america's middle class is dying

[Hot Mega]

you are seriously misguided Mr D.
reality: most of the people, damn near all who live off the system are very content with it.
they choose to live like that.
And ask any of them- whats better, work a job all day 6 days a week or get pretty much the same money free from the government for doing nothing ?
9 out of 10 will give you the same answer.

They want to be selfish and just keep what they have for themselves,
selfish?
Its selfish to want to keep the money you earned for yourself and your family instead of the gov giving it to some stranger who chooses to live that way?

did you ever think it is selfish to have children you can't support and demanding that people you don't know give you a free ride for life from their hard work?
I bet you never have.

yeah, misguided is putting it nicely.
so how much you get each month?

btw if the government really wanted to decrease poverty they would cut people off after 6 months, watch how fast they start looking for a job.
that would reduce poverty, lower taxes and bring the economy up.
I mean if you really care about the poor.

meester point a system out and there is someone gaming it. People who game systems are a species in all walks of society; Wall St., welfare, mortgage lending, g'ment contracts, political influence peddling and on and on and on and on.

That doesn't solve anything by pointing it out...just lends perspective to the fact that consistent human behavior resides in places that may not be so apparent to you.

 

[dongkong]

My point here (dovetailing into my next point) is that this theory is just another belief or saying held by tax and econ intellectual types who have apparently never played the practicality of it out in their minds.

Fair enough..and for the record I don't have a background in Econ. But sometimes that exactly the problem with those who do. Intellectuals get mired in the minutia of theory without ever spending much time examining the reality.

First, a person looking for work in their career field to maximize their earning potential is being productive. That is their new job. Secondly, u/e claims are based on insurance paid for by an employer for the employment of a worker. So in a normal claim circumstance the u/e claim paid to a claimant should have no impact on the g'ment aside from the paper pusher they employ to waste time processing the claims. While the claimant is still consuming, spending and recycling money into the economy.

I tried to articulate my last response in clear, concise paragraphs but if you didn't get it no need in me reiterating it this time.

But suffice it to say in practical terms it would be beyond foolish for a person to forgo a u/e claim to take a job making close to what u/e would be paying them. They would be better off focusing all of their energy on getting a job commensurate with their earning potential. Underemployment is a last resort...not something (if you have any sense) you'd do in lieu of a u/e claim.

It's better for the person and the economy that they get back to earning their potential asap as opposed to languishing in underemployment undermining their career field opportunity. Lastly an underemployed person kills two unfortunate birds with one stone. They're not focusing on earning their potential and therefore consuming accordingly if they did and there's the potential they are keeping some other person with the appropriate talent level for the lesser job from getting it.:2 cents:

There are only 2 ways ever it would make sense to accept underemployed in lieu of u/e IMO; if someone had a high earning potential and the underemployment was still significantly higher than u/e. Or a person accepts some type of internship work where they're effectively being retrained in lieu of being commensurately paid.

Now of course I wouldn't expect you'd find any of this between the pages and theories of some Econ book but these are most certainly the practical realities.

Well let me start by pointing out some of the things we are agreeing on. 1. Your absolutly correct that it would be absolutly foolish for an unemployed person to work a job that pays close to what they get from U/E.

Now on the issue of what we disagree on i think your making a few mistakes. 1. Your saying that an individual search for a job is being productive. Well in economic terms that is totally false because job search does not equal productivity. So no a person looking for a job is not productive, We can say they are taking steps towards being productive in the future.
2. You use the term "Earning potential" as if there is some set earning markers in the market. When in reality there are non because wage markets fluctuate with economic realities of set time. So when it comes to the national economy it really dosnt mean anything.
3. You also mentioned person X who takes lower paying job taking a job away from the less qualified person. Well agian that in reality really dosnt mean anything because the market levels itself out. If person X takes a lower paying job, then that leaves person Y to take a higher paying job. So really in economic terms that idea is meaningless because markets level themselves out.

Now after these factors are corrected, i think we can agree that it is foolish to accept a job that pays close to what U/E pays. However, when we talking about the economy as a whole, the statement i made before still holds true. An underemployed productive workforce is still better for the health of the economy than an unproductive workforce on U/E. As an old professor of mine use to say with unemployed people on U/E the national economic pie starts to shrink. But with a productive underemployed person atleast the pie stays the same with good potential for future growth.

 

[Hot Mega]

Well let me start by pointing out some of the things we are agreeing on. 1. Your absolutly correct that it would be absolutly foolish for an unemployed person to work a job that pays close to what they get from U/E.

Now on the issue of what we disagree on i think your making a few mistakes. 1. Your saying that an individual search for a job is being productive. Well in economic terms that is totally false because job search does not equal productivity. So no a person looking for a job is not productive, We can say they are taking steps towards being productive in the future.

