pedro padilla

It surprises me a bit that yáll haven´t really touched on how really fucked up the US economy is. Seriously, seems like the topic nobody wants to touch. El Presidente just held a 2 day economic summit which was way more entertaining fantasy than lord of the rings.
Those great tax cuts are going to be permanent! YYYYeeeeeehhhaaaaaaaa!
Ride em cowpokes. Social security? YYYeeehaaaaaaaa! Everything you´ve paid up to now is a write off. GW is rarin to go. 2 trillion bucks(!) over the next 10 years. From where? Borrow it of course. Never mind the 8 trillion already owed. Your kids will cover that. We´re getting into grandchild debt at this point.
Can anyone really make a case for Bush´s sleight of hand 3 card monte economic disaster policy? I find it very interesting that nobody has noticed that the ship is flooded and sinking fast. Or at least, interesting that nobody seems to give a fuck. I am convinced that the general public have so little understanding of the economy that they´re toing to be very rudely awakened shortly. Buy gold.
signs o the times:An elderly woman is in custody after she used her walker to try and rob a Pocatello bank.

It happened earlier this week at the Community Citizens Bank off Flandro Drive.

While bank employees take threats like this seriously, they think this attempted robbery wasn’t about money but about finding relief from her burdens.

She pulled up to the bank parking lot around 2:30 p.m. Wednesday and headed to the front door, walker in hand.

Kristie Olsen, security officer, says, “It took her several minutes to get from the door to the desk.”

After walking through the doors, the elderly woman walked up to a bank employee.

Calynn Hanpsten, senior service representative, says, “She said, ‘I’m telling you I’m going to rob the bank. You have to call the police,’ and she turned around and sat on her little walker. She started crying. She just burst into tears after she said, ‘You have to call the police.’”

Tammie Barbre, customer service supervisor, says, “I was kind of dumbfounded. I wasn’t, ah…you could feel her desperation.”

The woman later told police she was poor because of several recent medical bills.

The non-emergency phone call went something like this, “We do not feel threatened but this is the situation. She is insisting that we call.” And the dispatch asked her, “What?”

Apparently the woman felt she had had enough and believed she had nowhere else to turn.

Konichiwaneko

"Never mind the 8 trillion already owed. Your kids will cover that. "

Wow I didn't realize Bush spends money that fast (sarcasm)

Sometimes, just sometimes the problem is right in front of you. But you are blind to it unless someone wants to make a difference and you are going crazy because you are so used to having that problem in your life. Social Security is a huge mess, a huge problem.

Do I want a part of it? No. Will I keep paying to make sure the people who need it and depend on it (which is sad they do) can get it? Sure.


On the reverse side of it Bill Gates just donated 42 million to a charitable cause? Is that enough to deflect some of the people who's money "Isn't available"?

Mind you I feel bad for the lady I really do, but this is a unique incident just like the Bill Gates one I listed. Bad situations take radical change and though what Bush is doing makes sense to me, I can see where it could scare people sitting on their so called "Nest Egg"

__________________

pedro padilla

only 42 million? Spittin in the ocean pal. And only because if he didn´t.....

Konichiwaneko

no you don't get a tax bonus if you donate money that supercedes what you owe.

He would lose more donating then he would paying taxes

__________________

pedro padilla

he´s the richest fucker in the world. fuck the taxes.he can pay them. asswipe should do a lot more.

Konichiwaneko

so are you saying just because someone succeeded in life they should be punished for it?

Should we take the people who either work or got lucky and take more away from them?

Either it be individual or group, to take away from them to give to another without their permission is a violation of human right.

__________________

Seaver

It helps an argument if you use proper punctuation and english. Hard to take someone seriously when they type like that for their intro.

jonjon42

Bill Gates is a great giver to charity and that is appreciated by all. He is a good guy really...I just hate his buisness tactics...

anyway what I think Pedro is trying to point out is that he could donate much much more and still live his life in the utmost comfort...which I can see yet I say we just appreciate what he gives, if he wishes to give more fine... If he wishes to be a miser well that's his money.
I heard about the eldery women...it's really sad...

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

pedro padilla

sorry bout th´unproper puntchuation an inglish. personly, I find it kinda hard ta take anythin 2 seerious theez days professa. scuze me.

Konichiwaneko

Pedro i'm asking as a fellow member and not as someone who is politically different from you, Please please please stop trying to offend our fellow board members with your offhand remarks.

By all means I have no morale superiority over you, but as being a member on this board for 4 years I still remember why Halx got us together. He wanted us to have a profesionnal and adult atmosphere, even in our differences.

__________________

sob

That's exactly what he, and a whole lot of other people are saying. John Kerry said it, but he didn't mean for it to apply to himself or his wife.

fuzyfuzer

That is insulting, really it is. We’re not here to bow down to your infinite wisdom. When you are starting a post, you are trying to convert those who disagree with you and to preach to the converted. There was a simple suggestion made and you insulted this entire community with that response. If you want to post in politics, you have to graduate from kindergarten attempts at humor.

__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

pedro padilla

fuck it. i quit. nice to have known you. bye bye. pretentious pricks.

pan6467

Off topic but dealing with the thread.....

I may not agree with how Pedro responded (it was wrong in my opinion), but I do think criticizing someone on their grammar while not adding to the thread is a slap. Not everybody on here has the best grammar, can type well, or is trying to impress with the typing.

I see misspelled words on this board everyday, and I am king of the run on and on and on sentences. It doesn't make what is said any less significant. We must remember, people who post here for the most part, post out of seeing something that heightened their emotions (hence the fights and the demeanor that we take on here at times). These people may type in a hurry and lose that grammar, so be it, it's not about the grammar to me it's about the point being made.

