On 2010-04-23, Winston wrote:
Here is the deal for folks who still cling to that belief:
In a Republican administration, the poor are prevented from becoming
poorer until after the rich become richer.
In a Democratic administration, the rich are forced to become richer
before the poor are permitted to become poorer.

My own theory in the widening income gap between well paid people and
badly paid people is very simple. It is not very much about politics
and mostly about economics, IQs and productivity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

The economics of this is that work contributions of not so
intelligent, or unqualified, people are replaced by computers. The
easiest example, besides CNC manufacturing, is to see how store
cashiers are being replaced by automatic checkouts. Same applies to
very many other professions.

As computers become smarter, more and more people are being pushed out
of the economic bandwagon and fall on the fringes. They simply cannot
contribute much that is within their abilities.

This is significantly different from the past industrial revolutions,
where people replaced by machines simlpy learned to operate such
machines and overall, produced more. Now, there essentially is a
lesser need to have anyone operate any machines, as computers do it
better.

I do not know what the future holds, and possibly, we will stumble on
the answer on what to do with such displaced people, and the society
will continue happily employing them for something useful. Possibly,
we will be forced to improve our education system, with some minor
gains due to that.

It is also possible that we will not stumble on any such solution and
more and more people will be pushed to the fringe, as computers can
substitute for a greater percentage of population every year. The
bleak social consequences will be easy to imagine.

I find this trend to be very disturbing, as eventually almost everyone
will be eventually displaced from productive activity. Remember that
even now, world chess champions barely win chess matches against
computers. For more food for thought, read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Tax policy or trade policy cannot do much to stop this essentially
technological, microeconomic development. Social policy may make the
fate of displaced workers a bit better, and in the meantime an
economic solution may be found.

The individual answer to this is that to be successful, it is
important for young people who are not wealthy, to become
sophisticated, focused and highly educated individuals. This is,
clearly, not feasible for everyone, but it is important to at least
try.

I do think that this issue will be a fundamental source of instability
for decades to come.

i

On 4/22/2010 8:54 PM, Ignoramus10488 wrote:
On 2010-04-23, wrote:
Here is the deal for folks who still cling to that belief:
In a Republican administration, the poor are prevented from becoming
poorer until after the rich become richer.
In a Democratic administration, the rich are forced to become richer
before the poor are permitted to become poorer.

My own theory in the widening income gap between well paid people and
badly paid people is very simple. It is not very much about politics
and mostly about economics, IQs and productivity.

I largely agree. It is all about power not about party.

--Winston

--

Gary was a liar, a thief, a scoundrel and a psychologist.
He was the most redundant man I ever met.

"Ignoramus10488" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-23, Winston wrote:
Here is the deal for folks who still cling to that belief:
In a Republican administration, the poor are prevented from becoming
poorer until after the rich become richer.
In a Democratic administration, the rich are forced to become richer
before the poor are permitted to become poorer.

My own theory in the widening income gap between well paid people and
badly paid people is very simple. It is not very much about politics
and mostly about economics, IQs and productivity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

The economics of this is that work contributions of not so
intelligent, or unqualified, people are replaced by computers. The
easiest example, besides CNC manufacturing, is to see how store
cashiers are being replaced by automatic checkouts. Same applies to
very many other professions.

As computers become smarter, more and more people are being pushed out
of the economic bandwagon and fall on the fringes. They simply cannot
contribute much that is within their abilities.

This is significantly different from the past industrial revolutions,
where people replaced by machines simlpy learned to operate such
machines and overall, produced more. Now, there essentially is a
lesser need to have anyone operate any machines, as computers do it
better.

I do not know what the future holds, and possibly, we will stumble on
the answer on what to do with such displaced people, and the society
will continue happily employing them for something useful. Possibly,
we will be forced to improve our education system, with some minor
gains due to that.

It is also possible that we will not stumble on any such solution and
more and more people will be pushed to the fringe, as computers can
substitute for a greater percentage of population every year. The
bleak social consequences will be easy to imagine.

I find this trend to be very disturbing, as eventually almost everyone
will be eventually displaced from productive activity. Remember that
even now, world chess champions barely win chess matches against
computers. For more food for thought, read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Tax policy or trade policy cannot do much to stop this essentially
technological, microeconomic development. Social policy may make the
fate of displaced workers a bit better, and in the meantime an
economic solution may be found.

The individual answer to this is that to be successful, it is
important for young people who are not wealthy, to become
sophisticated, focused and highly educated individuals. This is,
clearly, not feasible for everyone, but it is important to at least
try.