Here again the practical and rational come crashing to a halt into the wall of economic think tankery. The unemployed person doesn't give a fuck about the economic indicator term he falls within. In practical terms it is not productive for a Test Engineer (for example) to spend 8 hours a day stacking boxes in a warehouse for at or near the same pay he would be getting from u/e. Especially when that job could and should be filled by someone who's skills and talents are on par for it. It is far more productive for HIM to be pursuing jobs that offer commensurate pay for what his talents are. While at the same time, cycling nearly the same amount of money back into the economy from a system all but neutral to g'ment spending. The logic of this is seemingly as clear as plate glass.:dunno:

2. You use the term "Earning potential" as if there is some set earning markers in the market. When in reality there are non because wage markets fluctuate with economic realities of set time. So when it comes to the national economy it really dosnt mean anything.

Really? Earning potential in practical terms is determined by what employers are advertising to pay someone possessing your skill or talent. Wages may fluctuate but not on the order of at some point reflecting a CPA considering for their qualifications the same wages that a crew member at McDonalds would be considering. Again, I'm not quoting from some book, theory or professor. The parlance I'm using here applies to the real world options the individual most likely considers.

3. You also mentioned person X who takes lower paying job taking a job away from the less qualified person. Well agian that in reality really dosnt mean anything because the market levels itself out. If person X takes a lower paying job, then that leaves person Y to take a higher paying job. So really in economic terms that idea is meaningless because markets level themselves out.

Don't take this the wrong way but do you teach or something?? In the real world people in the workforce are distinguished by skill and expertise. If for example an electrician gets laid off but forgos their u/e claim for the first job flipping burgers (just to be 'productive' in a national, economic sense), an unskilled person who probably should have that job flipping burgers isn't going to then walk into the next job opening for an electrician the other guy flippin' burgers is too busy to go interview for. The unskilled guy now has one less job opportunity.

Now after these factors are corrected, i think we can agree that it is foolish to accept a job that pays close to what U/E pays. However, when we talking about the economy as a whole, the statement i made before still holds true. An underemployed productive workforce is still better for the health of the economy than an unproductive workforce on U/E. As an old professor of mine use to say with unemployed people on U/E the national economic pie starts to shrink. But with a productive underemployed person atleast the pie stays the same with good potential for future growth.

Well I'm not really going to bother with your last point save for to say the professorial theory you cite only sounds interesting. As you just agreed with me that forgoing u/e in favor of underemployment pay at or near u/e is foolish.

 

[Facetious]

If it ever came to that it would be primarily because so called conservatives can't stand the notion losing politically without threatening violence, revolution, war, etc.

On how many instances has a verifiable mainstream group calling themselves conservatives recently threatened violence because of ''losing politically''? I don't ever recall ever reading about that in the paper!

Don't demagogue

As for ''threatening revolution'', what is left wing radicalism ALL about?

Don't demagogue

When has a verifiable mainstream republican recently threatened war as a result of ''losing politically''

Don't demogogue

 

[Hot Mega]

On how many instances has a verifiable mainstream group calling themselves conservatives ever threatened violence because of ''losing politically''? I don't ever recall ever reading about that in the paper!

Don't demagogue

Maybe you should have checked the 'internets' (or your reading glasses).:dunno:

Texas Governor Floats Possibility Of Secession

 

[dongkong]

Here again the practical and rational come crashing to a halt into the wall of economic think tankery. The unemployed person doesn't give a fuck about the economic indicator term he falls within. In practical terms it is not productive for a Test Engineer (for example) to spend 8 hours a day stacking boxes in a warehouse for at or near the same pay he would be getting from u/e. Especially when that job could and should be filled by someone who's skills and talents are on par for it. It is far more productive for HIM to be pursuing jobs that offer commensurate pay for what his talents are. While at the same time, cycling nearly the same amount of money back into the economy from a system all but neutral to g'ment spending. The logic of this is seemingly as clear as plate glass.:dunno:

Really? Earning potential in practical terms is determined by what employers are advertising to pay someone possessing your skill or talent. Wages may fluctuate but not on the order of at some point reflecting a CPA considering for their qualifications the same wages that a crew member at McDonalds would be considering. Again, I'm not quoting from some book, theory or professor. The parlance I'm using here applies to the real world options the individual most likely considers.