We have all made transgressions on this board, I have made many in my few months. I think finding fault with someone's writing abilities is not the reason we are here. At least not the reason I am here. I am here to share, learn and hopefully inspire someone. I am here to be a part of a good group of people that seem to truly care about each other at times, and hate each other at times. Sounds like family....

We post some personal things here and we trust each other, whether it's because we are talking to strangers who are just words on a screen or because some of us may think we have made a true friend or 2 here.

Anyway, sorry for rambling, but as always I felt the need to put my 2 cents in and it turned out to be $1.50.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

host

Seaver accomplished his intended goal. Nothing to discuss here, anymore,
folks......move along, now.

guthmund

Yes and no. Bill Gates does give a lot of money to charity and I assume, as I don't work for the IRS, he pays his taxes just like everyone else. I feel that I should mention I am a big believer in personal responsiblity. All that being said, everyone needs help sometimes and I believe when provided with the opportunity to help your fellow man, a sensible citizen should use his "blessings" for the betterment of his society as we are only as "good" as the sum of parts.

Now that isn't to say that he should give it all away and while he has done some notable charity work, there is always more to be done. And while it is unfair to lay the burden at the feet of Mr. Gates, He has been extremely successful in his endeavors and has the means to do so much more. I don't mean to belittle what he has done, quite the contrary, I wish more people would follow his example.

To take from those that have to give to those that have not is not a violation of human rights, in my opinion. To live in a society where men like Bill Gates can work and earn a living certain prices have to be paid. It is his tax dollars that fund the police he calls on for protection, the firefighters he expects to come in his time of need, the military that keeps the borders of his country secure and funds dozens of other social services that he can call on when he requires it. To take forcibly is certainly wrong, but taxes (and I feel that that is what you are referring to. If I'm wrong, I apologize.) if I may use the well worn cliche', is the price we pay for civilized society and provides the means to maintain the order that allows him to thrive.

I'm certainly not advocating Bill Gates running himself into the poor house by giving it all away, but I do believe that there is a certain "social obligation" that has to be paid and there are other methods of payment. However, Gates was the example, so, I went with money.

On a completely different note:

I don't see why anyone would pick on pedro's grammar. It wasn't that bad. I could read it and understand it, which is more than I can say for some. For chrissakes, he even used punctuation. It wasn't absolutely perfect, (whose is?) but I think he did a fine job getting his point across.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Superbelt

To be fair, I started a thread on how ignorant Bush is the economy, Social Security in particular, last week.

Threads complaining about how Bush is running us into massive deficits that our grandchildren will be cursing us for fall on deaf ears when we try to bring it up.
The excuses range from: 'It's Clinton's fault', 'It's our money anyway why should we be concerned with paying down a deficit', to 'it's war time, Bush needs money to fight it'.

Anyone else notice how Bin Laden's last rant to the world has him claiming to have personally toppled the Soviet Union, forcing them into a prolonged fight that eventually bankrupted them? Laughable, but then he claims he will do it to us, and it does look like Bush is trying to help him out with that prediction. He gets a good jab in, making fun of our 450+ budget deficit this year. We can expect higher for 2005, I'd wager.

Maybe Bush is a good thing for America. Hoover turned america away from the Republicans for a generation because of the positive economic growth and the institution of liberal social programs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt which made us all feel safe.

Bush is fully following in Hoover's footsteps (helped greatly by the bedrock of federal deficit that Reagan bequeathed to us all). Another 4 year stint of Bushness as usual, plus a strong Democratic President for the next term could see america make that shift back for another generation.
I could see Obama being the 21st centuries FDR.

Seaver

Look I dont mind mis-spelled words, or even accidental grammer mistakes. That's just normal.

But when someone is trying to convince me that my way of thinking is wrong, and he doesn't even TRY to type in a respectable way it just stops me from reading it, as I'm sure it does to most people.

Rdr4evr

Did you mis-spell grammar on purpose?

Fourtyrulz

This is one productive thread fellahs...

But seriously, why are we mentioning Bill Gates and trillion dollar deficits in the same sentence. I'm sure that one man has contributed more to the development of our current economy than most people in this country. It's not up to him to save America's poor, and at least he's helping.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

KMA-628

well, since Roosevelt was brought up........

Re: WWII and Roosevelt

1933 - New Deal Begins
1937 & 1938 - Large recession with unemployment rates of up to 19%

If we compare the numbers and figures relatively, Bush's economic record is as good or better than Roosevelt's.

Any economic number can be made to look bad (i.e. Clinton and Bush have similar numbers, but Bush is bashed for his numbers--i.e. unemployment--and Clinton is lauded).

LINK

whocarz

What a dignified exit!

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

sob

Correction: He's trying to FIX Social Security.


While instituting the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.

Seven of Reagan's eight proposed budgets were balanced, according to the CBO. I'll be happy to post the figures for you.

I have seen figures, but not lately, that indicate if the Democrat-controlled Congress been able to limit its spending increases to 5% per year, the budgets would have been balanced.

What has he accomplished to make you feel that way?

Seaver

HAH someone caught it.

Yeah, was an easter egg I left for yall hoping it'd lift the mood (seriously, I'm not joking).

tecoyah

Wish I had Caught This Earlier.

Come on here guys...this is just silly.
We are all Adults and there is little justfication for such thread degradation in this community. I have purposefully let alot of CRAP go in this board, to try giving a little room for debate to flourish. Please don't make us become heavy handed in here again, as it would benefit no-one, including the community as a whole.

We are aware thet the politics board is our little hotbed of debate, but will not allow this to become a nasty place to post again.

Dont Make Me Come Up There

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Konichiwaneko

I value and appreciate your ideals, but the execution of it I find more damaging to our country then benificial. What I mean by this is our viewpoint on how much Bill Gates can give/gives to your society.

