Minimum Wage 1968=$1.60. With grown and distribution it would be $21.16 today?

Asa, do you believe you're "winning" this argument?

If you think you are making an argument with a copy and paste article that has no bearing on my questions, but is misleading as well in the aggregate, then you are only left incapable of defending your statement.

If globalization increases unemployment, then you have a lot of explaining to do regarding unemployment trends over the past one hundred years. Technology increased efficiencies, and the inequality it may increase is the difference between ten people making product A or one person making product A. Are you a Luddite?

A graph regarding corporate profit without a reason is just another graph wasting bandwidth. It is funny that the actual terms are wages in relation to production, but have wages dropped to production since the 1970s? You do know that production is also increase by capital, which is needed for technology, and is another reason why they two split on a graph, right?

Notice two things on your charts:As I stated, wages and production started to drift apart in the 1970s with technology, and corporate profits started to increase after Obama was elected. This is because of the uncertainty he brings, and companies are holding on to their capital.

This is one of the worst fabrications in your copy and paste job: "This isn't a new trend, but something really did change in the last generation."

Now, since your little copy and paste job didn't answer my questions, how about taking another stab at it:

If you want to make an economic claim such as how globalization is hurting wages in the U.S., you need to provide an economic model that would demonstrate that it would create more purchasing power than what we have now. You cannot provide it, and want to argue that protectionism will increase wages and purchasing power just because it is a liberal ideology and because you say so.
 
If you think you are making an argument with a copy and paste article that has no bearing on my questions, but is misleading as well in the aggregate, then you are only left incapable of defending your statement.

If globalization increases unemployment, then you have a lot of explaining to do regarding unemployment trends over the past one hundred years. Technology increased efficiencies, and the inequality it may increase is the difference between ten people making product A or one person making product A. Are you a Luddite?

A graph regarding corporate profit without a reason is just another graph wasting bandwidth. It is funny that the actual terms are wages in relation to production, but have wages dropped to production since the 1970s? You do know that production is also increase by capital, which is needed for technology, and is another reason why they two split on a graph, right?

Notice two things on your charts:As I stated, wages and production started to drift apart in the 1970s with technology, and corporate profits started to increase after Obama was elected. This is because of the uncertainty he brings, and companies are holding on to their capital.

This is one of the worst fabrications in your copy and paste job: "This isn't a new trend, but something really did change in the last generation."

Now, since your little copy and paste job didn't answer my questions, how about taking another stab at it:

If you want to make an economic claim such as how globalization is hurting wages in the U.S., you need to provide an economic model that would demonstrate that it would create more purchasing power than what we have now. You cannot provide it, and want to argue that protectionism will increase wages and purchasing power just because it is a liberal ideology and because you say so.

Ive already explained to your how your question is overlyspecified and meaningless, constricted.

My model is reality. You just need to open your eyes and stop being a globalist shill.
 
Ive already explained to your how your question is overlyspecified and meaningless, constricted.

My model is reality. You just need to open your eyes and stop being a globalist shill.

As I stated earlier, your model must have been deleted by mistake. Just re-post your model that shows the purchasing power of the lowest quintile is higher under protectionism rather than globalization. It should be rather simple since you have already posted it once.
 
As I stated earlier, your model must have been deleted by mistake. Just re-post your model that shows the purchasing power of the lowest quintile is higher under protectionism rather than globalization. It should be rather simple since you have already posted it once.

My model is reality. And it has not been deleted. Globalization is destroying the American middle class. This is really not a debateable fact.
 
http://www.examiner.com/article/globalization-the-american-economic-suicide-model-of-capitalism

Globalization: The American economic suicide model of Capitalism

November 15, 2009



William Pfaff is the originator of this idea that Global Capitalism, as practiced by America, is little more than national economic suicide. If only those in power making decisions had considered some of his idea's. The Corporate defense against the needed changes to save this nation are that we would be engaging in protectionism. To which someone might reply so what, why shouldn't we protect our economic base?

Paul Krugman had it right when he said the philosophy behind jobs creation can be summarized as, " If you grow it they will come." In short Obama has no jobs policy. Krugman noted, he has a GDP policy. The theory as stated is that by stimulating economic growth companies will create jobs.

If that is your arguement you would be absolutely right. What hasn't been admitted is that when we attempt to stimulate economic growth it doesn't necessarily mean that the investment in new plants and jobs will be in America. In a global model based on cheapest wages our investments actually stimulate job losses not jobs creation in America.

The companies have taken the money from bailouts or tax cuts and have used it to lay off Americans because they can find cheaper labor elsewhere. So our investment is in essence suicidal from an economic stand point because in the end it costs American jobs and a growing debt burden that will hasten the economic collapse of this nation.