And again the economics of the situation would tell us that if a person is unable to find work, then they might have to lower there idea of what their earning potential actually is. For example lets say i have a company and have 5 open positions in the finance department. 10 Finance guys show up for the job and i hire the 5 that i need. For the 5 that did not get hired, well their earning potential with my company in the finance department is zero. What i mean is that earning potential at the end of the day is just what a person thinks they are worth. But often times what a person thinks they are worth is not always what an employer thinks they are worth. Again it comes back to basic supply and demand. If there is a large pool of financial experts in the market that demand is gonna drop and along with it the perceived earning potential. I mean the reality of the situation is that if your unemployeed, your earning potential right now is basically whatever company X is willing to pay.

Don't take this the wrong way but do you teach or something?? In the real world people in the workforce are distinguished by skill and expertise. If for example an electrician gets laid off but forgos their u/e claim for the first job flipping burgers (just to be 'productive' in a national, economic sense), an unskilled person who probably should have that job flipping burgers isn't going to then walk into the next job opening for an electrician the other guy flippin' burgers is too busy to go interview for. The unskilled guy now has one less job opportunity.


Well I'm not really going to bother with your last point save for to say the professorial theory you cite only sounds interesting. As you just agreed with me that forgoing u/e in favor of underemployment pay at or near u/e is foolish.

I do business consulting work mostly and i do teach some part time courses in business and economics. But i think i know why we are having conflicting views on this issue. I feel the mistake i made was not explaining clearly enough the connection between the macro and micro levels of our economic discussion. See im looking at this from a macro (whole) point of view and your looking at this from a micro point of view. So let me try to explain it a bit more clearly.
Starting with the idea of an electrician taking a job flipping burgers. Well in an ideal world an electrician would get laid of and then within 2 or 3 months find another job as an electrician. However, lets say he or she dosnt find another electrician job. Well what that means is that the demand for electricians is not there at the moment. Their choices are get re-training, wait our the supply boom or get a lower level job. In this situation the lower level job is indeed a good option because it keeps them employed and makes them more marketable for future oppertunities. Now you may say oh but flipping burgers is to low, again you and i know that not many professionals go from 100 k to 20 k. So really lower level position dosnt generally mean such a massive drop. The worst drop iv seen in income is people taking lower level jobs at half what they use to make.

Now we can move on to the macro level because at the end of the day the economy as a whole is what reflects changes on the micro level. I mean you may not care about the economy as a whole, but that is the ultimate goal. A strong economy which in turn is what benefits people on the micro level. Now as iv said before an underemployed person is better for the whole economy than a unemployed person. That is a fact that is accepted by all schools of economics becuase like i said before it stops the economic pie from shrinking.

Now the conflicting view seems to be when i agree that its foolish to work a crap job if U/E pays similar amount of money. I think your viewing that as a disconnect, when its not. The point here is that what is good for person X is not always good for the Economy as a whole long term (because short term it dosnt make to much of a diff). And that is where political ideas and economic ideas have the conflict. The U/E system is basically working against what is good for the long term success of the whole economy. For example i believe in the 50s or 60s (im a bit fuzzy on the actual decade) there was no way you could stay on U/E. Why because even the lowest paying jobs still payed more than U/E. However, as time went on U/E got to a point where it was paying more than some lower level jobs. So in a way it started working against the long term health of the economy as a whole.

So now we are at a point where i say "if person X gets U/E that pays them equal to what a crap job pays" they would be foolish to work that job, Why work when you can make the same money for doing nothing. But again the down side being that such trends can limit the long term economic success of our country and thats a concern.

Wow that was a long post lol. With that i think ill take my leave from the discussion because i think if i carry on ill be :horse:. It was good talking to ya Sir.

 

[miles123]

Let's just do away with all foreign aid and internal aid for 1-2 years. We'll pay off the budget in no time. Then let's spring an enormous tax on the the top 1% (something like 55%). haha. I wish I was joking. I'm not. Give it back to the middle class.

 

[meesterperfect]

Let's just do away with all foreign aid and internal aid for 1-2 years. We'll pay off the budget in no time. Then let's spring an enormous tax on the the top 1% (something like 55%). haha. I wish I was joking. I'm not. Give it back to the middle class.

how about we spring an enormous tax on you instead?

 

[Atar554]

The welfare crowd loves to be in the wagon while everyone else is out front pulling.

It's 2011 why the fuck are we driving a wagon to begin with!?

j/k

In seriousness though you're right; the few that actually need a hand are so outweighed by those who use the system as a crutch at best and a lifestyle at worst.

 

[hyck]

The Solution!

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

 

[Hot Mega]

But on the issue of welfare. You cant blame welfare recipients for taking advantage of the programs in place. Is it fair to the middle class as we know it to pay for people on welfare? No, its not fair, but the blame in my opinion dosnt sit on the welfare recipients. But rather on the politicians who promise these programs. Welfare recipients are just taking advantage of the policies put in place by the politicians. As someone recently told me, that they get more money in unemployment than they do actually working a min wage job. Now, im all for working hard, but most people would rather get unemployment check for a year instead of working at some crap job and getting payed less. More money is a motivator dont ya think.