You may see (I stress may because I'm not a big fan of assumming other peoples posistion) how much more money he can give, the guys pretty rich and all.

I see how much he gives now, and constantly gives by Employing some of our work force with his MASSIVE company. This while also giving generous contributions.

The difference is, and this is from what I've noticed over time, is that people who earn their wage respect it and mantain it more. If Mr. Gates gave more and more, yes it's a quick fix for people but not everyone in our nation suffers for MS or some various disease that may cause them not to be able to work.
Normally if people are given something for free then rather having to work for it, then they realize they don't have to do much to get help.

So once again I respect your humanity, and in some ways I too support it by giving donations when I can. I'm just a very very firm believer that you should earn your lifestyle rather then having it given to you (yes this applies to both rich and poor).




This may have been discussed before, if men are created equal then it would be cool to see men charged equally for change. Non realistic I know, but the thoughts entertaining.

__________________

Yakk

No, he is continueing the tradition of using bad balance books, and planning on destroying social security.

Actually, that would be the US stock bubble in the 90s.

As an aside, 42 million dollars is a 0.001 of Bill Gate's wealth, roughly.

If you have a net worth of, say, 10,000$, this is the equivilent of giving 10$ to charity.

If you have a net worth of 100,000$, this is the equivilent of giving 100$ to charity.

If you have a net worth of 1,000,000$, this is the equivilent of giving 1000$ to charity.

It is probably less than this, in terms of real cost to Bill: Bill Gates has very good accountants, if they can't get a massive tax break out of this (not as much as the amount donated, but a non-trivial percentage better than what you could get), he isn't trying.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Konichiwaneko

Two things, that's .0001 more then most people give.

Also His physical networth is no where close to that ammount.

__________________

pan6467

On one hand you have people saying the taxes are too high (one reason could be we are in a war we should NEVER have started, but I digress) and on the other hand you have people saying the extreme wealthy pay too little.

I believe there is middle ground and that it needs to be found for the good of ALL society. We are seeing huge gaps between the wealth and the poor. People talk of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and whoever but the vast majority employ more people overseas and ship goods here than they employ here and ship overseas. So where is the benefit for the US society there?

The problem is the jobs. Raise wages, get jobs back here and you build up a better tax base thereby taking the burden off the wealthy.

It is utter and complete bullshit, not to mention societal and economical suicide to NOT create better paying jobs and manufacturing in this country. Both greatly increase the tax base and the rich's burden is reduced immensely.

If Bill Gates decides he wants cheaper labor so he sends jobs to India, then he slices his own throat because he leaves lesser paying jobs here a lower tax base and increases his own. Same with every job that we send overseas.

So if they CHOOSE to send jobs overseas (or import cheaper labor) weakening our economy, then they have no right to complain when the government comes demanding they pay more taxes. If they cannot contribute to a growing healthy job base, then they should be forced to pay.

Another question results from this (maybe paranoid but one in this day and age needs to be addressed with terrorism prevelant), how do we know that this cheap labor in countries that do not like us will not load these products with hazardous materials. Throw something into a tv or computer so that when those products heat up poisonous gasses emit killing those using them.... microwaves that when used emit high doses of radiation that kill... or the product is set up to hit a certain temp and blow up with a radiation dirty bomb so to speak.

If people have more money and can spend more freely, they wouldn't have to look for the "better deal" from overseas. If you are making a little more you may spend a little more on a better or comparable computer built entirely in the US than one built cheaper overseas.

What we are doing now is buying the best we can with what we have and we are allowing the very countries buying up our debt, taking away our jobs to sell us cheaper goods.

It's a viscious cycle that if not ended, we truly will be a 2 class society with the wealthy paying ALL the taxes. I don't feel sorry for them at all either because they are doing it to themselves.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

guthmund

I'm afraid you misunderstand me or rather I haven't been clear enough. I'm not talking about government money being handed out to the poor. I'm not talking about welfare, food stamps, heating assistance or HUD. In fact, the only reason I brought taxes up in the first place was to counter the off hand remark you made about violating people's rights by forcibly taking money from them.

Let me be absolutely clear. I'm talking solely about charity. There are thousands of non-profit organizations out there that do great work for those that can't fend for themselves. Why just around here in my little podunk in the woods we have a dozen different charities that are funded by solely on private donations. They hand out food, maintain a shelter for the homeless, another for battered women, a small drug rehabilitation program and the list goes on. I would love to give every dime I have to these people for the great work that they do, however, I don't have a lot of dimes, so I give what I can afford, which is mostly my time. Bill Gates is a busy man with not a lot of time to spare, but he's got a whole lot of money just sitting around doing nothing.

And again, let me be clear. I'm not belittling what Mr. Gates has done. Like I said, I wish more would follow his example.

Charity. Just charity. Money to schools, the Red Cross, battered women ranches, the Salvation Army, make a wish, Jerry's kids, St. Jude's, these organizations all have a pretty good idea how to make it work. How many kids do you think are scamming St. Jude's? How many of those Jerry's kids do you think are playing the system? How many displaced families lost their homes on purpose just to get a quick couple of bucks for free?

I applaud your cynicism. I really do as I'm quite the cynic myself. There are a lot of folks out there who want to take advantage of the system. Fortunately, however, most charity organizations run a pretty tight ship (all Red Cross jokes aside ) and the good they do far, far outweighs the bad, in my opinion.


Men are equal under the law, but Men aren't created equal. Some of them are smarter, prettier, better athletic, better eyes, quicker reflexes, funnier, have better organizational skills, speak better in public, etc, which help them get along in the world. And some have MS, are blind, born deaf, mentally disabled, physically disabled and are born with any of a litany of diseases or disablities that prevents them from making their own way without a bit of help.

