# The Haves and the Have Nots



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Everything explained in 1 chart. It's surprising there's not a revolution going on. This is what the Fed has done for us.


----------



## karenp (Jun 7, 2013)

The chart is visually deceiving, look carefully at the numbers. It's not as dramatic as it appears.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

karenp said:


> The chart is visually deceiving, look carefully at the numbers. It's not as dramatic as it appears.


There should be a correlation between S&P, corporate profits, and % Americans employed. 

That correlation broke in 2008. Since then you see an artificial increase in corporate profits and S&P because of Fed pumping. If the Fed hadn't pumped all that money into the financial sector, the correlation would have held and we would see corporate profits and S&P down with employment.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> There should be a correlation between S&P, corporate profits, and % Americans employed.
> 
> That correlation broke in 2008. Since then you see an artificial increase in corporate profits and S&P because of Fed pumping. If the Fed hadn't pumped all that money into the financial sector, the correlation would have held and we would see corporate profits and S&P down with employment.


It looks to me like corp profits took the same dump that employment took... and they are both growing at roughly the same rate. I do have to wonder though where the whiners were a few years back when the "have nots" appeared to be outrunning the "haves". Oh, I remember now.... they were still whining.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It looks to me like corp profits took the same dump that employment took... and they are both growing at roughly the same rate. I do have to wonder though where the whiners were a few years back when the "have nots" appeared to be outrunning the "haves". Oh, I remember now.... they were still whining.


You might want to look again. Corporate profits are at record levels and took nowhere near the hit employment did.

I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of whining. The chart clearly shows that employment has not recovered.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> You might want to look again. Corporate profits are at record levels and took nowhere near the hit employment did.
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of whining. The chart clearly shows that employment has not recovered.


employment is recovering as well as corporate profits. They both took a hit, and they are both growing slightly again. Have a look at the first half the chart.... and tell me why everyone was complaining during those years.... just like they are now.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I belive two factors are at play. One you mention. New, bigger money supply. 

The other major shift is the global economy. A big percentage of corporate profits are generated outside America.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I belive two factors are at play. One you mention. New, bigger money supply.
> 
> The other major shift is the global economy. A big percentage of corporate profits are generated outside America.


And automation.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

As long as Obama can juggle the rules, the books, and keep printing money to satisfy his wealthy corporate supporters he can do anything he wants. I believe his last fund raiser went for $34,000 a plate. It was held by a man who supports the invasion of illegal imigrants. So now you know Obama's course of action. He's destoying this Country. Our forefathers would be shooting by now.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> employment is recovering as well as corporate profits. They both took a hit, and they are both growing slightly again. Have a look at the first half the chart.... and tell me why everyone was complaining during those years.... just like they are now.


I still have no idea what you are talking about. Look at the red line. Employment hasn't recovered. The slight increase over the last few years is sleight of hand. Part-time workers are being counted. Hours worked is not increasing.

And who is this everyone that was complaining? 

We have had a jobs problem since early 2000's because of Internet Bubble and 9/11 (and possibly NAFTA). Then the housing bubble got employment up until the sub-prime crisis in 2008. There has been little job recovery since then.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Over half of GE's revenue is outside the US.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

One thing I noticed. The green lines are on a logarithmic scale while the red lines are on a linear scale. It can be very tricky to compare the two scales.

That being said I do agree with the premise of the OP. The Federal Government is propping up the financial sector and this is failing to generate an increase in jobs for Americans. Or probably more accurately this is failing to generate a _net increase_ in jobs after the other detractors are taken into account.

So let's get the Feds out of it. They are not "for the middle-class" as they preach, unless that middle class happens to have retirement investments tied up, or are drawing income from a large union.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> You might want to look again. Corporate profits are at record levels and took nowhere near the hit employment did.
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of whining. The chart clearly shows that employment has not recovered.


You might want to look very carefully at the right hand side of the chart, that's where the slant is. Notice the scale for each? The profit scale is logarithmic whereas the employment scale is linear. Notice at the top of the chart if the profit line moves up about one inch it goes up by about 1,000 units. Not notice if the employment line moves upward one inch it only increases by one (1) unit. That makes the employment line make much more dramatic jumps with small changes and the profit scale barely move a tic with huge changes.

Using different scales its one way lairs use statistics to fool people. If we were given the raw numbers we could crunch them and see what the percentage of change for each was. Looking at the chart I can tell you it'd be much, much closer than the chart makes you think.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> There should be a correlation between S&P, corporate profits, and % Americans employed.


why?

I understand the first two, but there is a growing separation between revenues/profits and employees. I did work for one gov't contractor that basically sold bodies on gov't projects. They had a revenue / employee of about $150K / year. Another gov't contractor I worked for was in the telecom business. They had revenues of $40+M with only about 30 employees or roughly $1.3M / year / employee. Guess which was the more profitable company. 

You mentioned automation, that's a big part of it. The gov't keeps making it more expensive to hire employees so of course, that makes an ever increasing incentive for businesses to eliminate employees from the equation. There was a thread a few weeks ago where someone posted then and now photos to demonstrate why min wage law was bad. 

Then vs Now

Blockbuster...Redbox
Bank teller...ATM
Gas station attendant...self service
Grocery cashier...self serve checkout
Fast food soda handed to you by the cashier...self serve soda machine
Auto maker welder...robot welder

I'm sure others can think of more examples. In some cases, it isn't just the cost of the employee, robots do a better, more consistent job.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> I still have no idea what you are talking about. Look at the red line. Employment hasn't recovered. The slight increase over the last few years is sleight of hand. Part-time workers are being counted. Hours worked is not increasing.
> 
> *And who is this everyone that was complaining? *
> 
> We have had a jobs problem since early 2000's because of Internet Bubble and 9/11 (and possibly NAFTA). Then the housing bubble got employment up until the sub-prime crisis in 2008. There has been little job recovery since then.


as far back as I can remember the working stiffs have done nothing but whine whine and whine some more about how their bosses are rich and they are sooooo poor! Boo hoo hoo, it really does get old. I was in about the 7th or 8th grade when I heard that a polish worker doing the same job as a german worker only got paid half as much as the german worker.... while a british worker got paid twice what the german worker got, but only half what the american worker was paid.... the kicker? The american worker only got half as much as he thought he should be getting!

It seems to make no difference how our economy is doing.... how much people make... they are simply not going to be happy with how they are doing... they want more!

If someone needs a job they are welcome to several that I no longer need nor want since I retired. Auto mechanic.... furnish own shop, tools and hustle up own customers... 8 bucks an hour.... Carpenter and general home repair... same deal but 7 bucks an hour.... how about this one... farm laborer, no tools or special skills required... 1.25 per hour.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> as far back as I can remember the working stiffs have done nothing but whine whine and whine some more about how their bosses are rich and they are sooooo poor! Boo hoo hoo, it really does get old. I was in about the 7th or 8th grade when I heard that a polish worker doing the same job as a german worker only got paid half as much as the german worker.... while a british worker got paid twice what the german worker got, but only half what the american worker was paid.... the kicker? The american worker only got half as much as he thought he should be getting!
> 
> It seems to make no difference how our economy is doing.... how much people make... they are simply not going to be happy with how they are doing... they want more!
> 
> If someone needs a job they are welcome to several that I no longer need nor want since I retired. Auto mechanic.... furnish own shop, tools and hustle up own customers... 8 bucks an hour.... Carpenter and general home repair... same deal but 7 bucks an hour.... how about this one... farm laborer, no tools or special skills required... 1.25 per hour.


I have no problem with the owners of the companies being richer than the employees, but I definitely do have a problem with rigging the system to GIVE the owners more and more wealth. This is not a free market. This is not capitalism. Am I a whiner?


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

This has some thing to do with it .http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/04/15/what-americas-most-profitable-companies-pay-in-taxes/
They need to rework the tax code it's to big and to many loop holes for stuff like this. I say close the I.R.S and start a fedral sales tax. That way if your spending money your paying taxes.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> as far back as I can remember the working stiffs have done nothing but whine whine and whine some more about how their bosses are rich and they are sooooo poor! Boo hoo hoo, it really does get old. I was in about the 7th or 8th grade when I heard that a polish worker doing the same job as a german worker only got paid half as much as the german worker.... while a british worker got paid twice what the german worker got, but only half what the american worker was paid.... the kicker? The american worker only got half as much as he thought he should be getting!
> 
> It seems to make no difference how our economy is doing.... how much people make... they are simply not going to be happy with how they are doing... they want more!
> 
> If someone needs a job they are welcome to several that I no longer need nor want since I retired. Auto mechanic.... furnish own shop, tools and hustle up own customers... 8 bucks an hour.... Carpenter and general home repair... same deal but 7 bucks an hour.... how about this one... farm laborer, no tools or special skills required... 1.25 per hour.