This is what is causing economists to scratch their heads as economic signs in the economy improve but job losses keep on happening and the Middle Class continues to be destroyed. Our economists fail even yet, to grasp what the real effects of Globalization are as opposed to the theorhetical models on paper in some universities economics department.

William Pfaff points out that the original stated intent of Global Capitalism begun under Clinton, was that it would benefit some of the poorer nations of the world by drawing them into the Capitalist system. Again the naive assessment that all Capitalism is good or that there is only this model and that this is it and we must adapt without even questioning the basis for the assumptions made.

The irony if you can call it that in Global Capitalism is that as it is benefiting the poorer nations it is impoverishing the richer ones. That idea should have been obvious since we live on a finite planet with finite resources but we seemed to have been gullible enough to believe the fiction that everybody would make out well suspending common sense when we should have been asking how this was all going to work in reality.

Capitalism with its emphasis on the amoral goal of profitability as the only valid goal of business impoverishes the richer nations by economically destroying the Middle Class. While the Middle Class is the strength of Democracy, it is inefficient by business standards because of having control of wage demands. Loss of control of the value of their labor is the mechanism that enables Global Capitalism to increase profits by forcing competition to be about labor costs not labor skill or productivity.

In Globalization, just as in the Industrial Revolution, technology has enabled changes that disempower the work force vis a vis capital. Technology has been employed to destroy national boundaries and existing national and international regulations to control and mitigate some of the worst aspects of Capitalism.

This allows the Corporation to become an ungovernable law unto itself. Deregulation is also the means to return labor from a condition of being an investor, investing the time, effort and expertise while capital invested the money to produce a product, to being nothing but a cost of production a commodity or at best a resource of production. To the extent that government aids in this, a nation such as the U.S., is being economically self destructive.

This was accomplished with the lie that the benefits of Global Capitalism would trickle down to the work force. Also that losing the ability to manufacture didn't matter because with more education the work force would be ready for the high wage high tech jobs of the future.

The actual fact of Globalization is that it exploits a given work force until it drives wages down below a subsistence level so that it can't survive and then Capital moves to the next exploitable work force. There are no real benefits to any but the ultra rich and instead of an engine of growth, Global Capital is like a parasite living off of America while sucking the economic assets right out of us and into some wealthy corporation such as Goldman Sach's bank vaults.

The whole process of globalization is what I would call a suicidal economic ideology. We destroy our own economic base. Allow global capital to control our government with the fiction of privatized campaign finance so that our government initially aids and abets the destruction of our nation economically. Ultimately the wealth of America will be stripped and we will have neither a Middle Class nor a functional society. But we are supposed to be O.K with this fiction because it is all in everyone's best interests including ours as long as Globalization is being discussed in theory.

We have a very real choice at this time in America. We can continue to commit slow economic suicide by continuing to believe in this fiction of Globalization. Or we can take our country back. To do that we need to revoke every trade treaty ratified since Clinton was in office. Then we take what is left of the assets of this nation and begin to rebuild our manufacturing base because America is first and foremost a nation that invents and makes things and develops the technology to lead the world.

We can then negotiate trade treaties with nations that are based in our core values such as democratic governments, reduction of green house gases and protection of the air and water, protecting workers rights to a safe work place with fair wages, ending child labor, and nations that respect the democratic principles of peoples participation in deciding the laws that affect their lives. We can restore the priciple that we have a right to protect our own self interest and that our citizens should come first. Or we can relegate America to the historical scrap heap by destroying ourselves with Globalization.
 
http://www.examiner.com/article/globalization-the-american-economic-suicide-model-of-capitalism

Globalization: The American economic suicide model of Capitalism

November 15, 2009



William Pfaff is the originator of this idea that Global Capitalism, as practiced by America, is little more than national economic suicide. If only those in power making decisions had considered some of his idea's. The Corporate defense against the needed changes to save this nation are that we would be engaging in protectionism. To which someone might reply so what, why shouldn't we protect our economic base?

Paul Krugman had it right when he said the philosophy behind jobs creation can be summarized as, " If you grow it they will come." In short Obama has no jobs policy. Krugman noted, he has a GDP policy. The theory as stated is that by stimulating economic growth companies will create jobs.

If that is your arguement you would be absolutely right. What hasn't been admitted is that when we attempt to stimulate economic growth it doesn't necessarily mean that the investment in new plants and jobs will be in America. In a global model based on cheapest wages our investments actually stimulate job losses not jobs creation in America.

The companies have taken the money from bailouts or tax cuts and have used it to lay off Americans because they can find cheaper labor elsewhere. So our investment is in essence suicidal from an economic stand point because in the end it costs American jobs and a growing debt burden that will hasten the economic collapse of this nation.

This is what is causing economists to scratch their heads as economic signs in the economy improve but job losses keep on happening and the Middle Class continues to be destroyed. Our economists fail even yet, to grasp what the real effects of Globalization are as opposed to the theorhetical models on paper in some universities economics department.