In the past, it was beneficial to the tribe to leave them behind as they were only a hinderance on the rest and it was considered an act of compassion. Today we have the technology, the wherewithal, the industry and the ability to save those same people, but ironically, most lack the compassion.

It would be nice, to live in a world where we realized that not everyone is given the same resources to draw upon when we come into the world. Where our compassion and humanity drive us to help everyone who has a need that has to be met. If not for compassion's sake then at the very least, to build a bit of cosmic karma if, god forbid, they should ever find themselves on the other side of the bread line instead of consistently looking out for number one and repeating the tried and true mantra of "out of sight, out of mind." It's a bit idealistic, no doubt about it, but the thoughts entertaining.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Konichiwaneko

Wouldn't you say then that they are doing pretty well being that more and more charities are opening up every year for different reasons?

I agree for charities giving money is amazing and should be done consistently and by more people.



Guthmund I've learn this in my life though. Compassion is a trait best learned and expressed as an individual. I've given away, helped, and done as much as I can but I can't expect others around me to do the same. What confuses me is even though I love charities, why they complain that they aren't going to meet what they made a year ago, or they are not going to be able to get as much money.

It's a charity, shouldn't we be thankful for what money they get anyways?

I've read your post, and reread it again. I can pretty much say we want the same goals but maybe a different path to it. A better and free humanity would be amazing.

__________________

guthmund

I would say some of them are doing very well and accomplishing a lot, yes. It also seems to be hurting others as well. The problem with 'specialized' charities is that instead of a few charities having a lot of money to do works with, now a lot of different organizations have just a bit of money to work with. A competitive market in the world of non-profit organizations is something to be avoided, in my opinion, as it does more harm than good.

There is no doubt that charity begins at home and with the individual, however, I will have to disagree about expecting more from others. You should expect more from others. You're busy, I'm busy, hell, the whole world is busy and somehow most of us seem to find time give a little back one way or another. Lowered expectations and apathy are....well, there seems to be a lot of these days and it can't be doing any good.

I do agree that it is distasteful when charities complain about not meeting their goals and play the guilt card to move the masses to pick up the phone and donate. Nothing irritates me more than listening to the sob stories that are solely intended to screw with your emotions and guilt you into giving. All that being said, it has to be aggravating to do so much good work one year with a x amount of dollars and then the next fall short of your goals and realize that you can't do as much this time out. I know I always have big plans for Christmas/Birthday/etc. gifts for the family and it irritates me when I fall short.

There are many different paths to follow. Maybe mine's a bit more idealistic, but what grand designs aren't?

The thing is we can do so much as individuals. Imagine, just imagine, what we could do together? In World War II we managed to put aside our differences to bring focus on the common enemy and in the first year of our involvement in the war we built nearly 24,000 tanks and twice as many airplanes. A remarkable feat from American industry, no doubt about it. Imagine what could we do if we used that laser like intensity to focus on cancer or to build a better car. We've become stagnant. Choosing to maintain the status quo rather than trying to do something new and it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Yakk

The US gets goods cheaply. People overseas get wealthier and smarter, more able to produce useful things.

This is known as waste. Putting someone who has the ability to get a college degree, and all the benefits of an American upbringing, into a shoe factory, spending all of their lives glueing shoe soles on... That's a waste.

You could pay them a good wage, but they are still wasting their potential. Doing this to the entire economy would make the sum total of all corruption and theft look like a drop in the bucket.

Imagine if you could earn twice as much per year.

Now imagine if every good costs 10 times as much.

I mean, you wouldn't want to hurt the oil workers in Texas. Oil from outside the country would have a levy large enough to make domestic production worthwhile. The same for coal, iron, wood, methane -- all the raw materials that drive the economy -- importing them would hurt the workers!

Shoes, instead of being manufactured by people being paid less than a dollar a day, would be built by workers earning 140$/day (remember, everyone earns twice as much -- and this includes paid overtime). These workers are 5 times more efficient, but it still means labour is nearly 30 times more expensive for shoes.

The same holds for computers and everything else.

Other nations, given the new USA's protective policies, close their doors to American imports. Some of them form large free-trade regions.

The American military superiority keeps some regions trading under favourable contitions with the homeland for a while. Unfortunetally, over a decade or two, the free-trade regions start having impressive standard of living improvements, compared to the American economy and other nations in it's military sphere of influence.

American's who choose to leave the country for the higher standards of living elsewhere are viewed as traitors, turning their back on the oaths they all swore in primary school.

Oh wait, that was what happened to Russia, not what would happen to America.

Labour is moved overseas because it is benefitial to both of you, theoretically.

America gets goods cheaper than it could get by producing them internally. Other nations get things from America they want.

[SNIP microwave bombs]

You don't seem to understand capitalism. If there is an identical shoe that costs 1/10th as much, most people will chose the cheaper shoe. What makes a shoe non-identical is funny sometimes, but people really will pay attention to things being 10 times cheaper.

You seem to hold up jobs as the holy grail. What you are describing is a sick welfare system, not productive jobs -- those 'jobs' you seek to add are at the expense of other people.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

pan6467

Who's getting richer and smarter overseas? The Chinese in labor camps? The children in sweatshops? The Indonesians that work and make just enough for food? Who's getting richer overseas? The workers who can't afford the very goods they make?

No, it's the business owners turning their backs on their own country and the country overseas (CHINA) that increases their trade surplus and buys up more of our debt so that we are working for the country that is supposedly wanting to destroy us.

I see so it is ok to not have manufacturing jobs that pay decent wages and increase the tax base there by relieving the tax burden from the rich. (Which of course you did not address.)