Topic for a different thread. This is about how the Fed pumping billions into the economy has had the effect of making the rich richer while not increasing jobs. 

This is #1 objective of fed reserve (from fed reserve website.)



> Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of *full employment and stable prices*.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

I think that most of the trending seen in the chart is due to the fiscal policy of quantitaive easing. The quasi-government agency called The Fed is "propping up" the stock market and large lending institutions with money. They are hopeful this money is then used as capital in the US to build growth. It's not generating the growth it was expected to.

As a side result the increase in the markets is disproportionately benefiting people in the large scale financial market, those the OP has deemed the "haves". This is one of the largest contributors to the increasing economic gap between the upper and middle class.

Reference the findings in Britain. They are almost the same numbers as seen here in the US.



> Threadneedle Street said that wealthy families had been the biggest beneficiaries of its Â£375bn quantitative-easing (QE) programme, under which it has been buying government gilts for cash since early 2009.
> 
> The Bank of England calculated that the value of shares and bonds had risen by 26% &#8211; or Â£600bn &#8211; as a result of the policy, equivalent to Â£10,000 for each household in the UK. It added, however, that 40% of the gains went to the richest 5% of households


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/23/britains-richest-gained-quantative-easing-bank


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I have a question. 

When new money is printed how does it get into the hand of the business man or the investment broker or the everyday man?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> As long as Obama can juggle the rules, the books, and keep printing money to satisfy his wealthy corporate supporters he can do anything he wants. I believe his last fund raiser went for $34,000 a plate. It was held by a man who supports the invasion of illegal imigrants. So now you know Obama's course of action. He's destoying this Country. Our forefathers would be shooting by now.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I really want to hear someone answer my question. It is obvious that a lot of people do not know how the money moves from the printing press to others' hands.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I have a question.
> 
> When new money is printed how does it get into the hand of the business man or the investment broker or the everyday man?


Via the banks.... who borrow it from the fed, and lend it to businesses and the everyday man.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I have a question.
> 
> When new money is printed how does it get into the hand of the business man or the investment broker or the everyday man?


The gov't spends the newly created dollars. The dollars go in lots of directions like to state/local gov'ts, individuals, andbusinesses, for wealth transfer payments (welfare, SSA, etc) tanks, highways, etc. But regardless the cash churns thru several hands but ends up in the hands of savers whether they be businesses, like Apple that is sitting on BILLIONS of cash, or little guys like me who refuse to borrow and never make a purchase unless I can pay cash. Full disclosure, I use credit cards a lot but always always always pay in full each month. 

So in the hands of savers now it has to get invested somewhere. Most invested dollars go into the stock market either directly or thru mutuals, IRAs, 401Ks, etc. With more money coming into the stock market than going out, stock prices increase and the investors get wealthier. 

That's a good thing because about 50% of the US is invested in the stock market. However, it takes a while for new businesses to get started and create more employment. I haven't seen recent stats about how many new businesses are being created. 

Some of the saved cash goes into real estate, precious metals, and all the other investment classes. But right now, stocks seem to be the favored class. If we were smart enough to know when stocks would fall out of favor and the what the next class would be, we could all get rich.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I really want to hear someone answer my question. It is obvious that a lot of people do not know how the money moves from the printing press to others' hands.


In the case of quantitative easing, they don't really print it, it's electronic.

What the fed did was allow the big banks to borrow it at close to 0%, thinking the banks would lend it out, businesses would grow and hire. 

What the banks did was buy Treasuries. So, just as an example, let's say the banks borrowed from the fed at .25% and then bought Treasuries at 2.25%. They made 2% by simply shuffling paper and took no risk.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> There should be a correlation between S&P, corporate profits, and % Americans employed.
> 
> That correlation broke in 2008.


Ok, two things here.... first you say there should be a correlation between S&P, corporate profits and % of Americans employed.... I would ask "According to who?"

Secondly, if you will look at the chart a bit closer there really had not been much of any correlation prior to 2008 either. 

as an aside.... what makes you think this "disparity", if it actually exists, has anything to do with the fed? Could it not simply be because our off shore profits are accounting for a lot of the difference? We are constantly hearing about our companies making more and more money offshore due to lower wages and fewer regulations and restrictions.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Right. So every person has acces to that money if their credit warrants it. 

So stop whining and go borrow the money while rates are low. They will go up. 

Buy rent houses. Buy stocks. Buy a business. Go get rich. Stop expecting someone to give you stuff.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> The gov't spends the newly created dollars. The dollars go in lots of directions like to state/local gov'ts, individuals, andbusinesses, for wealth transfer payments (welfare, SSA, etc) tanks, highways, etc. But regardless the cash churns thru several hands but ends up in the hands of savers whether they be businesses, like Apple that is sitting on BILLIONS of cash, or little guys like me who refuse to borrow and never make a purchase unless I can pay cash. Full disclosure, I use credit cards a lot but always always always pay in full each month.
> 
> So in the hands of savers now it has to get invested somewhere. Most invested dollars go into the stock market either directly or thru mutuals, IRAs, 401Ks, etc. With more money coming into the stock market than going out, stock prices increase and the investors get wealthier.
> 
> ...


Nope. 

YH has it right


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> They don't really print it, it's electronic.
> 
> What the fed did was allow the big banks to borrow it at close to 0%, thinking the banks would lend it out, businesses would grow and hire.
> 
> What the banks did was buy Treasuries. So, just as an example, let's say the banks borrowed from the fed at .25% and then bought Treasuries at 2.25%. They made 2% by simply shuffling paper and took no risk.


very true. and then the gov't spent the money. 

I think the Fed hopes that the banks will lend it to you and me and that we will either buy something productive or build a businesses with it. But when the gov't is sucking up so much $$$, why should the bank take a risk to lend it to me at 5% (remember the costs to monitor my loan are much greater than a gov't bond) when they have a guaranteed, low cost gov't bond?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Secondly, if you will look at the chart a bit closer there really had not been much of any correlation prior to 2008 either.


Looks like they correlate to me. They go up together and come down together. S&P and employment are more dynamic than corporate profit, probably because of government created bubbles.



> as an aside.... what makes you think this "disparity", if it actually exists, has anything to do with the fed? Could it not simply be because our off shore profits are accounting for a lot of the difference? We are constantly hearing about our companies making more and more money offshore due to lower wages and fewer regulations and restrictions.


Because it correlates perfectly with actions of fed reserve. Big business and especially big banks are not going to take risks when there is free money available.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> very true. and then the gov't spent the money.
> 
> I think the Fed hopes that the banks will lend it to you and me and that we will either buy something productive or build a businesses with it. But when the gov't is sucking up so much $$$, why should the bank take a risk to lend it to me at 5% (remember the costs to monitor my loan are much greater than a gov't bond) when they have a guaranteed, low cost gov't bond?


Nope. The goverment borrows just like business do, by issuing bonds. 

A bond is debt. 

And when I said print Moon, I was speaking figuratively.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> very true. and then the gov't spent the money.
> 
> I think the Fed hopes that the banks will lend it to you and me and that we will either buy something productive or build a businesses with it. But when the gov't is sucking up so much $$$, why should the bank take a risk to lend it to me at 5% (remember the costs to monitor my loan are much greater than a gov't bond) when they have a guaranteed, low cost gov't bond?


 My banks charge me 7.5 to 8 percent for commercial loans and thats with an excellent credit rating and long history with them. I would love to get those 5 percent rates you speak of.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Right. So every person has acces to that money if their credit warrants it.
> 
> So stop whining and go borrow the money while rates are low. They will go up.
> 
> Buy rent houses. Buy stocks. Buy a business. Go get rich. Stop expecting someone to give you stuff.


While the fed printing money helped ease mortgage rates, it didn't help people get mortgages. The requirements were made a lot stricter so the cheap money never did restart the housing market in a big way.

Small businesses never got the benefit of cheap money. Banks could make 2% taking no risk, so why would they take a risk and lend it to small business. Same with individuals - personal borrowing was tight and did not benefit from cheap money.

That's why I am saying the rich got richer. ALL the benefits of quantitative easing went to big business with the possible exception of people invested in the stock market.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My banks charge me 7.5 to 8 percent for commercial loans and thats with an excellent credit rating and long history with them. I would love to get those 5 percent rates you speak of.


Only big business got those rates.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Nope.
> 
> YH has it right


His answer is very good, except that he left off that the banks lend it to the gov't as well and the Fed buys USG securities in the open market. Where do you think the gov't gets the $1.43 it spends for every dollar it collects in taxes? 