I do think that this issue will be a fundamental source of instability
for decades to come.

i

FWIW, ca. 1963 - 1970 or so, there was an expected answer to this problem
you identify, which, for forward thinkers in economics, was apparent even
then. Trend lines in automation were already making the logical conclusion
quite clear. (This was a central subject in Policy Science at the time, and
the academic analysis and thinking on this was what I was studying.)

The assumptions were that the work week would be shortened to four days;
eventually less. More people would be required to fill a certain number of
man-hours of work. Education would take up many of the remaining hours for
individuals, as technical developments would require an increasingly
well-educated work force.

Capital would be under pressure except for truly entrepreneurial
opportunities; dividends would be reduced because more profit would return
to workers. The gap between returns on capital invested in mature industries
and the rates of return possible for new enterprise would keep innovation
well-funded and expansive.

It was a vision that was similar to European social democracy. It went to
hell in the US for a variety of reasons, and globalization has given capital
the upper hand, basically undercutting the social democracy model in the US.
(It remains effective in Germany, however, which beats our pants off to this
day in balance of trade.)

This was before globalization and the proliferation of finance. It was
assumed that the pool of capital would have nowhere to go as dividend rates
dropped -- except to innovative projects.

You have an economics background, so you'll recognize the Stockholm School
thinking involved (think Gunnar Myrdal, and _Beyond the Welfare State_). The
view of labor and capital in this thinking comes from Post-Keynesianism. It
didn't anticipate the rise of Japan or the Asian Tigers, or Asian economic
models, and of course it didn't anticipate the rise of China.

So now we're basically stranded with a neoliberal model that's just taken it
in the shorts. Also known as the Washington Consensus, it's in ill repute
around the world. Several European countries are taking a fresh look at
Germany's flavor of social democracy, which is going to cause a lot of
turmoil in international trade and finance if major trading countries adopt
conflicting models.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ignoramus10488" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-23, Winston wrote:
Here is the deal for folks who still cling to that belief:
In a Republican administration, the poor are prevented from becoming
poorer until after the rich become richer.
In a Democratic administration, the rich are forced to become richer
before the poor are permitted to become poorer.

My own theory in the widening income gap between well paid people and
badly paid people is very simple. It is not very much about politics
and mostly about economics, IQs and productivity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

The economics of this is that work contributions of not so
intelligent, or unqualified, people are replaced by computers. The
easiest example, besides CNC manufacturing, is to see how store
cashiers are being replaced by automatic checkouts. Same applies to
very many other professions.

As computers become smarter, more and more people are being pushed out
of the economic bandwagon and fall on the fringes. They simply cannot
contribute much that is within their abilities.

This is significantly different from the past industrial revolutions,
where people replaced by machines simlpy learned to operate such
machines and overall, produced more. Now, there essentially is a
lesser need to have anyone operate any machines, as computers do it
better.

I do not know what the future holds, and possibly, we will stumble on
the answer on what to do with such displaced people, and the society
will continue happily employing them for something useful. Possibly,
we will be forced to improve our education system, with some minor
gains due to that.

It is also possible that we will not stumble on any such solution and
more and more people will be pushed to the fringe, as computers can
substitute for a greater percentage of population every year. The
bleak social consequences will be easy to imagine.

I find this trend to be very disturbing, as eventually almost everyone
will be eventually displaced from productive activity. Remember that
even now, world chess champions barely win chess matches against
computers. For more food for thought, read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Tax policy or trade policy cannot do much to stop this essentially
technological, microeconomic development. Social policy may make the
fate of displaced workers a bit better, and in the meantime an
economic solution may be found.

The individual answer to this is that to be successful, it is
important for young people who are not wealthy, to become
sophisticated, focused and highly educated individuals. This is,
clearly, not feasible for everyone, but it is important to at least
try.

I do think that this issue will be a fundamental source of instability
for decades to come.

i

Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be eliminated.
Minimum wages are pushed up and the consequence is these low-end jobs
disappear and society supports these people with social programs. These
people are denied the satisfaction of accomplishment and contribution and
their pride is stolen from them. Don't blame machines, that is a reaction
by business to control cost, a counterplay to political induced instability
to a free market. Is a person truly better off sitting at home collecting
government hand-outs that keep them under control and in a state of
hopelessness?