So it is ok for someone with that college degree (at most only 30% of the work force at any given time will hold a college degree and that # is the highest we have ever had, with no taxes coming in to help, and low paying jobs that number will greatly decrease) working at McDonald's, 7-11, whatever for low end wages, no insurance, where a tax burden of any kind affects their livelihoods, but to work in a factory is beneath them, for decent wages, wages that make them feel like they are part of the system and not abused by the system, wages that allow them to pay taxes and yet still have enough to live nicely without being in major debt?

And what of the 70% that do not hold any college or even HS degrees? Is it "fuck you, you don't deserve decent waged jobs"? That makes sense tell 70% of the poulation that they have to work low wage jobs.

Sounds to me like these college students believe working in a factory making decent wages, with benefits is far beneath them.... while they do menial low wage jobs with no benefits makes them feel great.

link: http://www.boston.com/business/artic...ted_prospects/

Limited prospects
Finding a job proves a tough course for college grads
By Diane E. Lewis, Globe Staff, 3/25/2004

When the Brockton nonprofit she worked for lost funding and cut her hours, Katie Deane moved to New York City in February 2003 in search of full-time work. She's still looking.

Deane holds an advanced degree in health and human services management from Brandeis University, but she's had to resort to temping, waitressing, babysitting, and other part-time jobs to pay her bills.

"I have networked, cold-called, and sent mass mailings," said Deane, 26. "I will take anything -- interesting or not -- as long as I can have a decent salary and health insurance. I know the economy is tough, but I think something else is happening for people in my age bracket."

Deane may be right. She is among 11.1 million US college graduates between 25 and 35 years old. Among this group, the rate of employment was lower in 2003 than at any other period since the economic downturn of 1979, when 84.9 percent held jobs, reports the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group in Washington, D.C.

The exception: new graduates. Their unemployment rate fell to 2.9 percent in February, from 3.0 percent, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For degreed job seekers 25 and older, however, the push to find viable work is tougher than ever because the sectors that are more likely to employ them, such as telecommunications, finance, educational services and high technology were hard hit by the recession.

That's certainly true in Massachusetts, which continues to shed those jobs even as the national economy shows signs of recovery, said Denis McSweeney, New England commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The state lost 9,500 jobs last month, the biggest decline since February 2003, when employers eliminated 16,100 jobs, according to the state's Division of Unemployment Assistance.

McSweeney reports that among the business sectors in the state that employ large numbers of college graduates, the most dramatic job losses occurred in the information sector. In 2004, for example, the number of jobs in that sector stood at 88,800, down from 116,400 in 2001, representing a drop of 23.7 percent.

"For college graduates, there is no doubt about it," said McSweeney. "Their situation has deteriorated over the last few years."

Another reason for their job hunting difficulties: There are more college graduates in the US workforce than ever. "We have doubled the share of college-educated workers, including those with advanced degrees, from 14.6 percent in 1973 to 29.1 percent in 2003," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at EPI. "At the same time, productivity growth received an added boost from the improved education and experience of our workforce."

EPI's findings suggest a college education no longer guarantees success in a labor market where 39.9 million workers have degrees. In 2003, for example, the percentage of employed college graduates aged 25 to 35 was 84.3 percent, down from 87.4 percent in 2000, EPI reported. For those workers, real hourly wages fell by 2 percent over a two-year period, from $22.45 in 2001 to $21.99 in 2003.

For all college graduates, including those 36 years-old and up, the number who were jobless for six months or more has quadrupled since 2001, reports EPI. Specialists attribute the problem to employers' reluctance to invest in expensive labor and competition from skilled workers abroad, including the offshoring of white-collar jobs.

"There are many reasons why we are having difficulty creating enough jobs for these folks," said Mark Zandi, chief economist and founder of Economy.com. "There is now a global labor market for all workers, low skilled and high skilled. Secondly, employers are reluctant to step up and hire workers who require not only wages, salaries, and bonuses, but also benefits such as healthcare and pensions. If they hire a highly educated and skilled individual now, will they be able to still use that person down the road?"

At the same time, the nation's productivity rate increased by more than 3 percent last year, say economists. They predict gross domestic product will increase by 4 to 5 percent in 2004. GDP measures the value of goods and services produced.

Martin Regalia, chief economist at the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C., points to other signs of economic growth, including increases in real household wealth and the resurgence on Wall Street.

For jobless workers, however, such news raises a question: "If economic growth is up, why aren't jobs?" It's a concern that's bound to be an issue in an election year. The AFL-CIO, for example, is sponsoring a nationwide bus tour called "Show Us the Jobs" featuring 51 unemployed workers from each state who will tell their stories. The tour across the Rust Belt is timed to counter the Bush administration's ongoing efforts to spread the news about economic expansion.

Regalia agreed the percentage of unemployed college graduates is probably higher today than two years ago, but said the quality of labor has improved so firms don't need as many highly skilled workers to meet their goals.

"This is why firms are not going right out and hiring a bunch of people," he said. "The other part of it is that much of the unemployment this time around is structural. People are being laid off and they are sitting on the sidelines until they learn how to make lawn mowers or tractors or, in an extreme case, go back to school."

Michael J. Greis, 45, of Needham, is back in school, pursuing an MS degree in finance at Boston College. He also holds degrees in molecular biophysics and biochemistry from Yale University. When a stint as corporate relations director for a local university didn't work out, Greis left in early 2002, certain he'd land full-time work. It hasn't happened.

Greis hopes an advanced degree will give him an edge in the job hunt. When not in school, he volunteers at a cable television station in Needham. He also relies on paid consulting assignments to help meet expenses. And Gries is a member of a networking group of unemployed professionals called WeWantWork-Boston.

While Greis understands the value of education, he wonders whether future technological advances will make some jobs obsolete before workers can realize a return on their investment in retraining.

