"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:03:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"azotic" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.
Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm
Exporting jobs finally shows results...............
Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.
--
John R. Carroll
Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs,
i
havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.
Best Regards
Tom.
You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless
arguments.
This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my
first
attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that it will
take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I have
anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear answer,
even then.
The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
going both ways.
==========
The following WSJ article should be of interest.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._LEFTWhatsNews
Many Jobs Gone Forever, Economists Say
Increased Automation, Relocations Overseas Mean Workers Will Find
Different Employment Mix When Recession Ends
By PHIL IZZO
About a quarter of the 8.4 million jobs eliminated since the
recession began won't be coming back and will ultimately need to
be replaced by other types of work in growing industries,
according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal
forecasting survey.
snip
It isn't just weak growth that's damping job growth. "Companies,
in the name of making money, substitute against labor through
outsourcing or technology," said Allen Sinai of Decision
Economics. Wages and benefits make workers "so expensive that who
wants to hire them? As a result, the displaced workers won't be
rehired unless we have double the growth rate we're expecting."
snip
===========
That is interesting, George. There's a similar article in, I think, this
month's _Atlantic Monthly_.
I've mentioned before that I've always been a pessimist about jobs as we
come out of recessions, but my pessimism may finally be coming to pass. I
really don't see where the jobs will be coming from.
There's some serious questioning going on about the premises of the
free-market model, but we went through that in the '30s, too. So I don't
make too much of it. But I had a feeling about reaching this moment in
history 'way back in the early '70s. I was covering automation and computers
were just starting to get involved. It looked then like we wouldn't need a
lot of people in the future. My thoughts then were that we would simply
shorten the work week, like France was doing at the time. But capital
doesn't like to be spread around. g
--
Ed Huntress