William Pfaff points out that the original stated intent of Global Capitalism begun under Clinton, was that it would benefit some of the poorer nations of the world by drawing them into the Capitalist system. Again the naive assessment that all Capitalism is good or that there is only this model and that this is it and we must adapt without even questioning the basis for the assumptions made.

The irony if you can call it that in Global Capitalism is that as it is benefiting the poorer nations it is impoverishing the richer ones. That idea should have been obvious since we live on a finite planet with finite resources but we seemed to have been gullible enough to believe the fiction that everybody would make out well suspending common sense when we should have been asking how this was all going to work in reality.

Capitalism with its emphasis on the amoral goal of profitability as the only valid goal of business impoverishes the richer nations by economically destroying the Middle Class. While the Middle Class is the strength of Democracy, it is inefficient by business standards because of having control of wage demands. Loss of control of the value of their labor is the mechanism that enables Global Capitalism to increase profits by forcing competition to be about labor costs not labor skill or productivity.

In Globalization, just as in the Industrial Revolution, technology has enabled changes that disempower the work force vis a vis capital. Technology has been employed to destroy national boundaries and existing national and international regulations to control and mitigate some of the worst aspects of Capitalism.

This allows the Corporation to become an ungovernable law unto itself. Deregulation is also the means to return labor from a condition of being an investor, investing the time, effort and expertise while capital invested the money to produce a product, to being nothing but a cost of production a commodity or at best a resource of production. To the extent that government aids in this, a nation such as the U.S., is being economically self destructive.

This was accomplished with the lie that the benefits of Global Capitalism would trickle down to the work force. Also that losing the ability to manufacture didn't matter because with more education the work force would be ready for the high wage high tech jobs of the future.

The actual fact of Globalization is that it exploits a given work force until it drives wages down below a subsistence level so that it can't survive and then Capital moves to the next exploitable work force. There are no real benefits to any but the ultra rich and instead of an engine of growth, Global Capital is like a parasite living off of America while sucking the economic assets right out of us and into some wealthy corporation such as Goldman Sach's bank vaults.

The whole process of globalization is what I would call a suicidal economic ideology. We destroy our own economic base. Allow global capital to control our government with the fiction of privatized campaign finance so that our government initially aids and abets the destruction of our nation economically. Ultimately the wealth of America will be stripped and we will have neither a Middle Class nor a functional society. But we are supposed to be O.K with this fiction because it is all in everyone's best interests including ours as long as Globalization is being discussed in theory.

We have a very real choice at this time in America. We can continue to commit slow economic suicide by continuing to believe in this fiction of Globalization. Or we can take our country back. To do that we need to revoke every trade treaty ratified since Clinton was in office. Then we take what is left of the assets of this nation and begin to rebuild our manufacturing base because America is first and foremost a nation that invents and makes things and develops the technology to lead the world.

We can then negotiate trade treaties with nations that are based in our core values such as democratic governments, reduction of green house gases and protection of the air and water, protecting workers rights to a safe work place with fair wages, ending child labor, and nations that respect the democratic principles of peoples participation in deciding the laws that affect their lives. We can restore the priciple that we have a right to protect our own self interest and that our citizens should come first. Or we can relegate America to the historical scrap heap by destroying ourselves with Globalization.

As I stated earlier, your model must have been deleted by mistake. Just re-post your model that shows the purchasing power of the lowest quintile is higher under protectionism rather than globalization. It should be rather simple since you have already posted it once.
 
As I stated earlier, your model must have been deleted by mistake. Just re-post your model that shows the purchasing power of the lowest quintile is higher under protectionism rather than globalization. It should be rather simple since you have already posted it once.

We don't really have the numbers on what it WOULD BE without globalization, because we have globalization, fucking dumbass.

Asa, you're looking very stupid right now.
 
The biggest problems I have with hiking the minimum wage are that:

1) What of people who are already earning that so-called "living" wage? Are we going to get screwed over just because some part time burger flipper (yes I was one too) is now earning far more than the job is worth?

2) Cost of goods and services will fly through the roof and you can say buh-bye to any advantage.

3) Small businesses already have a razor thin profit margin. Anything that increases cost, especially labor, would eat that right up.
 
We don't really have the numbers on what it WOULD BE without globalization, because we have globalization, fucking dumbass.

Asa, you're looking very stupid right now.

If you do not have the numbers, then how can you say purchasing power would be greater?

Why do I know the difference between nominal and real economics and you don't if I am stupid? Why do I know that the purchasing power of the lowest quintile has risen 10.5% because of globalization while wages were stagnant if I am stupid? Why do I know that during globalization, wages as a percentage of GDP dramatically increased, but are at historic lows under Obama if I am stupid?
 
If you do not have the numbers, then how can you say purchasing power would be greater?