"Some of the jobs that are being destroyed today required several years of education to do them," he said. "But if they are being destroyed faster than you can possibly train for them, how can anybody in the workforce keep up? And who will pay the bills while you are getting this education? In all the discussion about jobs and training, no one has looked at that."

How is having manufacturing good paying jobs a "sick welfare system" that does not have productive jobs? People feel better and feel more part of society when they create, working manufacturing jobs is creating something.

So you would rather we continue our massive trade deficits, increase the tax burden on the rich, keep lower wage service jobs coming, inthe name of this monster capitalism that has become the excuse for greed?

You took my "comparable prices" and made it 1/10th.... gee 1/10th isn't that comparable is it? But New Balance is proving to be a wrench in the system isn't it? Proving a shoe costing relatively the same made in the US CAN sell as well?

So you take your deficits, adding more tax burden on the rich because you choose not to want decent wages and manufacturing and I'll take the decent wages, lessening the rich's taxes by increasing the tax base.

By the way manufacturing jobs create far more than just decent wages...... their own tax base, little mom and pop shops close to the factory, people who work and save and buy their own businesses, or are able to save for Johnny and Julie's college, etc etc etc. What do Wal*Mart Jobs and low wage earning jobs offer? Information jobs don't create a tax base, they may pay a tad more BUT even they are going overseas.

Your economics are suicide. Your sense of capitalism is destructful.

Capitalism in my mind is creating decent paying jobs so that people do not have to go into debt, level trade between countries (where one doesn't subsidize it's steel, while taxing imported outrageously, with the mission to destroy another countries industry (which China and Japan are doing to us, yet we still send jobs to China because they are so great.)

Capitalism in my mind is developing decent waged, decent benefitted jobs to keep your tax base more level and not heavily burdened on one end.

It boggles my mind how people can cry the rich pay too much in taxes and yet refuse to increase the tax base.... that's just greed pure and simple.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Konichiwaneko

I was driving a bit today and I came up with this thought.

Some complain about Bush giving the Rich money breaks,
and then they complain about the Corporations(Controlled by the rich) moving away.

Are these points related? I'm not suggesting that's the problem, I'm wondering if you guys see that as an issue or a unrelated problem.

__________________

pan6467

Tax breaks (abatements) never work unless the corporation employs decent wage jobs.

The whole purpose of tax breaks to corporations is to get jobs developed and increase the tax base. What ends up happening, the past 10 years, is companies hire temp agencies pay as little as possible with no benefits or leave their HQ here and ship the jobs overseas.

This causes the tax base to not meet the required need to make up for the breaks and abatements so service cuts need to be made, taxes on the rich go up (in property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, etc.).

It's the same with the federal tax breaks, they are expecting booms in decent waged employment to make up for the tax loss and hopefully enlarge the base enough to make up for the tax breaks on the rich. However, jobs are still going overseas, temps to hire are still being used so that benefits and higher wages do not need to be paid, and the upper managements pocket the breaks.

Bush has some good ideas with his tax breaks, the problem with his plan is that he doesn't have any form of making sure the base gets enlarged. In other words his plans allow corp. and the rich to pocket the breaks and not use the breaks to secure the tax base.

If he used tax breaks as incentives for better jobs here at home, R&D, and so on and took breaks away from those shipping the jobs out and decreasing the tax base then I would say he had the plan that would get the US back up to where it belongs and we could start getting rid of the trade deficit (which is far, far scarier than a Fed. deficit).

I am not against capitalism or being rich, I am against this attitude that "we are super rich and we pay too many taxes, but yet we refuse to create or keep decent wages and benefits jobs here." It's economic suicide, it creates massive trade deficits (especially when our country has very low tarriffs and our exports get the fuck taxed out of them), and it is the reason for the rich having the tax burden they do.

Of course, one must ask, do they make more money by shipping the jobs out or by increasing the tax base and lessening their burden? Short term it's shipping out the jobs (eventually their burden will increase to pay for the continued losses), long term it's building the base and reducing their burden.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Yakk

Yes, the Chinese are getting richer and smarter.

Yes, the Indonesians who work and make just enough for food are getting richer and smarter. Before they had the job, they didn't have enough for food. Their children probably have far less malnutrition problems than their parents.

The workers who can't afford the very goods they make? Mate, I can't afford the all the goods I make. My company sells some things that are worth more than my net worth.

US policy towards China is to encourage openness, economic freedom, and political loosening. The goal is to make China realize that it is better for it to be a free nation than a tolatarian regeme. For everyone, from the poorest worker to the most powerful person in China.

I don't know if it will work, but...

The value of a manufacturing job is based off the value of what you manufacture, and off how hard it is to find labourers to do the manufacturing, in a large circle.

What you are describing is welfare. Holding up the prices of goods in order to increase the pay of various jobs. It is wasteful.

The details of where tax comes from are relatively unimportant. It does cause inefficiencies and problems, but it is far less important than having an efficient market.

Sure, they can work in a factory, if they would be useful there. But what you are describing isn't someone being useful in a factory -- you are describing putting up large trade barriers and lowering the US standard of living in order to increase US demand for menial labour jobs. It is simply evil.

The USA needs to gear up it's education system. Only 30% of the population having college degrees is a waste, and if the best thing someone with a college degree can figure out to do is work at McDonalds then they wasted their educational oppurtunity.

What do you mean by 'live nicely' -- do you mean relatively, or absolutely? It is pretty darn easy to live at the standards of an average someone in 1940 -- no TV, no fridge, tightly packed into a small building, very little disposable income. If you inflate prices on goods so much that it makes sense to pay large numbers of menial laborers to make them a wage high enough to live well relative to the rest of socieity, then what you'll do is drag everyone else down.

They should go learn something. Pick up a trade, there is a large shortage of tradesfolk. Failing that, fix the American welfare system so it supports entering a career.