The above started this whole back and forth. I'm not sure what the point of you relating the story about someone making more on u/e than they would working min. wage. You seemed to have a fundamental misunderstanding of u/e claims. A person making min. wage isn't going to go on u/e and then make more than they were while they were working. That person in the story you're relating was certainly earning more than min. wage when they worked and probably earning much much more. What would be the point of relating the story since that guy is most likely over qualified for a min. wage job?? And therefore, better off staying on u/e while they focus their efforts on finding a job that pays them for their skill and background.

And again the economics of the situation would tell us that if a person is unable to find work, then they might have to lower there idea of what their earning potential actually is. For example lets say i have a company and have 5 open positions in the finance department. 10 Finance guys show up for the job and i hire the 5 that i need. For the 5 that did not get hired, well their earning potential with my company in the finance department is zero. What i mean is that earning potential at the end of the day is just what a person thinks they are worth. But often times what a person thinks they are worth is not always what an employer thinks they are worth. Again it comes back to basic supply and demand. If there is a large pool of financial experts in the market that demand is gonna drop and along with it the perceived earning potential. I mean the reality of the situation is that if your unemployeed, your earning potential right now is basically whatever company X is willing to pay.

Your example assumes 2 things; your firm is the only place in need of their expertise/background and their job search is only a day long endeavor ending at being odd persons out for your 5 positions.

But I think I'm done with this. I've made my point and you in essence agreed but for some reason wanted a more intricate discussion.

The point was simple, it's not good for the economy for a person to accept underemployment that rivals u/e pay because it will likely interfere with their efforts to find commensurate employment and it keeps someone on the sideline not earning that is more qualified (in a manner of speaking) for the min wage job.

 

[miles123]

how about we spring an enormous tax on you instead?

I already pay a chunk of taxes and I don't even earn my income in the US. That said, I get your point. Nobody wants to pay more taxes, but it might be a necessary evil.

I was jokingly paraphrasing Warren Buffets comment on class wars and how he thinks the Upper/Upper class (1%) is winning and he thinks they (including himself) should be taxed more.

Sorry, I could have written that better....

 

[Nester6]

The welfare crowd loves to be in the wagon while everyone else is out front pulling.

And that wagon gets bigger and bigger while the amount of horses gets smaller. No government can succeed with a welfare class.

 

[vodkazvictim]

drink all you want, just don't expect me to pay for it if i don't wanna.
but It doesnt matter if I want to or not, the GOV forces me to and if I refuse they strip me of all earthly belongings and put me in jail with thieves and killers.

hey, have you ever been in a supermarket line and the old lady in front of you is buying ramen noodles 8 for a dollar for dinner for the next week while youre buying everything on sale and not buying a lot of the things you want because you ain't got the money because you gotta pay rent, utilities, insurance, car payment so you can get to work, taxes when you earn it and when you spend it even though you work 6 days a week?
Meanwhile the welfare crew in front of you but behind the old lady are buying all named brand things with their family first card even though they already get reduced rent or free rent, reduced or free utilities and free taxi service to go to the doctor for free and to the welfare and ss office.
with all those bennies cant they at least pay for their food?

Have you ever noticed that vodka?
Have you ever walked through a welfare project in the bitter cold of winter and noticed how many apartments have a window open?
it don't matter because the heat is turned up all the way and they ain't paying for it anyway.

Maybe its me I'm a little fucked up but theres something that just doesnt seem fair about all that.
" families First" card,,,,,,,,,,who's family?

I just don't think people realize just how many people live off the system in the USA and how it effects them, the economy and society.
To me that is obviously the biggest reason why the country is going down the shitter.

Guess what? You don't pay a penny for my drink, and you wouldn't even if you lived in my country. I work for a living.

But I can tell you something about people living off the system:
In my country the government needs to pay off masses of debt. Yet big companies get let off tax bills in an illegal manner.
The banks fell flat on their faces. The tax payers (yeah, that's right, the poor) bailed out the banks.
A lot of the people claiming benefits in my country do so because it's impossible to earn enough money to support a family, for example.

I can't speak for what you said about walking through a project, because I've never been to america.

The welfare crowd loves to be in the wagon while everyone else is out front pulling.

You mean like Reagan, who had the poor paying the most taxes that kept the country running while the big players pissed around and caused an economic collapse?
The truth is that the poor are poor because the rich live off them like parasites. It's always been like that.

And that wagon gets bigger and bigger while the amount of horses gets smaller. No government can succeed with a welfare class.