What percentage of the bottom earners are there because they just lack the
ability to be trained for more lucrative positions and what percentage are
there because of bad decisions, bad choices and apathy? If there are no
consequences because society will always provide a big TV, food, clothing
and shelter...why try?

What ever you subsidize, you get more of. What ever you tax, you get less
of.

Ignoramus10488 wrote:

On 2010-04-23, Winston wrote:
Here is the deal for folks who still cling to that belief:
In a Republican administration, the poor are prevented from becoming
poorer until after the rich become richer.
In a Democratic administration, the rich are forced to become richer
before the poor are permitted to become poorer.

My own theory in the widening income gap between well paid people and
badly paid people is very simple. It is not very much about politics
and mostly about economics, IQs and productivity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

The economics of this is that work contributions of not so
intelligent, or unqualified, people are replaced by computers. The
easiest example, besides CNC manufacturing, is to see how store
cashiers are being replaced by automatic checkouts. Same applies to
very many other professions.

As computers become smarter, more and more people are being pushed out
of the economic bandwagon and fall on the fringes. They simply cannot
contribute much that is within their abilities.

This is significantly different from the past industrial revolutions,
where people replaced by machines simlpy learned to operate such
machines and overall, produced more. Now, there essentially is a
lesser need to have anyone operate any machines, as computers do it
better.

I do not know what the future holds, and possibly, we will stumble on
the answer on what to do with such displaced people, and the society
will continue happily employing them for something useful. Possibly,
we will be forced to improve our education system, with some minor
gains due to that.

It is also possible that we will not stumble on any such solution and
more and more people will be pushed to the fringe, as computers can
substitute for a greater percentage of population every year. The
bleak social consequences will be easy to imagine.

I find this trend to be very disturbing, as eventually almost everyone
will be eventually displaced from productive activity. Remember that
even now, world chess champions barely win chess matches against
computers. For more food for thought, read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Tax policy or trade policy cannot do much to stop this essentially
technological, microeconomic development. Social policy may make the
fate of displaced workers a bit better, and in the meantime an
economic solution may be found.

The individual answer to this is that to be successful, it is
important for young people who are not wealthy, to become
sophisticated, focused and highly educated individuals. This is,
clearly, not feasible for everyone, but it is important to at least
try.

I do think that this issue will be a fundamental source of instability
for decades to come.

i

Subsistence farming - it's the future. Look at Zimbabwe's total collapse
over just a few years...

In article ,
Ignoramus10488 wrote:

On 2010-04-23, Winston wrote:
Here is the deal for folks who still cling to that belief:
In a Republican administration, the poor are prevented from becoming
poorer until after the rich become richer.
In a Democratic administration, the rich are forced to become richer
before the poor are permitted to become poorer.

My own theory in the widening income gap between well paid people and
badly paid people is very simple. It is not very much about politics
and mostly about economics, IQs and productivity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

The economics of this is that work contributions of not so
intelligent, or unqualified, people are replaced by computers. The
easiest example, besides CNC manufacturing, is to see how store
cashiers are being replaced by automatic checkouts. Same applies to
very many other professions.

As computers become smarter, more and more people are being pushed out
of the economic bandwagon and fall on the fringes. They simply cannot
contribute much that is within their abilities.

The full strength version of this is Smart Fraction Theory:

http://www.lagriffedulion.com/

Joe Gwinn

On 2010-04-23, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
As computers become smarter, more and more people are being pushed out
of the economic bandwagon and fall on the fringes. They simply cannot
contribute much that is within their abilities.

The full strength version of this is Smart Fraction Theory:

http://www.lagriffedulion.com/


Which article are you referring to, specifically?

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus10488" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-23, Winston wrote:
Here is the deal for folks who still cling to that belief:
In a Republican administration, the poor are prevented from becoming
poorer until after the rich become richer.
In a Democratic administration, the rich are forced to become richer
before the poor are permitted to become poorer.

My own theory in the widening income gap between well paid people and
badly paid people is very simple. It is not very much about politics
and mostly about economics, IQs and productivity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

The economics of this is that work contributions of not so
intelligent, or unqualified, people are replaced by computers. The
easiest example, besides CNC manufacturing, is to see how store
cashiers are being replaced by automatic checkouts. Same applies to
very many other professions.

As computers become smarter, more and more people are being pushed out
of the economic bandwagon and fall on the fringes. They simply cannot
contribute much that is within their abilities.

This is significantly different from the past industrial revolutions,
where people replaced by machines simlpy learned to operate such
machines and overall, produced more. Now, there essentially is a
lesser need to have anyone operate any machines, as computers do it
better.