[quote["I have networked, cold-called, and sent mass mailings," said Deane, 26. "I will take anything -- interesting or not -- as long as I can have a decent salary and health insurance. I know the economy is tough, but I think something else is happening for people in my age bracket."[/quote]

There it is. People are massively sensative to downward inflationary pressure.


No, you are not just 'having' them, you want to empoverish the entire country in order to make them. If you are going to have a welfare system, don't be dishonest about it. Your goal should be to get people out of inefficient jobs and into productive ones -- what you are describing is skewing the economy so that old, inefficient jobs are always there, so people can feel good about themselves.

Massive trade deficits aren't going to continue. Not forever.

Um, the labour costs for menial labour in North America really are that high.

Now, most of the costs for "fashon" goods in North America do come from marketing rather than labour/raw materials.

You don't think information tech jobs don't have people who spend money on mom and pop shops? Save for college? People who buy their own businesses?

Don't shop at Wal*Mart. It is your choice. I have consciously chose not to buy goods from them, possibly for other reasons than you, but it is your choice. Possibly you'll have to move in order to get away from your Wal*Mart. Possibly you'll have to plan your life around having that kind of freedom.

Um, in case you haven't noticed, the USA is hitting everyone with illegal steel tarrifs. The steel fight is over buying votes, just another bribe to a special interest.

Capitalism is about making the economy efficient. Making people happy is another problem.

Who is heavily burdened by taxes in the USA?

/shrug, complain to someone who thinks the rich in the USA pay too much in taxes. I avoided buying into that bit of propganda. =)

You are describing a massive income redistribution, by having the government manipulate the economy, and generate inefficiencies and waste. It is my opinion that if you want to do social welfare, do social welfare. Don't be a pussy-footer.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

pan6467

How is demanding that corporations that get tax abatements (for the sole purpose I described above) and or tax breaks to create jobs social welfare????? It's called bettering the area's economy. It was the GOP's grand idea of the 80's. It was the original conservative movement's idea. Now, those aren't good enough for you? You want more? Even if we can't afford more?

And you cry about how liberals want things too far left?

What I propose is government influencing the economy??? Yeah, the government must influence the economy and HAS since the early 1900's when fair labor laws, 40 hour work weeks, overtime, monopoly laws and many child labor laws were introduced. In doing so the economy grew, industry grew and a middle class became prominent.

Without government influence the days of share cropping, a 2 class society would exist.

States and communities if you haven't noticed are starting to realize that tax abatements and breaks don't work. Companies either transfer the jobs overseas or pay wages that in no way help the tax base.

You may not buy into the rich are taxed too much but read other's posts, dealing with taxes. Most of them complain how the rich are taxed too high.

DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION TO REDUCE TAX BURDEN WHILE INCREASING TAX BASE IN THE US?????

IT jobs are starting to go overseas. In 38 states the biggest employer is Wal*Mart.... how can we justify that?

When and where are the trade deficts going to end if we continue to buy foreign made goods? If this trade deficit is so unconcerning then why is China one of the biggest buyers of our debt?

1940 tv barely existed, I was talking more the 60's and 70's. And yes people lived within their means. But they also knew when they bought something it was going to last longer than 3 years.

True Capitalism just like true Socialism, Communism, and so on will not work either. It only provides for greed and refuses to reward the worker the way the worker needs to be. If true Capitalism worked there would be a growing middle class, there isn't now.

The only way to survive is to find a middle ground. Which is what I have illustrated above.

Illegal steel tarriffs? Yet China and Japan doing the same AND subsidizing their steel industry so that they can make it cheaper is ok? You are saying it is wrong for the US to do what other countries are doing to us? Bush had to protect our steel industry.

This is an economical warfare and China is winning.

Manufacturing is desperately needed by any country. If you do not produce your own goods eventually you will die economically. Because of trade deficits.

You tell me what is a better solution. You tell me what is middle ground that produces decent waged and benefitted jobs.

Taxes will continue to rise the economy will continue to go into the dumper until jobs that pay and give benefits are the norm. WHY? Because people will start needing better healthcare and demanding it. Without benefits and decent self respecting wages people will have to rely on government for their needs more. Thereby taxes on the rich increase.

What you are saying is people should take what the company gives them, be happy and shut the fuck up.

What you propose is the US should be content to let all industries implode over here and go overseas for cheaper labor.

What you propose is that government has no right to interfere with business, yet, government should give out corporate welfare.

You show no signs of compromise to better society, you show that you want things heavily in your favor and screw everyone else. It's economic suicide. It's also defense suicide. No factories no industries, a low tax base that burdens the rich, and you set yourself up for having to rely on foreign made military supplies to provide your defnse. I'm sorry if I'm in a war I want to know that the ships, guns, missiles, technology, and so on are made by my home country and not a country that makes weapons for the highest bidder.

I'm sure in WW2 we didn't go to Japan or Germany and beg them for weapons so that we could fight them. Yet, if we allow China to destroy our steel industry and we keep shipping jobs overseas that will happen.

War is always inevitable. It has always been, People of different regions shall always argue it is in man's nature. And war isn't always bad, it has in the past always eliminated weaker societies and improved the world as a whole. It also develops more technology.

I am no war monger and someday perhaps there will be no need for war. But not in my lifetime. There will always be philosophical, religious and financial reasons countries go to war.

Right now we are in an economic war, and we are losing badly. Much like the USSR did. And until we realize that we must take care of our own country and THEN help the rest of the world, we will lose.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Yakk

Corperate welfare is welfare, except it usually gets skimmed off the top by the rich. It is a great way to get corperations to bribe, I mean donate huge amounts of money 'question free' to politicians, in order to maintain the government handouts.

