People Power

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

14th December 2011, 04:03
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Screw those people. They were demanding too high a wage:

The Free Market decided that the people of Waukesha were too expensive and so it ditched them like the scum they are. Maybe they should take the personal responsibility for their own situation and get the education they need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced.

Chuck34 told me so. I believe him.

They had dthe chance but elected Obama anyway; their chickens have come home to roost.
14th December 2011, 05:15
555-04Q2

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Sure, I can too. Is that what is being protested? How is the "wealth gap" generally stealing? If the CEO of company X has stolen from you, why go to the streets and protest? Why wouldn't you sue?

Good point :up:
14th December 2011, 05:18
555-04Q2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

If you just look at wages, the ability to command higher wages largely comes about through higher education. If you move further down the wage ladder you reach a point where people can not afford to go to university or tertiary education. People who start their working career having completed a tertiary education are able to command higher wages for a longer period of time; multiply that effect over 30 years until the next generation and the ability to send your children to a tertiary institute should increase if you yourself already went and that's just one feedback loop.

You can work menial jobs and do correspondance and night classes to get your degree just like millions of people have done. It's hard yes, but not as hard as you may think and not that expensive either.
14th December 2011, 05:26
555-04Q2

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why does this matter to you? I really can't understand this problem you, clearly (unlike some who share your views) not an unintelligent person, have with the notion of someone successful and hard-working holding a different view from yours on the operation of the world economy. This question you have thus far failed to answer, making your protestations about others allegedly doing so rather hollow.

Well chuck34 has a point. We are yet to get any definitive answers on why people today are less likely to succeed than people from a generation ago. What are these so called problems/barriers in place that prevents them from moving up the ladder(s) in life. The answer is: there is none! People are hoping that by protesting they will magically get what they want, as if there is a room in the sky that just needs to be unlocked and then all their problems will go away. The sad fact is nothing is going to change unless individuals sort things out for themselves (ie: get down to work lazy ass).

Guaranteed if you put these Occupy protesters into a locked stadium, dropped 1 billion dollars onto the field and said share it out equally amongst yourselves, there would be chaos!
14th December 2011, 10:30
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

You can work menial jobs and do correspondance and night classes to get your degree just like millions of people have done. It's hard yes, but not as hard as you may think and not that expensive either.

It; might have escaped you attention but in the UK for instance, the maximum tuition fee is now £9,000/yr. Unlike when I wen through, a student could be up for as much as £36,000 fora four year course. Perhaps you'd like that in perspective, a brand new 5-series estate will set you back for less than that.

In the US you're looking at US$19,000 per student on average.

FEH and PAH!
State Education Subsidies Shift Students to Public Universities

Quote:

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

not that expensive either.

For someone further down the economic ladder, £36,000 is a lot of money. I'm sorry but you don't appear to live in that world and I'm afraid you appear quite callous as a result.
14th December 2011, 10:32
555-04Q2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

It; might have escaped you attention but in the UK for instance, the maximum tuition fee is now £9,000/yr. Unlike when I wen through, a student could be up for as much as £36,000 fora four year course. Perhaps you'd like that in perspective, a brand new 5-series estate will set you back for less than that.

In the US you're looking at US$19,000 per student on average.

FEH and PAH!
State Education Subsidies Shift Students to Public Universities

For someone further down the economic ladder, £36,000 is a lot of money. I'm sorry but you don't appear to live in that world and I'm afraid you appear quite callous as a result.

I hear what you are saying, but doing it via correspondance (ie: at home in your spare time) costs virtually nothing at all. The prices you quote are for attending varsity full time I presume?
14th December 2011, 13:13
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Correct, Correlation is not causation. So then, how about a look at the causes?
This four page abstract is a good starting place on the subject:
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/InequalityMobility.pdf

If you just look at wages, the ability to command higher wages largely comes about through higher education. If you move further down the wage ladder you reach a point where people can not afford to go to university or tertiary education. People who start their working career having completed a tertiary education are able to command higher wages for a longer period of time; multiply that effect over 30 years until the next generation and the ability to send your children to a tertiary institute should increase if you yourself already went and that's just one feedback loop.

Perhaps you are unaware of the student loans that you can get here in the US. Basically you can get a loan for pretty much nothing (no colateral, very low interest, etc). And you don't even have to start to pay down this debt until after you are done with school. So if you have very little money now, but see that with an education you can make quite a bit, and improve your life, what is stopping you? This falicy that it takes money to get an education in the US is just simply not true. There are an over abundance of loans, grants, scholarships, etc that render this argument moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

If you move from the bottom of the wage ladder to the top, the marginal utility of money decreases and the marginal propensity to save increases. People earning a subsistence wage or not much better than it, do not experience the same abilities to invest or save if indeed at all.
The thing is with the income derived from savings and investment, it still has to be generated by the production of goods and services. This means that people who do derive incomes from savings and investment are being rewarded for other people's labour.

So those savings and investments are of no use to anyone? Have you ever heard of this new concept of "Capital"? It takes capital (or money people invest) to start a business, to expand a business, to conduct research into new processes/products, etc. Do you think that when people buy stock in a company that all of that money just goes directly into the pockets of the CEO's? Without capital, without investment, no one has a job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Also, the actual aggregate supply curve for labour kinks to the left at some point. There is either a point where people can not physically provide any more labour by working longer hours and/or the other reason is that generally the aggregate supply curve for labour bends back on itself and we reach a point where higher wages are demanded for less work.

