minimum conditions for workers in the US? - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Americano · #91 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

Of course, reward doesn't come just from the employer. Workers have many needs and desires. Housing, health care, clean water and air, etc...

If I am competing for a job with an Indian, my concern is far greater than if that person can do the job as well as I can. For instance, are they willing to do it for less money, in poorer conditions, with no health concerns?
Why would I want to compete if those things are important to me and I can find them somewhere else? Like Australia.
This is my concern for the US as it competes with countries who have government mandated standards.
This is much like trade tariffs etc...
It is not a matter of our intelligence and hard work, it's a matter of our reluctance to lose a standard of living.

When competing with someone having the education, experience, ability and opportunity to raise their standard of living, merely maintaining anything is a far lesser motivation and a sure loser. The general US standard of living in the lower economic tier is already declining, being maintained the past several years solely through unsustainable public and personal debt.

danielpalos · #92 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

We just don't want to give you free money...

How does that view account for welfare paid to the legal fiction of individuals (corporations)?

Americano · #93 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

If character flaws can be truly inherited, they would be inherited in all societies or at least too slowly for you and I to notice any real difference. If character flaws can be developed, then all character can be manipulated in any direction...thus, if laziness doesn't get you ahead, you will learn to work harder.

One would think that five years of wage stagnation, energy and food inflation, monetary devaluation and disastrous foreign policy would't serve to motivate or allow manipulation of the average worker in a positive manner.

Quote:

But this is still an illogical and irrational judgement in the face of the raw data. Americans put in more hours than almost everyone else yet our per capita GDP continues to slip in rank. I believe we are now 8th or 9th.

GDP is a transaction number currently based on 2006 US dollars. Use 1999 dollars (a 117% deflation factor) for further dismay. That would put the US down to around 15th against stable currencies.

danielpalos · #94 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

It is not a matter of our intelligence and hard work, it's a matter of our reluctance to lose a standard of living.

It is not about hard work. It is usually about being willing to provide labor input to the economy at market wages, ceteris paribus.

I don't recall having these concerns when we were running massive surpluses. Lower standards of living seem to be the result of Republican economic policies (i.e. misapplied supply side economics theories).

JHC · #95 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

One would think that five years of wage stagnation, energy and food inflation, monetary devaluation and disastrous foreign policy would't serve to motivate or allow manipulation of the average worker in a positive manner.

GDP is a transaction number currently based on 2006 US dollars. Use 1999 dollars (a 117% deflation factor) for further dismay. That would put the US down to around 15th against stable currencies.

Good point(s).

Americano · #96 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

It is not about hard work. It is usually about being willing to provide labor input to the economy at market wages, ceteris paribus.

I don't recall having these concerns when we were running massive surpluses. Lower standards of living seem to be the result of Republican economic policies (i.e. misapplied supply side economics theories).

Those surpluses were a result of post-ww2 US world trade domination. As nations destroyed by ww2 regained their financial health the US standard of living experienced the inability to compete on a global basis, creating a global redistribution of labor functions based on labor demand driven by market wages.

Using public debt and associated economic multipliers to expand GDP is an illusion practiced by the government and accepted by the general public, especially when key government economic indicators are derived as percentages from GDP numbers, but in reality an unsustainable and deceptive reporting practice.

danielpalos · #97 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Steve, now that I think about. Why wouldn't you want to pay lazy fucks to stay out of the labor market, if it would improve the efficiency of that market?

danielpalos · #98 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

Those surpluses were a result of post-ww2 US world trade domination. As nations destroyed by ww2 regained their financial health the US standard of living experienced the inability to compete on a global basis, creating a global redistribution of labor functions based on labor demand driven by market wages.

Using public debt and associated economic multipliers to expand GDP is an illusion practiced by the government and accepted by the general public, especially when key government economic indicators are derived as percentages from GDP numbers, but in reality an unsustainable and deceptive reporting practice.

I am not sure how to interpret what you are saying. Are you implying that the party of massive surpluses had nothing to do with running massive surpluses? If that is the case, then why didn't the party of massive deficits duplicate those surpluses, before and after?

Americano · #99 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I am not sure how to interpret what you are saying. Are you implying that the party of massive surpluses had nothing to do with running massive surpluses? If that is the case, then why didn't the party of massive deficits duplicate those surpluses, before and after?

Are you refering to political parties?

Steve · #**100** (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Steve, now that I think about. Why wouldn't you want to pay lazy fucks to stay out of the labor market, if it would improve the efficiency of that market?

Because there's no need to.

Lazy fucks will lose jobs to hard workers.

The efficiency concern works out on its' own...

JHC · #**101** (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

It is not about hard work. It is usually about being willing to provide labor input to the economy at market wages, ceteris paribus.

I don't recall having these concerns when we were running massive surpluses. Lower standards of living seem to be the result of Republican economic policies (i.e. misapplied supply side economics theories).

More good points. But I don't think we can blame this on Republican administration entirely. Remember NAFTA? And I don't think we can blame that on Clinton really. I believe this is partially inevitable.

All I know is what we're faced with. I don't know how to fix it. Perhaps in the long range, it will correct itself. I don't see us returning to

danielpalos · #**102** (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

Are you refering to political parties?

Yes. The Democrats were running massive surpluses and had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the history of the US; when they tried to end welfare, as we know it.

The Republicans don't seem to have a problem, not finding solutions if they can pay some people a bonus, and let the rest trickle down in an anarchical fashion; like any other third world economy.

danielpalos · #**103** (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Because there's no need to.

Lazy fucks will lose jobs to hard workers.

The efficiency concern works out on its' own...

Are you implying that we should not have a safety net; and still say that the US has a first world economy?

danielpalos · #**104** (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

More good points. But I don't think we can blame this on Republican administration entirely. Remember NAFTA? And I don't think we can blame that on Clinton really. I believe this is partially inevitable.

All I know is what we're faced with. I don't know how to fix it. Perhaps in the long range, it will correct itself. I don't see us returning to

What does a free trade agreement have to do with our current deficits?