yes, global competition does drive wages down and take jobs that Americans might want to have. But it is not "greedy" corporations who are plotting against us, depriving us of wages and jobs. We cannot expect somebody else to be responsible for our jobs. And how much profit is too much? Isn't that the world of judgment and blame and resentment - which is part of the world of irresponsibility? And isn't it irresponsibility that has caused alot of our problems?
Read about the actual cause of the income and wealth inequality, but don't buy into the "therefore they're 'bad'" argument of the blamers. I don't see any healthy thinking in taking money from others, though I do see the selfish reason for doing so. Of course, we don't want the "fat cats" to be selfish. (One I left off of this draft is that we allow illegal immigration, which brings in more people without educations, which in turn creates more poverty and more inequality of incomes!)
See The Actual Reason For Income And Wealth Disparity.
Note that the person quoted above is not using Rational Thinking and is also not operating from a Personal Responsibility viewpoint.
Yours toward creating a cooperative nation based on rational thinking and decisions such that we do that which makes us powerful,
The Rational NonPolitician
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Does The Jobs Plan Make Sense?
Extending unemployment benefits logically could make sense for people who are out of work due to no responsibility of their own. That appears to be true for a great many people.
The suggestion that nobody should be paid for not being employed makes sense. Benefits should only be paid to those who follow strict rules, with special requirements to attend education classes that improve their skills, run by private enterprise - which would, of course, create jobs but also create a more capable and employable workforce.
Pulling money into the present to pay for building a better infrastructure absolutely makes sense, as it will facilitate commerce and growth and also get rid of waste caused by delays in transportation. There is no definite answer to the question of whether the funds should be taken from other places.
Although it could make sense as a source of funds, raising taxes on the rich has, at the present time, a zero chance of being passed. The Republicans appear to be taking a stand on spending and do not want to encourage more spending or facilitate it. There are pros and cons on that, but there is no valid point in evilizing the Republicans for their sincere stand.
Whether we add a bit more to the deficit to pay for pulling in more moneys for infrastructure or we pay for it by other cuts in the future, we should do the infrastructure spending - we can't afford not to. And we should do the extension of unemployment benefits, carefully screening out laggards but also requiring that they do something to improve their skills and to learn with vigor.
That isn't the entire plan, but those are pieces that are definitely justified.
The President should give up demonizing the Republicans for their refusing to allow more taxes. It diminishes him as a leader, because the only purpose logically can be politics - which are divisive and damaging.
That part is sad.
The Republicans, in my opinion, based on simple economics, should approve the two items above - and if the financing has to come from reductions in the future (added to the Super Committees required total), so be it.
What do you think?
The Rational Non-Politician
The suggestion that nobody should be paid for not being employed makes sense. Benefits should only be paid to those who follow strict rules, with special requirements to attend education classes that improve their skills, run by private enterprise - which would, of course, create jobs but also create a more capable and employable workforce.
Pulling money into the present to pay for building a better infrastructure absolutely makes sense, as it will facilitate commerce and growth and also get rid of waste caused by delays in transportation. There is no definite answer to the question of whether the funds should be taken from other places.
Although it could make sense as a source of funds, raising taxes on the rich has, at the present time, a zero chance of being passed. The Republicans appear to be taking a stand on spending and do not want to encourage more spending or facilitate it. There are pros and cons on that, but there is no valid point in evilizing the Republicans for their sincere stand.
Whether we add a bit more to the deficit to pay for pulling in more moneys for infrastructure or we pay for it by other cuts in the future, we should do the infrastructure spending - we can't afford not to. And we should do the extension of unemployment benefits, carefully screening out laggards but also requiring that they do something to improve their skills and to learn with vigor.
That isn't the entire plan, but those are pieces that are definitely justified.
The President should give up demonizing the Republicans for their refusing to allow more taxes. It diminishes him as a leader, because the only purpose logically can be politics - which are divisive and damaging.
That part is sad.
The Republicans, in my opinion, based on simple economics, should approve the two items above - and if the financing has to come from reductions in the future (added to the Super Committees required total), so be it.
What do you think?
The Rational Non-Politician
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Financial Integrity Versus Jobs
An interesting dilemma - the Republicans are trying to cut the budget but, unremarkably enough, the media reports that would cause a reduction in jobs - 400,000 jobs if there is a cut of $100 billion.
When asked about this, Boehner says "so be it" - and he sounds uncaring, but I think he met that was a reality that had to be incurred.
Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, turned down $2.4 billion for a high speed train - reporting that the current rail system only gets fares that cover 1/6 of the costs! Plus he expects that Florida would be responsible for all overruns on the construction. He is not willing to do that to his state even though obviously the state will not get the benefit of the jobs for building the train.
So, should we "buy" more jobs by spending more and have it not be economical or should we be fiscally responsible? The latter, of course, works out best for the long term, where financial losses are avoided..
How far should we go to buy jobs - we could spend a trillion more dollars to try to solve our unemployment problem, which could produce 2 million to 4 million jobs (per old estimates) - but we'll have to pay for it later with more taxes. 2,000,000 jobs at an average of, say, $40,000 each equals $80 billion dollars - if average taxes were at 20%, we would have $16 billion back toward the deficit. That doesn't quite work, even if you add back potential savings in unemployment payments or using an economic "multiplier".
Of course, there is human welfare at stake in avoiding people being unemployed, but where is the limit?
A tough decision - but it would appear that long term integrity will work out the best - and, as always, decisions have costs to them.
What do you think? (Include specifics and numbers where possible)
The Non-Politician .
See also Is The Wisconsin Governor Justified In Busting The Union? (under Unions).
When asked about this, Boehner says "so be it" - and he sounds uncaring, but I think he met that was a reality that had to be incurred.
Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, turned down $2.4 billion for a high speed train - reporting that the current rail system only gets fares that cover 1/6 of the costs! Plus he expects that Florida would be responsible for all overruns on the construction. He is not willing to do that to his state even though obviously the state will not get the benefit of the jobs for building the train.
So, should we "buy" more jobs by spending more and have it not be economical or should we be fiscally responsible? The latter, of course, works out best for the long term, where financial losses are avoided..
How far should we go to buy jobs - we could spend a trillion more dollars to try to solve our unemployment problem, which could produce 2 million to 4 million jobs (per old estimates) - but we'll have to pay for it later with more taxes. 2,000,000 jobs at an average of, say, $40,000 each equals $80 billion dollars - if average taxes were at 20%, we would have $16 billion back toward the deficit. That doesn't quite work, even if you add back potential savings in unemployment payments or using an economic "multiplier".
Of course, there is human welfare at stake in avoiding people being unemployed, but where is the limit?
A tough decision - but it would appear that long term integrity will work out the best - and, as always, decisions have costs to them.
What do you think? (Include specifics and numbers where possible)
The Non-Politician .
See also Is The Wisconsin Governor Justified In Busting The Union? (under Unions).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)