I don't have a problem with the government influencing the economy as a general rule. Notice alot of the above are laws that cut accross industries, designed to be social welfare laws. What you are describing is large covert money transfers from the general economy into one particular industry or set of industries, because those industries make you feel warm and fuzzy.

The people in the USA with the highest marginal tax rate are the poor. In some cases, their effective marginal tax rate breaks 100%. If you believe that high marginal tax rates cause a disincentive to work and destroy the economy, fix that first.

I didn't claim it was a simple solveable problem. That's your claim, not mine. Just because you want to solve it with a simple solution, doesn't mean it can be solved.

Just because you want to do something, doesn't mean you can. There isn't any such thing as a free lunch.

The US dollar is going to collapse. The standard of living in the USA is going to go down, the US dollar won't be used as an international currency nearly as much, and with cheaper US labour and more expensive imports, the American trade balance will fix itself.

Right now, American standards of living are being supported by the lack of other places to invest 'safely', the use of American currency as a world currency, and massive borrowing by American people and the American government.

Stop borrowing. Start saving. Increase trade. Live with less. Educate your people, don't rely on immigration to provide America with competent people. Destroy inefficient industries and remove subsidies as a rule. Stop wasting money on ego ventures. Fix your finantial markets, make them trustworthy again.

Have you looked at China, the air, the water, the standard of living? Compare it to the USA? If that's winning and the USA is losing, then I want to be losing economic wars.

Educate your populance. Make them smarter and better than other nations. Out compete other nations.

If you close the USA off, the world will close themselves off to the USA. And the world will out compete you until you collapse like the USSR did.

I didn't propose corperate welfare. Are you even reading what I'm writing, or just making this up?

If you think the size of your battleships will matter in WW3, you are delusional.

I don't know with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

If the justification for your arguements is 'we have to win WW3', you are playing the wrong game. The only way to win WW3 is to prevent it. That is why, after WW2, they build a world economy that tied everyone tightly together and made sure that everyone benefited from the world economy -- make it not worth it to go to war, and people don't go to war nearly as often.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS WILL KILL EVERY PERSON ON EARTH IF THEY ARE USED ON A LARGE SCALE. EVERY POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH CAN BUILD ENOUGH NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO USE THEM ON A LARGE SCALE. Fuck, even Canada, a pint-sized nation with a military smaller than some US state guards, could build enough nuclear weapons to destroy human life on earth, given a few years. And you want to continue playing great power games? Do you have any clue what a fucking stupid idea that is?

And you wonder why polls in the UK believe the USA is the most dangerous nation on Earth. R.R. nuclear bluff in the 80s wasn't what won the economic war with the USSR, the USSR destroyed itself with economic suicide.

USA beat the USSR by unleasing the power of the market, and managing economic growth and expansion that you couldn't sustain in a heavily micro-managed economy. You don't win economic wars by playing at random government micro-management -- that is how you lose the wars.

Why did the USSR lose the economic war? Because their economy was horribly inefficient and wasteful, it protected inefficient industries, had broken price systems, and in general was a pile of turds. What you are describing is adding waste and inefficincies to the US economy. Waste is an evil. It's a real evil.

Bush's steel tarriffs where just a blatant bribe -- ethically equivilent to saying 'I am going to give everyone in swing state X 1000$ cash if I get elected -- and tax everyone else 100$ to pay for it', but wrapped in the usual Bush-administration patriot-talk propoganda.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

pan6467

There's no more sense in debating you have your views, I have mine.

I started all this out by saying that we needed to find middle ground. Unfortunately you don't have any ideas to, nor want to find middle ground. You are set in your beliefs and compromise is out of your realm of thought.

For me, I choose to believe that industry and bringing back the manufacturing sector would increase the tax base, lower the rich's tax burden so that areas may flourish again.

You say educate, but right now schools are going bankrupt because the tax base isn't there to support them. You believe we can have a society of white collar workers and all else would be lazy, non learners. I choose to believe that not everyone is college material but that they can still contribute and with decent jobs and pay build up the confidence needed to move forward.

You believe that China is losing the economic war, I choose to believe that they are winning. I base my views on the fact that they subsidize their industries to put ours out of business, which you believe to be ok. I see the Chinese buying our debt up as fast as we make it. You believe there are no ramifications to that.

You believe it is ok for the Chinese and every other country to tarriff us and tax our products into non competition, yet if we do it, we're being protectionist, social welfare-istic and doing so illegally.

You are quick to criticize and totally rip apart an idea, yet you provide none.

You would rather see our country stay divided and watch the tax burden grow heavier for the rich and the gap widen between classes, while my plan has flaws, it is at least a start in the right direction.

You choose to talk nuclear war, I never said we faced world wars, but we face skirmishes like Iraq, and as Iraq is showing our troops are grossly ill supplied. one reason for this is we no longer produce the equipment they need. That is suicide to the defense of our nation.

Put whatever spin you like on your views to me you offer no solutions but to make matters worse. Just as my views seem illogical to you.

I believe the soviets lost because they weren't innovative, they truly had no industry, running up huge trade deficits, there was huge gaps between 2 classes, their government ran up massive deficits and they refused to build up a middle class.

We are innovative, we just don't have the industry. We are allowing ourselves to become a 2 class society and we are squeezing the middle class out, in taxes, education (by underfunding public education, because we don't have the money because there no longer exists a tax base), our deficits are running way way too high and other countries are more than eager to take over what you deem as menial labor manufacturing. Why do you suppose they are so eager to take take over manufacturing?

It may be "warm fuzzy thinking" but I would far rather take manufacturing jobs and the production of goods over what is happening now.

No other "civilized" country in this world comes near our debt, and the reason is no other country depends so heavily on other countries for their goods. Our standard of living maybe high, but so is the debt ratio and as we become dependant on others, they shall come collecting the debts. What do we do then?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"