For a static position you are correct. But to think that no one ever advances within a company, or makes advancement by changing companies is foolish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

There is also the issue of market power when it comes to wages. Workers and Business Owners never have the same power when it comes to the negotiation of wages. Once upon a time when workers collectively bargained they did hold more power but government policies in a lot of Western countries have actively cut union's power and membership of unions have been generally falling for the past 30 years anwyay.

Another reason that union membership has fallen is that people got wise to their scam. Why should I be a member of a union when all they do is take money out of my pocket with nothing to show for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

In most industries, wage earners are price takers whereas business owners are price makers.

So who is FORCING someone to work for less than they desire?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

The thing is though, if you do "fall behind" as everyone else moves on at a faster rate, then the chances of you or your children having the ability to catch up decrease.

So we are somehow supposed to stop someone from falling behind? How do you propose we do that? If I take the inititive to get ahead, and do, and someone else doesn't take responsibility for themselves, and they fall behind, who's fault is that? Am I to be punished for someone else's lack of motivation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Several questions need to be adressed: Has a university education become more expensive relative to wages?

It is more expensive. However, there is plenty of financial aid out there (loans, grants, scholarships, etc.). So that should not be an excuse for not getting a useful education. That is one of the problems today, too many people with art history, liberal arts, and other "non-productive" degrees. Realistically how can you justify a $50-80,000 or more education for a degree where you can only realisically hope to earn about $30,000 on the high end? Common sence when getting an education is something that too many people done exercise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Are people who have wealth in a position to change legislation to ensure they keep it?

Wealthy people have the money, sure. But aren't we being told that there are 99% of people that think the way of the occupiers? That's a voting majority is it not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Have wage earners gained or lost market power over the past 50 years?

Depends on your prospective. If you told the poorest of the poor in the US 75-80 years ago that the poorest of the poor today would have at least one car, a house, flat screen TVs, air conditioning, X-Box, cable/satilite TV, etc., that they would thing that we have a pretty darn good society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

A zero-sum game is one in which one participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of other participant(s). Since accounting for losses, gains, profits and expenses is always balanced (credit and debits are always equal), the net result at any given time is ALWAYS zero.

Apparently you do not know what profit is. Profit is the money left over after you account of your expenses, overhead, wages, etc. So if your company is running a profit the net result is NOT zero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Philiposhically over the long run? I'm sure I don't know the answer.
Economics might be a zero sum game. In a broad sense, externalities are never accounted for and maybe one day when the world has been buggered up environmentally, then maybe it is.

Please point me to the economics text book that says it is a zero sum game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

At some point the Baby-Boomers will start wanting pensions as well; there's about 80 million of them in the US and they sure as heck didn't pay for it.
Maybe our great-grandchildren will be paying a hideous price for the debt accumulated and the environmental destruction of the planet. Who knows?

Ah, welcome to the T.E.A. Party my friend. You just described one of the main "pillars" of that movement, that government keeps promising things that they can not possibly pay for except on the backs of our great-grandchildren. So let's get real about this and stop spending beyond our means.
14th December 2011, 13:16
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why does this matter to you? I really can't understand this problem you, clearly (unlike some who share your views) not an unintelligent person, have with the notion of someone successful and hard-working holding a different view from yours on the operation of the world economy. This question you have thus far failed to answer, making your protestations about others allegedly doing so rather hollow.

I am not sure I understand what you are asking me here. I was responding to Race, who is apparently successful, why he could do it but others can not. I'm asking him what barriers have been errected that stop someone from moving up. I'd ask you the same question.

And you seem to be implying that I am not answering questions. Which ones have I not answered? I will answer them now. I do try to answer direct questions with direct answers, but perhaps I have missed some?
14th December 2011, 13:23
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Screw those people. They were demanding too high a wage:

The Free Market decided that the people of Waukesha were too expensive and so it ditched them like the scum they are. Maybe they should take the personal responsibility for their own situation and get the education they need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced.

Chuck34 told me so. I believe him.

And Rollo's solution to this is to somehow FORCE GE to stay in Waukesha? That will do one of two things.

1) Drive up the cost of products produced there (X-Ray equipment). Which drives up the cost of healthcare, something that is already a huge issue. Which drives up the cost of health insurance. Which drives down the net income for many people, particularly on the low end of the wage scale. Which will widen the "wealth gap" even further. I thought you were against the "wealth gap"?

2) GE will take a loss. Sure they have the market cap. to wether that for a while, but if you start adding up a little here and a little there, over time they may start opperating at a loss company wide. No company can do that for long. So in the long run GE could go bankrupt, putting even more people out of work.
14th December 2011, 13:30
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

It; might have escaped you attention but in the UK for instance, the maximum tuition fee is now £9,000/yr. Unlike when I wen through, a student could be up for as much as £36,000 fora four year course. Perhaps you'd like that in perspective, a brand new 5-series estate will set you back for less than that.

So you went through school. Now it is less expensive to go through school in the UK. And this is a problem how? What made you special, why could you do it at a high cost, but people can not do it now at a lower cost? Your logic is escaping me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

For someone further down the economic ladder, £36,000 is a lot of money. I'm sorry but you don't appear to live in that world and I'm afraid you appear quite callous as a result.

As 555 said those numbers are for "top" schools, there are plenty of other options out there, corresondance schools, on-line schools, vocational institutions, etc. My wife is going to start on her masters the first of the year. When she is completely done she will have paid a total of $10,800. And her earnings potential will basically double from $45k to $80k~ish starting. Sounds like a d@mn good investment to me. And luckily we are in a position that we can just pay the tuition, but if we needed to we could take out student loans at a very low interest, and not have to start paying it back until she is done. What the hell is the excuse for someone "further down the economic ladder" for not getting an education?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page