I do not know what the future holds, and possibly, we will stumble on
the answer on what to do with such displaced people, and the society
will continue happily employing them for something useful. Possibly,
we will be forced to improve our education system, with some minor
gains due to that.

It is also possible that we will not stumble on any such solution and
more and more people will be pushed to the fringe, as computers can
substitute for a greater percentage of population every year. The
bleak social consequences will be easy to imagine.

I find this trend to be very disturbing, as eventually almost everyone
will be eventually displaced from productive activity. Remember that
even now, world chess champions barely win chess matches against
computers. For more food for thought, read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Tax policy or trade policy cannot do much to stop this essentially
technological, microeconomic development. Social policy may make the
fate of displaced workers a bit better, and in the meantime an
economic solution may be found.

The individual answer to this is that to be successful, it is
important for young people who are not wealthy, to become
sophisticated, focused and highly educated individuals. This is,
clearly, not feasible for everyone, but it is important to at least
try.

I do think that this issue will be a fundamental source of instability
for decades to come.

i

Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be eliminated.
Minimum wages are pushed up and the consequence is these low-end jobs
disappear and society supports these people with social programs. These
people are denied the satisfaction of accomplishment and contribution and
their pride is stolen from them. Don't blame machines, that is a reaction
by business to control cost, a counterplay to political induced
instability to a free market.

You've said this before, and it's still bull****, as it was then. Automation
marches on and if you don't keep up, at least within firing range of the
leaders, you're out of business.

No well-run business keeps extra people when it's cheaper to employ
automation. Most small businesses are not well-run, so I wouldn't disagree
that you may be one of the foot-draggers. But the compulsion of
manufacturing economics would drive you to automate or die, even if you're a
bit behind.

In any case, it gives you an excuse to argue against better wages and
conditions for workers -- but it's only an excuse.

Is a person truly better off sitting at home collecting government
hand-outs that keep them under control and in a state of hopelessness?

A false dichotomy.


What percentage of the bottom earners are there because they just lack the
ability to be trained for more lucrative positions and what percentage are
there because of bad decisions, bad choices and apathy? If there are no
consequences because society will always provide a big TV, food, clothing
and shelter...why try?

Why did YOU try, then?


What ever you subsidize, you get more of. What ever you tax, you get less
of.

When you subsidize entrepreneurship with a safety net, you get more of it.
This isn't a subject that can be debated. It's well documented.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2010-04-23, Ed Huntress wrote:
FWIW, ca. 1963 - 1970 or so, there was an expected answer to this problem
you identify, which, for forward thinkers in economics, was apparent even
then. Trend lines in automation were already making the logical conclusion
quite clear. (This was a central subject in Policy Science at the time, and
the academic analysis and thinking on this was what I was studying.)

The assumptions were that the work week would be shortened to four days;
eventually less. More people would be required to fill a certain number of
man-hours of work. Education would take up many of the remaining hours for
individuals, as technical developments would require an increasingly
well-educated work force.

I am not sure if I agree with this.

1. If it is cheaper to replace a man with a computer if the man works
5 days a week, making that man work just 4 days a week makes replacing
him with a computer even more economically attractive (since a
computer/machine can work 7 days a week and even nights).

2. Education is a good, useful thing. The question is, can a person
who can be replaced with a computer, become so much more intelligent
and knowledgeable that he can finally get a job that cannot be done by
a computer.

I am sure that, as always in economics, education will have some
marginal effect, but I would expect it to not have a large effect.

Capital would be under pressure except for truly entrepreneurial
opportunities; dividends would be reduced because more profit would
return to workers. The gap between returns on capital invested in
mature industries and the rates of return possible for new
enterprise would keep innovation well-funded and expansive.

I cannot see how this logically follows from anything you said.

It was a vision that was similar to European social democracy. It
went to hell in the US for a variety of reasons, and globalization
has given capital the upper hand, basically undercutting the social
democracy model in the US. (It remains effective in Germany,
however, which beats our pants off to this day in balance of trade.)

I cannot make any meaningful comments about Germany.

So now we're basically stranded with a neoliberal model that's just
taken it in the shorts. Also known as the Washington Consensus, it's
in ill repute around the world. Several European countries are
taking a fresh look at Germany's flavor of social democracy, which
is going to cause a lot of turmoil in international trade and
finance if major trading countries adopt conflicting models.