From the fed's own website:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-are-the-federal-reserves-large-scale-asset-purchases.htm

_In conducting LSAPs, the Fed purchases longer-term securities issued by the U.S. government and longer-term securities issued or guaranteed by government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac_


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My banks charge me 7.5 to 8 percent for commercial loans and thats with an excellent credit rating and long history with them. I would love to get those 5 percent rates you speak of.


Agreed, that was a SWAG. I've been out of the bank borrowing game since 2007. However, I do have a line of home equity line of credit and the rate is 2.88%. I want to close it but the rate is so low it is nice to keep as a just in case resource.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> Looks like they correlate to me. They go up together and come down together. S&P and employment are more dynamic than corporate profit, probably because of government created bubbles.
> 
> 
> Because it correlates perfectly with actions of fed reserve. Big business and especially big banks are not going to take risks when there is free money available.


we must be looking at different charts. 

You might also want to look into what the federal government was doing in regards to their regulations on the banks during this timeframe... requiring high risk loans, which proved out to be a disaster resulting in the crash of 08, as well as the changes made involving overseas trade during the Clinton administration. Think nafta here... One chart does not ever catch all.... particularly not this chart.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> While the fed printing money helped ease mortgage rates, it didn't help people get mortgages. The requirements were made a lot stricter so the cheap money never did restart the housing market in a big way.
> 
> Small businesses never got the benefit of cheap money. Banks could ake 2% taking no risk, so why would they take a risk and lend it to small business. Same with individuals - personal borrowing was tight and did not benefit from cheap money.
> 
> That's why I am saying the rich got richer. ALL the benefits of quantitative easing went to big business with the possible exception of people invested in the stock market.


Interest rates are based on credit rating, the size of the loan, length of the loan and such. 

I have two mortgages, both fixed at 3.25%. I bought a truck two weeks ago and got 1.89% at a bank. Rates are low if your credit is good. My FICO score is over 800. 

Like I said if your ability to pay is good and your credit is good, money is there. Go get it.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Nope. The goverment borrows just like business do, by issuing bonds.
> 
> A bond is debt.
> 
> And when I said print Moon, I was speaking figuratively.


I understand print is figurative these days. 

But I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. The gov't issues bonds, we agree the gov't borrows. The Fed buys those bonds as do banks, businesses, and individuals.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Interest rates are based on credit rating, the size of the loan, length of the loan and such.
> 
> I have two mortgages, both at 3.25%. I bought a truck two weeks ago and got 1.89% at a bank. Rates are low if your credit is good. My FICO score is over 800.
> 
> Like I said if your ability to pay is good and your credit is good, money is there. Go get it.


Rates are low because the fed and gov have created an artificially low inflation rate. If you do a search, you will find many articles that explain the feds free money didn't trickle down to small businesses.



> Weâve repeatedly pointed out that the Federal Reserve has been intentionally discouraged banks from lending to Main Street â in a misguided attempt to curb inflation â which has increased unemployment and stalled out the economy.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...ring-dust-instead-of-helping-the-economy.html


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> ALL the benefits of quantitative easing went to big business with the possible exception of people invested in the stock market.


And 50% of the US population is invested in stocks, so half the country benefited.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Interest rates are based on credit rating, the size of the loan, length of the loan and such.


You left out the main indicator of interest rates - the government.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Rates are low because the fed and gov have created an artificially low inflation rate. If you do a search, you will find many articles that explain the feds free money didn't trickle down to small businesses.
> 
> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...ring-dust-instead-of-helping-the-economy.html


That Post blog is pure spin. I work for a bank. We are begging individuals and businesses to borrow. Begging.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Interest rates are based on credit rating, the size of the loan, length of the loan and such.
> 
> I have two mortgages, both at 3.5%. I bought a truck two weeks ago and got 1.89% at a bank. Rates are low if your credit is good. My FICO score is over 800.
> 
> Like I said if your ability to pay is good and your credit is good, money is there. Go get it.


Sort of....... basically lenders want to reduce their risk to zero, in essence guaranteed profit. So if your credit score is mighty good and you raise no other red flags such as recently job change or law suit or injury, you get marvelous low interest, especially on short term loans. 
However, since all banks are aware that the Disney ride must end sometime, they are very reluctant to make a low interest, long term loan in any real volumes lest they get stuck with 20 years left with a loan at 4% in a world where inflation is 6%. They might get points up front but that is not so attractive to them as investing that means either no interest or stock risk.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> And 50% of the US population is invested in stocks, so half the country benefited.


Not hardly. Just because someone owned stocks doesn't mean they went up.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> You left out the main indicator of interest rates - the government.


The Federal Reserve sets interest rates. It's policies do not need approval from the executive or legislative branches.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I really want to hear someone answer my question. It is obvious that a lot of people do not know how the money moves from the printing press to others' hands.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Via the banks.... who borrow it from the fed, and lend it to businesses and the everyday man.


This is how the money _loaned_ by The Fed is supposed to reach peoples hands. Through quantitative easing they are purchasing debt held by the banks, such as mortgages they have issued. This then provides the bank with additional capital to use. Prior to 2008 The Fed did not hold mortgage backed securities.

This is not however how newly printed money reaches anyone's hand. Quantitative Easing is not the printing of additional currency.



DEKE01 said:


> The gov't spends the newly created dollars. The dollars go in lots of directions like to state/local gov'ts, individuals, andbusinesses, for wealth transfer payments (welfare, SSA, etc) tanks, highways, etc. But regardless the cash churns thru several hands but ends up in the hands of savers whether they be businesses, like Apple that is sitting on BILLIONS of cash, or little guys like me who refuse to borrow and never make a purchase unless I can pay cash. Full disclosure, I use credit cards a lot but always always always pay in full each month.
> 
> So in the hands of savers now it has to get invested somewhere. Most invested dollars go into the stock market either directly or thru mutuals, IRAs, 401Ks, etc. With more money coming into the stock market than going out, stock prices increase and the investors get wealthier.
> 
> ...


This is how newly printed money reaches the market place. It is used to pay for the Federal Spending.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I will agree that home mortgage rates are quite reasonable these days.... and even auto loans... but there is a difference twixt these types of consumer credit and business or commercial loans.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Sort of....... basically lenders want to reduce their risk to zero, in essence guaranteed profit. So if your credit score is mighty good and you raise no other red flags such as recently job change or law suit or injury, you get marvelous low interest, especially on short term loans.
> However, since all banks are aware that the Disney ride must end sometime, they are very reluctant to make a low interest, long term loan in any real volumes lest they get stuck with 20 years left with a loan at 4% in a world where inflation is 6%. They might get points up front but that is not so attractive to them as investing that means either no interest or stock risk.


Nits and nats.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nate_in_IN said:


> This is how the money _loaned_ by The Fed is supposed to reach peoples hands. Through quantitative easing they are purchasing debt held by the banks, such as mortgages they have issued. This then provides the bank with additional capital to use. Prior to 2008 The Fed did not hold mortgage backed securities.
> 
> This is not however how newly printed money reaches anyone's hand. Quantitative Easing is not the printing of additional currency.
> 
> ...


Dek you still aren't getting it. I am typing on a phone. 

Long and short. Goverment issues bonds (bonds). Fed buys bonds. That gives credit to goverment at low rates.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> And 50% of the US population is invested in stocks, so half the country benefited.


I would agree with you if it was real gains in the companies who participate in the market. However the stock market has become just like trading baseball cards. Rather than invest in a company which will use your money to turn greater profits and provide you with a dividend the market plays supply / demand with how companies are poised. In the end, just like that Mickey Mantle, stocks are only worth what you can convince someone else to buy them for. By pumping more cash into the market the prices go up but this is pseudo inflationary. There are no real investments in market sectors happening, it just inflating investment holdings.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> That Post blog is pure spin. I work for a bank. We are begging individuals and businesses to borrow. Begging.


The neoclassical theory of economics says that the main driver of economic growth is consumer confidence. When the consumer looses faith in the economy, like in 2007, his wallet acts like a scrotum in ice water and the economy contracts and sometimes it contracts so much it hurts. 

As evidenced by many threads in HT, consumer confidence has not recovered. As evidenced by your bank begging for borrowers, consumer confidence has not recovered sufficiently for the masses to want to risk borrowing to fix up their home or start a business.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> The Federal Reserve sets interest rates. It's policies do not need approval from the executive or legislative branches.


Audit the Fed!

You don't think the Fed is "influenced" by the President?

And the Fed only sets a small number of interest rates.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Not hardly. Just because someone owned stocks doesn't mean they went up.


So you don't believe the chart you posted in the OP? 

Granted, not every stock went up, and not every investor owns a diversified portfolio, but I'm speaking in general terms.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

HDRider said:


> The Federal Reserve sets interest rates. It's policies do not need approval from the executive or legislative branches.