Why do I know the difference between nominal and real economics and you don't if I am stupid? Why do I know that the purchasing power of the lowest quintile has risen 10.5% because of globalization while wages were stagnant if I am stupid? Why do I know that during globalization, wages as a percentage of GDP dramatically increased, but are at historic lows under Obama if I am stupid?

You brought up purchasing power.

I don't know why you're stupid. Genetics probably.
 
You brought up purchasing power.

I don't know why you're stupid. Genetics probably.

Maybe I am stupid because all that matter is purchasing power, that is if you want to have an economics discussion, because it matters not what wages are, but what they will buy.
 
I do blame wallstreet. Fucking yes I do. ANd you would too if you weren't such an idiot.
Well, you can blame human nature all you like, but until you and your leftist asshole buddies can find a way to change it and create an actual successful economy you’ll just have to live in a world where it prevails no matter what your dreams are.

”HUMAN NATURE?” You bet your ass Wall Street is human nature! If you were the CEO of a major corporation, you’d only have achieved that title by understanding and using human nature to further your successes. You’d understand that your only economic and financial duty is to advance the profits of your corporation and its investors, because that’s what your competitors are doing and if you don’t you’ll soon be out on your ass, your investors will see to it or your corporation and your investors will be bankrupted. Human nature in that corner of the world dictates that you take every advantage you can muster to do your job successfully including bribing politicians because there’s no law against it.

You acknowledge that we're a fascist state, but then in the next breath you act like criticizing business is an attack on freedom. Get your head out of your ass.

You can criticize business all you like, but your criticism is misplaced. As I’ve already informed you, business is only mandated to achieve profits because that’s what business is in business to do. Without profits there is no successful business. Even so-called “NON”-profit businesses have to profit and do to be successful or vanish.

On the other hand, government is supposed to be not for profit duty and service to the community, State or the Nation. Politicians thereby take an oath to preserve, protect and defend a Constitution. Our politicians ignore that oath and have created a FOR PROFIT BUSINESS out of the seats of political power. They accept and even demand bribery to remain in power and enrich themselves. They give not a flying fuck about any old Constitution, their oath of office or any real duty to the nation and y’all fucking idiots on the right and left keep feeding them your stupid head up your asses votes.
 
yeah


well then they should go the fuck out of business because what they have going is not going to stand.

make money without fucking the larger economy.


You just wait and see if someone cant take their place and make a go of it.


You instead want to carve out a "well let them fuck people" mode for these already wealthy fucks
 
Well, you can blame human nature all you like, but until you and your leftist asshole buddies can find a way to change it and create an actual successful economy you’ll just have to live in a world where it prevails no matter what your dreams are.

”HUMAN NATURE?” You bet your ass Wall Street is human nature! If you were the CEO of a major corporation, you’d only have achieved that title by understanding and using human nature to further your successes. You’d understand that your only economic and financial duty is to advance the profits of your corporation and its investors, because that’s what your competitors are doing and if you don’t you’ll soon be out on your ass, your investors will see to it or your corporation and your investors will be bankrupted. Human nature in that corner of the world dictates that you take every advantage you can muster to do your job successfully including bribing politicians because there’s no law against it.



You can criticize business all you like, but your criticism is misplaced. As I’ve already informed you, business is only mandated to achieve profits because that’s what business is in business to do. Without profits there is no successful business. Even so-called “NON”-profit businesses have to profit and do to be successful or vanish.

On the other hand, government is supposed to be not for profit duty and service to the community, State or the Nation. Politicians thereby take an oath to preserve, protect and defend a Constitution. Our politicians ignore that oath and have created a FOR PROFIT BUSINESS out of the seats of political power. They accept and even demand bribery to remain in power and enrich themselves. They give not a flying fuck about any old Constitution, their oath of office or any real duty to the nation and y’all fucking idiots on the right and left keep feeding them your stupid head up your asses votes.

Im not a leftist, im just not an anti-human fascist like you.

You say business is only responsible to make profit, yet on the other hand, you want them to be worshipped as the job creators.

And you admit that government is completely sold out. So who is left to defend the community, state, and nation?

You are a black-hearted blight upon society.
 
The biggest problems I have with hiking the minimum wage are that:

1) What of people who are already earning that so-called "living" wage? Are we going to get screwed over just because some part time burger flipper (yes I was one too) is now earning far more than the job is worth?

2) Cost of goods and services will fly through the roof and you can say buh-bye to any advantage.

3) Small businesses already have a razor thin profit margin. Anything that increases cost, especially labor, would eat that right up.

How does other people making a living wage, hurt those who are also making a living wage?
 
What is sad is that these poor losers think they deserve a raise just because they have a family. Not because they offer any incremental increase in value to their employer.

The reason they only make minimum wage is because they don't possess marketable skills with more money
 
Back
Top