|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 15, 2005 22:59:48 GMT -5
Uhh... I just kinda zoned out when you started throwing all those numbers around. However, I agree that saving money does hurt the economy, so maybe we should have an optional tax hike for the rich.
Also, if the people take the jobs that pay low, it's their own fault and they have no right to complain about it. If they want a better job, then they should quit and get one. If their labor union sucks, then they just don't know how to operate well, and therefor, probably don't even deserve a high paying job.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Apr 16, 2005 10:51:05 GMT -5
it's all a matter of motivation. if someone's too lazy to get themselves a better job because they were too lazy to get a better college degree, it's their own fault
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 16, 2005 11:06:34 GMT -5
but it doesn't always work like that, it only works like that in times of prosparity, but due to sticky wages, human capital to other capital ratios, and the like, things dont always work out as it would in ideal worlds. If everything was ideal, communism would work, capitalistic economies would have no unemployment, and wages would go up at the rate of at least inflation, or rather... even faster than that.
but none of that is true. Wages stick, and dont get adjusted continually, communism failed post lenin, and we have unemployment.
There is not always a job out there, esspecially one that is college level. If I remember right, 4%+ of poeple who want jobs AND are looking for jobs, dont have jobs. And thats not including those who want jobs but dont look daily because they think there isn't one out there, or those who have jobs and want better ones but can't find a better one.
Labor unions for skilled laborers isn't absolute, so those skilled and in the union often get undercut by those skilled outside the union and end up getting paid less than poeple outside of unions. Plus to go on strike, you need financial reserves and at least 2/3 of union support for it to even come close to working. if you dont have both of those, it will fall under EXTREAMLY quickly.
And unskilled unions, there you prolly A. Have no finanacial reserves, so if you go on strike, you starve. and B. If you go on strike, you risk losing your job permamently rather than just temeraroly
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Apr 16, 2005 12:34:33 GMT -5
and then we go back to what I said earlier, "America's Philosophy," if you will.
you can't please everyone, so some people will fail, and other's will succeed
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 16, 2005 14:39:28 GMT -5
but thats not american philosophy, in fact that wasn't intigrated into american politics until post civil war... which only 40 years later was over turned for a different attitude. We were generally involved with unregulated ecnomics durring the first 75 years, but it wasn't considered part of american culture, it was just something that was done without thinking about it. And durring that period, we had large scale instability, from the uber monopolies of 1890's, ot the economic crashes of 1850's/1830's/ and 1880's. Then 1920's, a time most associated with prosparity, also brought lots of inflation, and a HUGE difference between rich and poor, which led too... GREAT DEPRESSION!!!. sicne then we have had involved economics, and with it, 60 years of financial stability. Sure OPEC created inflation, but it didn't match that of 1920's. we saw a recession under both bush 1 and bush 2, but both of those were under times of government uninvolvement in the economy. and of lowering taxes for the rich...
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 16, 2005 14:52:52 GMT -5
But now there is almost no chance of another great depression in the United States. Any economist will tell you that after the 1930's the government set up safety precautions in the economy to prevent that from happening again.
And in our economy, some must fail for others to succeed. You can't just say that's not how it's supposed to be, because that's the way it is. There is no other way. There will always be unemployment, there will always be low paying jobs, there will always be poverty and starvation. Look at a few other countries, and by comparison, the poverty here is like middle class elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Apr 16, 2005 15:05:10 GMT -5
lobstrosity is right. no matter how bad some aspects of the U.S. may seem, it's still worse in other parts of the world. alos, gamerman, where do you get all those stats? off the top of your head?
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 16, 2005 16:15:51 GMT -5
all stats were taken from moneystock, GNP, inflation, and unemployment statistics. and 1930's wont happen again, as I/i] had already stated. and this is because of government involvement in the economy, of which you have made statements against. you have stated that if someone fails, dont help them, when it is helping the poor and preventing the huge financial gaps caused by exploitation from forming that keeps our economy stable. And to say "its better than africa" isn't an argument I would want our nation's decisions to be based on.
And that doesn't remove the argument that "getting a better job" isn't always an option, even for those who deserve a better one.
And I would be all for some sorta tax break for the wealthy that accually do invest their money, loweing them closer to the median tax rate.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 16, 2005 17:42:44 GMT -5
I never said government involvment in the economy was a bad thing. The great depresion was a result of serious miscalculations and things in the stock market, not because of a gap between rich and poor. There are failsafes in the stock market system now wich prevent such things from happening again. And I stand by my statement that getting a better job is ALWAYS an option. Also I think that people should be lucky to be in poverty here rather than anywhere else, because people anywhere else would rather be in poverty here than in poverty there.
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 16, 2005 18:27:28 GMT -5
poverty ANYWHERE else? How about europe, im sure people who are im poverty in europe are happy they arn't in america... even those who are in poverty in south korea, japan, and taiwan are happy they arn't in poverty in america. And the stock market crash consisted of an extreamly small part of the economy's crash, it was rather just the easiest to judge point when it started, most economist agree that the wide gap had helped lead to the crash, including greenspan and schenk.
And why dont you tell the millions of poeple who are unemployed, under employed, and/or looking for a better job that they just arn't searching hard enough... and then tell all the macro economisist that unemployment is not a result of anything economic, but a result of people being too lazy... why dont you do that and tell me how that goes...
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 16, 2005 18:39:56 GMT -5
I'm not saying it's from people being too lazy, i'm saying its from people who aren't skilled at whatever it is they do. Not everyone can hope for a job, hope for a big house and lots of money, or hope to be whatever they want to be. That's because it just doesn't work that way. All you can do is try, and if you fail, if you end up on the streets, you can try again.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Apr 16, 2005 21:18:13 GMT -5
slightly off the current topic, but some people say that the poor are defined by those who have not succeeded in life. So, what if someone's life dream was to live in a trash can?
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 16, 2005 21:25:50 GMT -5
well you said you can always get a better life, but for some thats not possible, and you can't always get up and try again if you fail, also those with skill often end up working at minimum wage, and those without end up as millionaires, is this fair to society? Some unharvested mind could be too poor to afford college without 600+ years worth of savings, yet then you have someoen who gets harvard degree as an idiot, is this fair. And when all this money that people use and make, when that allows their families to have a chance when poor families childrens are doomed to follow the same path regardless of skill, is this fair?
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 16, 2005 21:32:59 GMT -5
Life isn't fair
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Apr 16, 2005 21:40:50 GMT -5
yeah, I think that sums up about everything we could discuss in this board.
|
|