But Obama appointed Yellen, who will have engraved on her tombstone that the economy has not yet recovered so interest rates will have be held down.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Dek you still aren't getting. I am typing on a phone.
> 
> Long and short. Goverment issues bonds (bonds). Fed buys bonds. That gives credit to goverment at low rates.


Quantitative Easing goes beyond this. What has happened is The Fed was following just what you said, purchasing bonds so the interest rate is extremely low. But then it hit 0%. Now what? This is where QE comes in. Rather than purchase a bond QE directly purchases the debt from the banks. The thought is it injects more capital into the banks to stimulate commerce, but there are too many other factors.

Japan has tried Quantitative Easing twice now and both times they concluded it didn't get the results they were looking for. I doubt it will work for the bulk of the US populace either. It's just a way for the government to make rich people richer. They need to just stay out of the market and let it naturally re-balance. Then the labor which the masses will provide will be worth more.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> So you don't believe the chart you posted in the OP?


Its ok, I am not so sure I believe it either.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Dek you still aren't getting it. I am typing on a phone.
> 
> Long and short. Goverment issues bonds (bonds). Fed buys bonds. That gives credit to goverment at low rates.


I'm not getting what you are not getting. I agree the Fed buys bonds and that means the gov't receives cash, or at least a computer entry that represents cash. 

And then the gov't spends and spends and spends.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

where I want to said:


> But Obama appointed Yellen, who will have engraved on her tombstone that the economy has not yet recovered so interest rates will have be held down.


She announced today that rates may rise. The market dropped right after that. 

A lot of this debate is very nuanced but directionally correct. 

The lack of good paying jobs is at the root of all our ills.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> She announced today that rights may rise. The market dropped right after that.
> 
> A lot of this debate is very nuanced but directionally correct.
> 
> The lack of good paying jobs is at the root of all our ills.


A lack of jobs is a symptom, it is not the root cause. Too much gov't regs, too much gov't taxing, borrowing, and spending is the root cause. Too much gov't period. 

I recall from talk in the 70s and 80s that the fed and gov't were going to constrain capitalism just enough so that the boom and bust cycles would go away. I would like to ask those idiots a Dr. Phil question, "so how's that working out for ya?"

Boom and bust is a natural and necessary part of capitalism. The more gov't you have, the more bust you get. Eliminate capitalism and you get permanent bust.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There is a triple whammy against the average worker-

1) unlimited immigration means pressure to keep wages low
2) outsourcing work means a higher proportion of low wage jobs in the country
3) increasing government mandates about employee non wage obligations such as health care, FICA, workers comp, etc mean less is availabile for pay

The bottom line is that only government workers routinely have employers able to simply legislate more revenue and can continue the old model.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> The lack of good paying jobs is at the root of all our ills.


But if we pay the workers more... that in itself devalues our dollar, increasing the inflation cycle. Then when the workers realize they now have more money, they run out and spend it willy nilly, paying even more for products than they would have yesterday... hence even more inflation devaluing our dollars even further. What we need is to stabilize our money supply, get inflation under control by cutting everyones wages by ten percent per year for a few years. We were much better off when people worked 10 hours a day for a dollar a day than we are now. we have to remember that our dollars are only worth what we value them at. if a buck is worth a days work, its going to buy us a whole lot more than if we get a hundred of them for an hours work.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But if we pay the workers more... that in itself devalues our dollar, increasing the inflation cycle. Then when the workers realize they now have more money, they run out and spend it willy nilly, paying even more for products than they would have yesterday... hence even more inflation devaluing our dollars even further. What we need is to stabilize our money supply, get inflation under control by cutting everyones wages by ten percent per year for a few years. We were much better off when people worked 10 hours a day for a dollar a day than we are now. we have to remember that our dollars are only worth what we value them at. if a buck is worth a days work, its going to buy us a whole lot more than if we get a hundred of them for an hours work.


I think everyone that has posted on this thread is against artificially raising pay levels. What several of us object to is that the Fed has created an environment that is not capitalistic, meaning competitive. Cheap money kills risk taking and risk taking is necessary to create new jobs.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I think everyone that has posted on this thread is against artificially raising pay levels. What several of us object to is that the Fed has created an environment that is not capitalistic, meaning competitive. Cheap money kills risk taking and risk taking is necessary to create new jobs.


Agreed up to your last sentence. Cheap money encourages risk taking. Why do you say that? 

The fact that there is not more risk taking is due to other factors, like too much gov't (at all levels) regulation.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

These whining Rich vs Poor threads never get tiresome. Personally I have been struggling finanacially, most of my life, but somehow, it's must be someone else's fault. 

The unemployment rate in Indiana, has gone from a high of nearly 11%, down to around 5.5%, so the notion that all that QE and low interest rates, has only helped the "rich", is just poppy cock.

Speaking of stocks.

How many panicked dumped what was left of their stock portfilio in 08', instead "investing" in the can't-miss, no place to go but up, tough-times gains, provided by gold?

Wages low, while Corporate profits high?

we wanted the Unions gone - they are gone (or going). We fight minimum wage increases tooth and nail. In a employer's job market, are they supposed to pay more, simply out of the goodness of their hearts?

I can't speak for anyone else and although I am not wealthy, I am definitely a "have".


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I think everyone that has posted on this thread is against artificially raising pay levels. What several of us object to is that the Fed has created an environment that is not capitalistic, meaning competitive. Cheap money kills risk taking and risk taking is necessary to create new jobs.


Even with all that stimulus, QE and low interest rates, the U.S. economy is still doing only so-so, much in part due the poor economy, of the rest of the world.

That said, how do you justify, that the U.S. economy would actually be in much better shape, if they had done _nothing_, instead, leaving it all to "capitalism", whatever that is? Higher interest rates and a tighter money supply, mean more businesses expanding and more homes being sold? 

Just curious.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Even with all that stimulus, QE and low interest rates, the U.S. economy is still doing only so-so, much in part due the poor economy, of the rest of the world.
> 
> That said, how do you justify, that the U.S. economy would actually be in much better shape, if they had done _nothing_, instead, leaving it all to "capitalism", whatever that is? Higher interest rates and a tighter money supply, mean more businesses expanding and more homes being sold?
> 
> Just curious.


Just wait... We shall see. I hope and pray I am wrong, but I fear I am not.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Even with all that stimulus, QE and low interest rates, the U.S. economy is still doing only so-so, much in part due the poor economy, of the rest of the world.
> 
> That said, how do you justify, that the U.S. economy would actually be in much better shape, if they had done _nothing_, instead, leaving it all to "capitalism", whatever that is? Higher interest rates and a tighter money supply, mean more businesses expanding and more homes being sold?
> 
> Just curious.


How did you justify Obama's allegations in his speeches claiming to have personally saved the economy?

Actually not curious at all.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Even with all that stimulus, QE and low interest rates, the U.S. economy is still doing only so-so, much in part due the poor economy, of the rest of the world.
> 
> That said, how do you justify, that the U.S. economy would actually be in much better shape, if they had done _nothing_, instead, leaving it all to "capitalism", whatever that is? Higher interest rates and a tighter money supply, mean more businesses expanding and more homes being sold?
> 
> Just curious.


Your question is all wrong. The gov't over taxed, over subsidized, regulated, manipulated, adulterated, and fornicated the economy into an economic outhouse, so you can't be surprised there is a great big stink and a whole lot of people got pooped on. Expecting "capitalism" to suddenly fix all the gov't wrongs is not realistic. Over time yes, capitalism would be better than the semi-fascist system we have today. But the gov't had to take action to fix a gov't caused problem. 

I think the mgmt of gov't owned forests is a decent analogy. Instead of letting natural forces burn small amounts of forest litter, in a manner that the habitat is evolutionarily (is that a word?) designed to coop with, the gov't pats itself on the back for years, stopping all the small fires. Eventually when the gov't can no longer artificially inflate the economy, when the fuel has built up beyond the ability of the gov't to control, a massive and devastating fire occurs. Like the economy, the forest will eventually recover, but there would have been less pain for all if the gov't allowed the natural and smaller economic cycles to occur. 

That said, I readily acknowledge capitalism is not a panacea for all the worlds ills. It's just that the gov't "fixes", sooner or later, all end up making things worse.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

oops.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Here is a thought.[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8[/ame]
This pertains to us just different names[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE[/ame]


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

where I want to said:


> How did you justify Obama's allegations in his speeches claiming to have personally saved the economy?
> 
> Actually not curious at all.


Understandably so. 

Don't know what your are referring to specifically, but not sure why it would even matter.

Obama - like every Politician, is going to personally take credit, for anything positive, that happens during their watch. Who wouldn't? This is nothing new.

Did Reagan make every policy decisions himself, or did he mostly nod his head in agreement, to the Fed, the Military and the CIA, etc. over policies presented, by people who actually knew what they were doing (mostly)?

Of course not.

What does this have to do with my point about Capitalism (or lack of ) in liu of Government policy, anyway?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> Your question is all wrong. The gov't over taxed, over subsidized, regulated, manipulated, adulterated, and fornicated the economy into an economic outhouse, so you can't be surprised there is a great big stink and a whole lot of people got pooped on. Expecting "capitalism" to suddenly fix all the gov't wrongs is not realistic. Over time yes, capitalism would be better than the semi-fascist system we have today. But the gov't had to take action to fix a gov't caused problem.
> 
> I think the mgmt of gov't owned forests is a decent analogy. Instead of letting natural forces burn small amounts of forest litter, in a manner that the habitat is evolutionarily (is that a word?) designed to coop with, the gov't pats itself on the back for years, stopping all the small fires. Eventually when the gov't can no longer artificially inflate the economy, when the fuel has built up beyond the ability of the gov't to control, a massive and devastating fire occurs. Like the economy, the forest will eventually recover, but there would have been less pain for all if the gov't allowed the natural and smaller economic cycles to occur.
> 
> That said, I readily acknowledge capitalism is not a panacea for all the worlds ills. It's just that the gov't "fixes", sooner or later, all end up making things worse.


My question is fine and deserves to be answered, it's your point that seems a bit moot.

Our economy is over-taxed, over-regulated, over-manipulated, etc., as you say,yet corporations have been turning out _record profits_, while wages are hitting rock-bottom.

Back to my question, If current Government policy, is not creating millions of high paying jobs, How does eliminating these policies, create all those great jobs?

The answer is, that it won't.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> I have no problem with the owners of the companies being richer than the employees, but I definitely do have a problem with rigging the system to GIVE the owners more and more wealth. This is not a free market. This is not capitalism. Am I a whiner?


The system doesn't "GIVE the owners more and more wealth" it has just moved on to where there are fewer and fewer employees needed which makes it look that way.

Back not that long ago a company making precision metal parts had to pay a lot of highly skilled, experienced machinist a lot of money to turn out X number of widgets a day (a buddy of mine was one, had a huge house in a very nice suburb of Chicago, a new car every couple of years and the rest). Today that same company can pay one fairly intelligent person to operate a dozen computer controlled machines to turn out twice that number of widgets. The company is making more money due to increased production AND reduced labor cost. 

Back in the stone ages a business had a gang of stock boys who would stamp prices on each item when they put it on the shelf (BTW, this was a HIGHLY prized job for high school guys because you worked inside with AC). Then they had cashiers who would have to take each item and punch in the price. Today its all UPC which means one stock boy can stock as much as three in the stone ages and one cashier can check out as many people as five in the stone ages. That means the store makes more money because it is getting the work of eight people done by two people. 

There's no rigging things its just the march of time. If anything the system is rigged to force employers to pay MORE for labor than its worth. Is picking up cigarette butts really worth $8/hr?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> The system doesn't "GIVE the owners more and more wealth" it has just moved on to where there are fewer and fewer employees needed which makes it look that way.
> 
> Back not that long ago a company making precision metal parts had to pay a lot of highly skilled, experienced machinist a lot of money to turn out X number of widgets a day (a buddy of mine was one, had a huge house in a very nice suburb of Chicago, a new car every couple of years and the rest). Today that same company can pay one fairly intelligent person to operate a dozen computer controlled machines to turn out twice that number of widgets. The company is making more money due to increased production AND reduced labor cost.
> 
> ...


Automation is a completely different subject. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I was commenting on.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Just wait... We shall see. I hope and pray I am wrong, but I fear I am not.


I hope so, too, but as much as everyone hate the Fed, they have been using _kid gloves_, to deal with interest rates.

They know from experience, that if rates are raised too high too fast, the economy will almost instantly react and start moving backwards again.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Is picking up cigarette butts really worth $8/hr?


How much should a human being get paid for this job? $1/hr?

Is $8/hr a lot of money? I just spent $90 to put gas in my pickup truck.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> How much should a human being get paid for this job? $1/hr?
> 
> Is $8/hr a lot of money? I just spent $90 to put gas in my pickup truck.


It depends on the job and what someone is willing to pay someone else to do it! Lots of people, one job, low wage! Few people, lots of jobs...hire wages.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> How much should a human being get paid for this job? $1/hr?
> 
> Is $8/hr a lot of money? I just spent $90 to put gas in my pickup truck.


That depends a lot on the job, who is doing it and where its being performed. 

unskilled labor doesnt command nearly as much pay as skilled labor does, and skilled labor pales in comparison to professional talents. In the USA a lot of unskilled labor sells for minimum wage... less than 8 bucks an hour.... for 20 bucks a lot of chinamen will work their tails off for a week. I have seen a lot of american laborers who werent worth a buck an hour. I currently have a neighbor that will hit the ground running and bust his tail all day long.... I pay him 10 bucks an hour. oh, and I dont give a flying fig how much it costs you to fill your truck with gas.... my interest is how much work are you going to get done for me, the quality of that work and how much money having it done is going to put in MY pocket. If you aint making me money.... chances are you wont be working for me very long.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> My question is fine and deserves to be answered, it's your point that seems a bit moot.
> 
> Our economy is over-taxed, over-regulated, over-manipulated, etc., as you say,yet corporations have been turning out _record profits_, while wages are hitting rock-bottom.
> 
> ...


Your question is wrong because we don't have capitalism, we have crony capitalism or semi-fascism. In some cases, new technologies are doing great, as you would expect, in many cases, it is the favored companies, like the banks, that are setting the records. 

The gov't policy that would create jobs and encourage real capitalism, the development of small businesses, is to get the gov't out of our pockets and off our backs.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> How much should a human being get paid for this job? $1/hr?
> 
> Is $8/hr a lot of money? I just spent $90 to put gas in my pickup truck.


The worker should get what he and the employer agree is a an appropriate wage, free from a nanny state gov't deciding that the gov't knows better than the employer and employee.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

plowjockey said:


> How much should a human being get paid for this job? $1/hr?
> 
> Is $8/hr a lot of money? I just spent $90 to put gas in my pickup truck.


Should a person in NYC be paid more for doing the same job as a worker in Arkansas?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> Automation is a completely different subject. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I was commenting on.


The point is the system isn't "giving" businesses anything. As a matter of fact the opposite is true. We live in a fascist system where the government has total control on businesses via laws and regulations. If a business wants to continue to exist it must bow down and pay homage to the great and powerful in Oz, aka Washington, DC. Therefore to stay in business you must 'give' to the government.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

watcher said:


> If a business wants to continue to exist it must bow down and pay homage to the great and powerful in Oz, aka Washington, DC. Therefore to stay in business you must 'give' to the government.


Well to be fair, if you pull back the curtain on the 'great and powerful Oz', you'll find big business interests. IMO the problem isn't big business which will always try to use whatever means it can to have an advantage over it's competition. The problem is with a government that is empowered to interfere in the market place to such an extent that it can grant competitive advantage.

The biggest fallacy out there is that big business interests want a free market so they can have their way and cheat everybody out of everything. The reality is that they are scared to death of a free market, where they will have to compete on an even playing field and offer a superior product at a competitive price in order to win business. They would much rather lobby government for special favors and to create regulations that give them advantages over the competition.

There is a a reason why Costco favors raising the minimum wage, its not that they want to give their profits away to workers...its because they know they can afford it and their competition can't. Same goes for Walmart supporting Obamacare. They know the little guys cannot afford to keep up with these regulations.

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold will be the legislators"-Thomas Jefferson


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> I hope so, too, but as much as everyone hate the Fed, they have been using _kid gloves_, to deal with interest rates.
> 
> They know from experience, that if rates are raised too high too fast, the economy will almost instantly react and start moving backwards again.


Never has this experiment of suppressing interest rates as low as this ever been done. But so far it has mean lots of money going into the stock market (rich getting richer, suppression of innovation as stock market makes more without the risk, less new jobs as why actually make something when investing in the ever fewer who do is more lucrative as long as the Fed keeps creating money ), people with less ready cash getting no interest and extra fees for banking, and cheaper money for the government to borrow.
Bolstering the percentage of money in the stock market is not the same thing as investing in business growth. It has become a stock market inflation where businesses do not produce more but are simply worth more.
So it's like a person living on credit cards rather than earnings- they are not starving or living on the streets so less misery except for that nagging thought that someone is going to have to pay for it sooner or later. And the bill is going to be delivered to the ordinary worker, who although much fewer in numbers, is easily taxed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> How much should a human being get paid for this job? $1/hr?


He should get paid a wage he and the person wanting the sticks agree upon. If its $1/hr then that's how much he should get paid. If its $20/hr then that's how much he should get paid.

Read Matthew 20:1-15




plowjockey said:


> Is $8/hr a lot of money? I just spent $90 to put gas in my pickup truck.


It is for some jobs. We've got a job where I work which is nothing more than sitting in a climate controlled trailer and from time to time take a piece of paper from a deliverer and place it in one of 4 slots. Some shifts there are NO deliveries. Do you really think that's worth paying someone $8/hr plus all the hidden cost involved with keeping someone employed? I'm willing to bet there are some homeless people who would be willing to do the job for a lot less just to have a roof over their head for eight hours. But because that's illegal they get to enjoy whatever nature has to offer them.

You are paying more for some things because the government forces business to pay more than a job is worth. I've told this story several times but I'll do it again. Back MANY years ago I was working fast food when the minimum wage was increased. The night before the increase was to take effect we changed the prices of EVERYTHING on the menu. Want to guess if the prices went up or down? I'll give you a hint. The next day everyone who bought food was paying more than they were the day before. Was the food better? Did the quality of service increase? Were the people getting anything more for their extra money? No, their buying power went down because the federal government passed a law.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> I hope so, too, but as much as everyone hate the Fed, they have been using _kid gloves_, to deal with interest rates.
> 
> They know from experience, that if rates are raised too high too fast, the economy will almost instantly react and start moving backwards again.


No, if the interest rates are left to find there actual price as a function of supply and demand then they will reflect the reality of our economy. Artificially holding down interest rates doesn't change the reality, it distorts the market, prolongs the artificial bubbles and delays the correction that is needed for a real recovery. The fed cannot create something from nothing. Simply creating the perception of a recovery where none exists just exacerbates the problem as more people fall prey to malinvestment. The fed is distorting the market, eventually they will have to take the punch bowl away and alot of people are going to get caught out on a limb because of the cheap interest rates and stock bubbles.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> There should be a correlation between S&P, corporate profits, and % Americans employed.


But it's not a straight comparison, because so many factors affect the number of Americans in the workforce.

For instance, your chart doesn't tell us whether the "Employed Population of America," at 59 percent, includes _all_ Americans, or only working-age ones. According to the 2010 census, about 20 percent of our population consists of children, while another 13 percent are seniors 65 and over. 

If you add them to the 59 percent who are employed, it looks like 92 percent of the population either is working, or too young or old to be working. The remaining 8 percent would include not only the involuntarily unemployed, but also the disabled, and people who choose not to work; for instance, stay-at-home moms. 

Eight percent is not an alarming figure to me. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Should a person in NYC be paid more for doing the same job as a worker in Arkansas?


With goverment mandates in some jobs they may be paid the same. 

That question hinges purely on supply and demand.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> How much should a human being get paid for this job? $1/hr?
> 
> Is $8/hr a lot of money? I just spent $90 to put gas in my pickup truck.


But if a job is not neccessary to produce income for an employer or is really just a convenience for the customer, then overpricing it will eliminate it. I was in a hurry in a busy day yesterday so went through a McDonald's drive through. I paid almost $8 dollars for a cheeseburger and medium fry. Not only was that expensive enough to discourage me from doing it again, I got the wrong order. 
If enough people make that choice, those jobs are gone. I would definitely not get that order for $10.
For a job to get good wages securely, it must be needful and the right price. And needful jobs have been funneled away from this country already as they are more cheaply done elsewhere.
I believe in paying a wage that allows adequate purchase of necessities. But the reality is, that unless the laws change to protect workers including outsourcing and immigration, the value of American wages are eaten up with government costs. And that leaves little power in workers to demand more. The employer can mostly go elsewhere and the remaining employers are basically convenience items.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

If your job isnt paying you enough to earn a living... you need to work on that! Improve your job skills so you can demand higher pay, change careers into something that does pay enough or if all else fails... go into business for yourself.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If your job isnt paying you enough to earn a living... you need to work on that! Improve your job skills so you can demand higher pay, change careers into something that does pay enough or if all else fails... go into business for yourself.


Or reduce your cost of living.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Here's a real life example of how gov't regs and taxes suppresses the economy.

I hauled home 24 cubic yards of mulch from the landfill. I needed it to "pave" a driveway to keep the sugar sand from eating my truck. It does a great job and will last a year, it's free except for the cost of diesel to haul it, and it improves the soil. The negative is that it has a bunch of plastic that has to get picked out. 

I live in a county with high unemployment and jobs for unskilled teens are very rare. My teen boy neighbor wants work so I pay him to do chores from time to time. He would take $5 / hour but I can't legally pay him that. As long as I keep it under $1900 total wages in 2014, I don't have to collect and pay payroll taxes. (at least that's my understanding of the law). I gave him $16 for 2 hours work this morning to help with the mulch.

To do everything legal, I contacted a local non-profit agency that would hire the boy and pay him min wage, do all the legal filings and taxes, and charge me over $14/hour. Am I going to pay $14+ / hour for some kid to pick plastic trash out of mulch? No way, it is not worth it to me. If I could pay him $200 for a 40 hour work week, I would have plenty of work for him.

So all the gov't interference and "protecting the worker" results in...

1. I limit the kid's annual pay to $1900 so he loses
2. I get less higher value work done on my farm
3. the landfill is stuck with more mulch, which they prefer someone haul away rather than take up space in the landfill
4. I have a mile of farm road I would pave with mulch which would improve the soil.
5. Currently, if you don't have 4WD, you can't make it down my farm road so visitors, horse boarders, on farm sales opportunities are limited. 

So I lose income, the kid loses income, the environment loses, the landfill loses, farm visitors lose, and in a tiny way the economy loses, the gov't loses what ever income tax money it would have received from my additional farm income. In this case, every player in the entire chain is a loser, all because the gov't wants to make sure that this teenager who lives with his parents receives a living wage.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> But it's not a straight comparison, because so many factors affect the number of Americans in the workforce.
> 
> For instance, your chart doesn't tell us whether the "Employed Population of America," at 59 percent, includes _all_ Americans, or only working-age ones. According to the 2010 census, about 20 percent of our population consists of children, while another 13 percent are seniors 65 and over.
> 
> ...


Here the Washington Post, reports that 63% of working age Americans are employed or looking for work (as of Sept 2013). To be fair, some of the non working are genuinely disabled, have retired early, choose to be homemakers, etc. However, as a fair comparison, this article reports that this is the lowest worker rate since 1978. Much of the decline in the unemployment rate has been simply people deciding to drop out of the work force.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economy-added-169k-jobs-in-august-as-the-recovery-grinds-along/2013/09/06/696820dc-16ef-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Or reduce your cost of living.


yeppers, that works too


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> The point is the system isn't "giving" businesses anything. As a matter of fact the opposite is true. We live in a fascist system where the government has total control on businesses via laws and regulations. If a business wants to continue to exist it must bow down and pay homage to the great and powerful in Oz, aka Washington, DC. Therefore to stay in business you must 'give' to the government.


So where did all that bailout money go? It wasn't to businesses?

For many businesses, it is not government against them. It is a mutual (and consensual) relationship.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Here the Washington Post, reports that 63% of working age Americans are employed or looking for work (as of Sept 2013). To be fair, some of the non working are genuinely disabled, have retired early, choose to be homemakers, etc. However, as a fair comparison, this article reports that this is the lowest worker rate since 1978. Much of the decline in the unemployment rate has been simply people deciding to drop out of the work force.


I do not think that many people with no other means of support simply decide to stop looking for work and resign themselves to starvation. It's much more likely that they are instead working in the cash economy, and successfully enough that they've suspended their search for a conventional job. 

These are the folks detailing cars, cleaning houses, resealing driveways, mowing lawns, building decks, washing windows, walking dogs, giving massages, etc., for cash. Because this is an underground economy, you won't find many reliable statistics about its prevalence, but my perception (having lived for awhile in a retirement community, where most residents hired people to perform these tasks) is that the cash economy is alive and well, and growing.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I do not think that many people with no other means of support simply decide to stop looking for work and resign themselves to starvation. It's much more likely that they are instead working in the cash economy, and successfully enough that they've suspended their search for a conventional job.
> 
> These are the folks detailing cars, cleaning houses, resealing driveways, mowing lawns, building decks, washing windows, walking dogs, giving massages, etc., for cash. Because this is an underground economy, you won't find many reliable statistics about its prevalence, but my perception (having lived for awhile in a retirement community, where most residents hired people to perform these tasks) is that the cash economy is alive and well, and growing.


Valid point about the cash economy, but it also misses the fact that there are many folks out there living on the gov't dole and content with that. I have a neighbor who did that. He would not take a real job because his 2 ex wives would be able to get child support and working was so much trouble. He bragged about how much he got in SNAP. Now, he is completely under the care and feeding of the gov't since he broke 4 laws all at once and got himself 16 months in jail.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Valid point about the cash economy, but it also misses the fact that there are many folks out there living on the gov't dole and content with that. I have a neighbor who did that. He would not take a real job because his 2 ex wives would be able to get child support and working was so much trouble. He bragged about how much he got in SNAP. Now, he is completely under the care and feeding of the gov't since he broke 4 laws all at once and got himself 16 months in jail.


I had a great-uncle which was what used to be called a bum. He'd beg for money, food or a place to sleep when that didn't work he MIGHT do odd jobs to get them. But every year when the weather turned really harsh he'd toss a brick through a window or punch a cop so he could get 30 days of hot food and a warm, dry bed in the county jail.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> I had a great-uncle which was what used to be called a bum. He'd beg for money, food or a place to sleep when that didn't work he MIGHT do odd jobs to get them. But every year when the weather turned really harsh he'd toss a brick through a window or punch a cop so he could get 30 days of hot food and a warm, dry bed in the county jail.


Your uncle puts me a little in mind of my grampa. Grampa was no bum, but he did play the game according to some interesting rules. When he was drafted into the army during WWI he was stationed at Ft. Lewis Wa. for his basic training. That particular military installation is one where it rains 389 days a year... (twice on sunday if your doing the math) It didnt take grampa very long to figure out just how loud to cuss the sarge and get "penalized" with KP duty, where he could sit in a nice warm dry kitchen peeling taters instead of slogging around in the rain and mud all day.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> Should a person in NYC be paid more for doing the same job as a worker in Arkansas?


No, but $8/hr is little money no matter where you live. Assuming you can get a 40 hr work week, that $320 before taxes. That's about 50% below the national poverty level.

I struggled to live as a single guy, on $5.50/hr - 35 years ago.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> No, but $8/hr is little money no matter where you live. Assuming you can get a 40 hr work week, that $320 before taxes. That's about 50% below the national poverty level.
> 
> I struggled to live as a single guy, on $5.50/hr - 35 years ago.


And what if you are a teenager living with Mom and Dad?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> No, but $8/hr is little money no matter where you live. Assuming you can get a 40 hr work week, that $320 before taxes. That's about 50% below the national poverty level.
> 
> I struggled to live as a single guy, on $5.50/hr - 35 years ago.


Interesting story. Back when the minimum wage was $3.35/hr (that tells you its been a while) I had a guy tell me he was quitting to go to, IIRC, Houston (it was somewhere in TX). A buddy of his had lined him up a job paying, again relying on my memory here, $10+/hr. About six months the guy was back wanting his old job. Told me that he could live better here making $3.35/hr than he could there for $10/hr because everything cost so much more.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> And what if you are a teenager living with Mom and Dad?


Then $8/hr is a King's ransom. 

So, wages should be based on living expenses? Teenage kids might still have to pay for cell phones, car insurance/gas/maintenance, clothes, etc.

Not sure where you live, but around here, everything is expensive.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> So, wages should be based on living expenses?


No, we already told you but you weren't listening. Wages should be based on what the employer and employee agree is fair. If they can't agree, they both go elsewhere to seek a better deal. 

One of us respects the the workers enough to let them make their own decisions. The other of us thinks workers are too stupid or otherwise incapable of making their own decisions.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> So, wages should be based on living expenses?


That's the complete opposite side of this argument...ever heard a conservative arguing for a living wage? Probably not. Most of us believe wages should be based on skills, experience, work ethic, attitude, etc. It's liberals that want to mandate a living wage, whether the workers deserve it or not.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> No, we already told you but you weren't listening. Wages should be based on what the employer and employee agree is fair. If they can't agree, they both go elsewhere to seek a better deal.
> 
> One of us respects the the workers enough to let them make their own decisions. The other of us thinks workers are too stupid or otherwise
> incapable of making their own decisions.


This only works in the real world (which is where we are at), when there are more job openings, than prospective employees, which is definitely not the case today.

Perhaps you have not heard of the many college graduates working part time at Starbucks, or temp workers at our factories.

If they don't like the employers offer, then can get a job somewhere else. 

In most areas, where is the somewhere else?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> This only works in the real world (which is where we are at), when there are more job openings, than prospective employees, which is definitely not the case today.
> 
> Perhaps you have not heard of the many college graduates working part time at Starbucks, or temp workers at our factories.
> 
> ...


If there's nowhere else, then it makes the employer's offer a lot more likable. 

Sometimes it's an employers' market, sometimes it's an employees' market. 

Remember, this is the real world  we're talking about...not fantasy land. We can't all have everything we want.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> That's the complete opposite side of this argument...ever heard a conservative arguing for a living wage? Probably not. Most of us believe wages should be based on skills, experience, work ethic, attitude, etc. It's liberals that want to mandate a living wage, whether the workers deserve it or not.


History has shown that Companies want to pay workers, as little as possible, not pay them what they are "worth". Businesses don't work that way, at least not IME.

It's competition from other hiring Companies,if any and the cost of replacing them if they leave, Unions, etc. are the driving factors.

I hear many companies complain about the increase of minimum wage.

According to your theory, apparently, none of these employees have the skills, experience, work ethic, attitude, etc., to warrant receving a living wage (higher than minimum wage), for their efforts.

Companies want to pay workers as little as possible, which is why they have record profits today.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> This only works in the real world (which is where we are at), when there are more job openings, than prospective employees, which is definitely not the case today.
> 
> Perhaps you have not heard of the many college graduates working part time at Starbucks, or temp workers at our factories.
> 
> ...


I started my first business when I was 17. I was cleaning banks and offices at night and theatres in the middle of the night. A guy was paying me min wage (?$3.35?) and would give me no more. I went to a bunch of his customers, said I would do the job for them, and more than doubled my rate of pay. I got enough work that I had to hire a couple of part timers, which I paid...you guessed it, min wage, and my income went up even more. Other than a couple of hundred dollars for cleaning equipment, my investment was nothing more than some time to pitch the customers. 

I made in the high teen thousands as a high school senior and over $20K the year after I graduated. It was decent money at the time. The sad state of affairs is that in most third world countries, the rate of self employment is higher than it is in the US. Many Americans never consider starting a business, as you well demonstrate. Why do people expect someone to "give" them a job? Make yourself a job and then pay yourself what you are worth. Except for 6 years following college, I've always been more or less self employed.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> History has shown that Companies want to pay workers, as little as possible, not pay them what they are "worth". Businesses don't work that way, at least not IME.
> 
> It's competition from other hiring Companies,if any and the cost of replacing them if they leave, Unions, etc. are the driving factors.
> 
> ...


Of course companies (probably most, though definitely not all) want to pay workers as little as possible. Is anyone disputing that? It's up to the workers to make that "little as possible" as high as possible. Where "little as possible" and "high as possible" meet is how much the employee is "worth."

I don't know what theory of mine you're talking about. I wasn't aware I presented a theory. But most people have the skills to make MORE than minimum wage.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> History has shown that Companies want to pay workers, as little as possible, not pay them what they are "worth". Businesses don't work that way, at least not IME.
> 
> It's competition from other hiring Companies,if any and the cost of replacing them if they leave, Unions, etc. are the driving factors.
> 
> ...


What is your house worth? Your farm? An hour of your productive labor? It is worth what someone will pay you for it, here and now. If all you can find is someone who will pay you min wage, is that a problem of the employers or do you need to do something to increase your worth? 

When I was running a hotel in SoFla and hiring mostly new immigrant Haitians as maids, we started most at min wage. The good ones earned a raise within 90 days. The ones that didn't get a raise got the boot or quit. Min wage is just a starting place.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> This only works in the real world (which is where we are at), when there are more job openings, than prospective employees, which is definitely not the case today.
> 
> Perhaps you have not heard of the many college graduates working part time at Starbucks, or temp workers at our factories.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you have not heard of the many college graduates who pursued degrees in very low value areas. A college degree isn't a magic golden ticket to the Wonka Chocolate factory. You still have to get a degree in something the world finds valuable. Why do liberals think the world owes them something?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> No, but $8/hr is little money no matter where you live. Assuming you can get a 40 hr work week, that $320 before taxes. That's about 50% below the national poverty level.
> 
> I struggled to live as a single guy, on $5.50/hr - 35 years ago.


8 bucks an hour is the MOST I ever charged as a self employed carpenter/contractor. I cannot imagine "struggling" to get by on 5.50 an hour 35 years ago! In 1980 and well into the late 80s I was tickled pink to get 5 bucks an hour for my work, and I was durn good at what I did. I not only lived within my means, I managed to save nearly half my pay and invest it for future days when I knew I would get too old to work. I am glad I did... coz now I am comfortably retired. 

Its not about what someone earns..... its about how they spend what they earn.... or save if you prefer. One simply needs to adjust their spending habits to their income, no matter if thats 5 bucks an hour or 200k per year. I know quite a few who make in the 100 to 200k a year range that are still living paycheck to paycheck and will be filing for bankruptcy if they end up out of work more than 30 days. I also know folks who earn much less than min wage.... who are managing to make their living, pay their mortgage and save money every payday.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Valid point about the cash economy, but it also misses the fact that there are many folks out there living on the gov't dole and content with that.


And there are a lot of people on the dole who are also working in the cash economy.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> History has shown that Companies want to pay workers, as little as possible, not pay them what they are "worth". Businesses don't work that way, at least not IME.
> 
> It's competition from other hiring Companies,if any and the cost of replacing them if they leave, Unions, etc. are the driving factors.
> 
> ...


The trouble is that labor in the US has little clout. If you have unlimited immigration, there will always be someone that can be found to work for less, especially if there is no sense of community to encourage people to hang together. Around here every restaurant, contracr service or unskilled labor job is almost totally filled with people from Mexico. 

There there are the types of jobs left in the US- so many are not jobs that fill a need but a want. Restaurants, landscaping, entertainment,fast food, etc are things were if they become too expensive can be eliminated from the budget fast. So their continued existence is based on cheap labor. The other jobs are not so location restricted and have already been sent outside the US where is is cheaper.

Then there is the competition of welfare- why go to work when you you can be born retired and have a life no harder than if you pry yourself out of work each morning to go to a job? The availability of welfare makes demands for work less important- it takes the pressue off politicians to keep American worker's interests in mind.

So the magic answer with liberals is raise the minimum wage. Government mandates have a magic effect alright- to send more jobs overseas if the company can get away with it and to make the ones left here raise their prices and lose custom because they do not provide absolutely neccessary services.

Companies do squeeze workers hard these days because the combination of politicians both liberal and conservative find agreement for totally different reasons that laws should not protect jobs for their citizens. Until there is respect for the working person, more than just the rich or poor person, raise minimum wage just is a aspirin allowing the disease not to get treated.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> So, wages should be based on living expenses? Teenage kids might still have to pay for cell phones, car insurance/gas/maintenance, clothes, etc.


No, they should be based on an agreement between the seller and buyer without any government interference. 




plowjockey said:


> Not sure where you live, but around here, everything is expensive.


That's called the cost of living. A gallon of milk cost a lot more in Alaska than it does in Wisconsin. And a lot more in NY, NY than a small town Kansas. This is another reason a national minimum wage is stupid.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> This only works in the real world (which is where we are at), when there are more job openings, than prospective employees, which is definitely not the case today.


Its called supply and demand. You don't hear workers yapping when the curve is in THEIR favor. Ever hear people demanding a wage freeze because they were making too much money?




plowjockey said:


> Perhaps you have not heard of the many college graduates working part time at Starbucks, or temp workers at our factories.


Yep but have you asked them what their degree is in? There has never been much demand for people with degrees in Art History or Literature and even less so today. BTW I have a family member who has a collage degree. I have NO idea what it is in but her final graduation project was, basically, a flip book of pictures. Needless to say she is having a little trouble finding a good paying job even with a college degree. 




plowjockey said:


> If they don't like the employers offer, then can get a job somewhere else.
> 
> In most areas, where is the somewhere else?


There are five states with unemployment rates below 4%. You usually considered 5% full employment therefore under 4% means there is a shortage of workers. In a free market fewer workers means a higher demand for them which means higher wages and even in this controlled market it has a some effect. They are: 

North Dakota (2.7%), Nebraska (3.5%), Utah (3.5%), Vermont (3.5%) and South Dakota (3.8%)

In my life I've moved a couple of times for jobs. Its not fun, AAMOF moving stinks, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> This only works in the real world (which is where we are at), when there are more job openings, than prospective employees, which is definitely not the case today.


Its called supply and demand. You don't hear workers yapping when the curve is in THEIR favor. Ever hear people demanding a wage freeze because they were making too much money?




plowjockey said:


> Perhaps you have not heard of the many college graduates working part time at Starbucks, or temp workers at our factories.


Yep but have you asked them what their degree is in? There has never been much demand for people with degrees in Art History or Literature and even less so today. BTW I have a family member who has a collage degree. I have NO idea what it is in but her final graduation project was, basically, a flip book of pictures. Needless to say she is having a little trouble finding a good paying job even with a college degree. 




plowjockey said:


> If they don't like the employers offer, then can get a job somewhere else.
> 
> In most areas, where is the somewhere else?


There are five states with unemployment rates below 4%. You usually considered 5% full employment therefore under 4% means there is a shortage of workers. In a free market fewer workers means a higher demand for them which means higher wages and even in this controlled market it has a some effect. They are: 

North Dakota (2.7%), Nebraska (3.5%), Utah (3.5%), Vermont (3.5%) and South Dakota (3.8%)

In my life I've moved a couple of times for jobs. Its not fun, AAMOF moving stinks, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> History has shown that Companies want to pay workers, as little as possible, not pay them what they are "worth". Businesses don't work that way, at least not IME.


When you go out to buy something do you not want to spend the least you can to get it? When you sell something do you not want to get the most you can out of it?

It works the same way with jobs. The employer wants to spend the least he can and the employee wants to get the most he can. 




plowjockey said:


> According to your theory, apparently, none of these employees have the skills, experience, work ethic, attitude, etc., to warrant receving a living wage (higher than minimum wage), for their efforts.


When you have to pay unskilled workers more than the job is worth you have to pay more skilled workers less. IOW, all those skilled, experienced, etc. workers are paying for the extra cost of their fellow workers.




plowjockey said:


> Companies want to pay workers as little as possible, which is why they have record profits today.


Your logic fails. Companies have ALWAYS wanted to pay as little as possible therefore it would have NOTHING to do with the record profits today.

While labor is a major cost of most businesses there are many, many things which effect profit.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

One problem today is people spend $100,000+ on a brain full of theories and no practical application of said theories or job experience. Then they think they are over qualified to do any job that they never have done before.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

michael ark said:


> One problem today is people spend $100,000+ on a brain full of theories and no practical application of said theories or job experience. Then they think they are over qualified to do any job that they never have done before.


I've always been amazed how when someone is promoted into management, they suddenly believe their IQ went up 30 points and they are smarter than everyone else.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

People are raised up to their highest level of dysfunction :gaptooth:.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The trouble is that labor in the US has little clout.


It is not as if they were staging walk-outs and pickets, and being violently suppressed by police and government forces, as they were a century ago.

I recall reading that a labor protest against Wal-Mart -- the largest employer in the nation, with more than a million workers -- drew something like 500 participants, and it's no telling how many were actual Wal-Mart workers vs. union organizers. 

I believe the union at one point resorted to offering $50 gift cards to any employee willing to walk an informational picket line. 

Why is there little to no interest in organizing and demanding better wages and working conditions?

I'd guess it's because it's much easier to apply for WIC, SNAP, LIHEAP, Section 8, etc. People don't much care where the money is coming from as long as their kids are warm and well-fed.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> It is not as if they were staging walk-outs and pickets, and being violently suppressed by police and government forces, as they were a century ago.
> 
> I recall reading that a labor protest against Wal-Mart -- the largest employer in the nation, with more than a million workers -- drew something like 500 participants, and it's no telling how many were actual Wal-Mart workers vs. union organizers.
> 
> ...


There is also a good bit of benefit between splitting your sources of income between an employer such as Walmart and the different Federal Government agencies. It places a much smaller portion of your income at risk for your actions. For instance if you call off work at Walmart you lose a day's pay. If that day was your living wage then you better have some savings, if however you continue to gain all the benefits for that day even though you called off work the impact is greatly reduced.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

WG, there's a lot of truth in what you say, but I think the biggest reason unions have declined is because employers have improved hugely and it has been shown over and over that many unions are corrupt, more concerned with enriching the union bosses. And then there is the fact that most, if not all, unionized businesses (excepting gov't) are on the decline and maybe folks can see unions have been a big contributor to that decline.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

michael ark said:


> People are raised up to their highest level of dysfunction :gaptooth:.


Google the "Peter principle"


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Why is there little to no interest in organizing and demanding better wages and working conditions?
> 
> I'd guess it's because it's much easier to apply for WIC, SNAP, LIHEAP, Section 8, etc. People don't much care where the money is coming from as long as their kids are warm and well-fed.


Welfare as is practiced here saps the will of self determination.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> I believe the union at one point resorted to offering $50 gift cards to any employee willing to walk an informational picket line.


I wonder if they give them Walmart gift cards....


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

michael ark said:


> People are raised up to their highest level of dysfunction :gaptooth:.


Hence, our president.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

DEKE01, he was not raised up (like in mgmt.) but voted in by the people. I voted for him the 1st time BUT NOT the 2nd time. :ashamed:


----------