I do not think that the remedies that you outlined, would do us any
good and therefore I disagree with the above paragraph.

i

On 2010-04-23, Buerste wrote:

Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be
eliminated. Minimum wages are pushed up and the consequence is these
low-end jobs disappear and society supports these people with social
programs. These people are denied the satisfaction of
accomplishment and contribution and their pride is stolen from them.
Don't blame machines, that is a reaction by business to control
cost, a counterplay to political induced instability to a free
market. Is a person truly better off sitting at home collecting
government hand-outs that keep them under control and in a state of
hopelessness?

I am confused as to what you are saying.

Are you saying that, if minimum wage was eliminated, the progress of
replacing people with machines would stop? I find this to be very
unlikely.

And, if minimum wage was dropped, the wage disparity would increase,
not decrease, so I cannot see how you can blame wage control for
income disparity. It seems to be a bogus argument.

What percentage of the bottom earners are there because they just
lack the ability to be trained for more lucrative positions and what
percentage are there because of bad decisions, bad choices and
apathy? If there are no consequences because society will always
provide a big TV, food, clothing and shelter...why try?

To have a better TV, more clothing and bigger shelter?

i

"Ignoramus5662" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-23, Buerste wrote:

Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be
eliminated. Minimum wages are pushed up and the consequence is these
low-end jobs disappear and society supports these people with social
programs. These people are denied the satisfaction of
accomplishment and contribution and their pride is stolen from them.
Don't blame machines, that is a reaction by business to control
cost, a counterplay to political induced instability to a free
market. Is a person truly better off sitting at home collecting
government hand-outs that keep them under control and in a state of
hopelessness?

I am confused as to what you are saying.

Are you saying that, if minimum wage was eliminated, the progress of
replacing people with machines would stop? I find this to be very
unlikely.

And, if minimum wage was dropped, the wage disparity would increase,
not decrease, so I cannot see how you can blame wage control for
income disparity. It seems to be a bogus argument.

What percentage of the bottom earners are there because they just
lack the ability to be trained for more lucrative positions and what
percentage are there because of bad decisions, bad choices and
apathy? If there are no consequences because society will always
provide a big TV, food, clothing and shelter...why try?

To have a better TV, more clothing and bigger shelter?

i

I think that minimum wage laws have been detrimental to the lowest of the
low end employees, but have not had any impact on anyone else. Minimum
wage laws only affect a very small percentage of people. From my own tiny
speck of experience, I used to have a couple of min-wage guys to do gopher
work. I can't do that anymore, those functions have been eliminated or
absorbed by other people. BUT, I sure learned that not all people are
trainable for more complicated tasks! So, the couple of people that I
gainfully employed are now on the dole. That sure makes sense, doesn't it?
On the other hand, There have been times that I have offered signing bonuses
and significantly higher wages than industry standard to attract better
quality people.

My only little point is that I don't think it's always a good idea for the
gov to interfere with supply and demand in the labor market. Wages are
driven up when more jobs than people are available, not by gov decree. Wage
laws don't affect the average employee. If there were no wage laws, do you
really think wages would fall? I don't...supply and demand!

Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus5662" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-23, Buerste wrote:

Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be
eliminated. Minimum wages are pushed up and the consequence is these
low-end jobs disappear and society supports these people with social
programs. These people are denied the satisfaction of
accomplishment and contribution and their pride is stolen from them.
Don't blame machines, that is a reaction by business to control
cost, a counterplay to political induced instability to a free
market. Is a person truly better off sitting at home collecting
government hand-outs that keep them under control and in a state of
hopelessness?

I am confused as to what you are saying.

Are you saying that, if minimum wage was eliminated, the progress of
replacing people with machines would stop? I find this to be very
unlikely.

And, if minimum wage was dropped, the wage disparity would increase,
not decrease, so I cannot see how you can blame wage control for
income disparity. It seems to be a bogus argument.

What percentage of the bottom earners are there because they just
lack the ability to be trained for more lucrative positions and what
percentage are there because of bad decisions, bad choices and
apathy? If there are no consequences because society will always
provide a big TV, food, clothing and shelter...why try?

To have a better TV, more clothing and bigger shelter?

i

I think that minimum wage laws have been detrimental to the lowest of the
low end employees, but have not had any impact on anyone else. Minimum
wage laws only affect a very small percentage of people. From my own tiny
speck of experience, I used to have a couple of min-wage guys to do gopher
work. I can't do that anymore, those functions have been eliminated or
absorbed by other people. BUT, I sure learned that not all people are
trainable for more complicated tasks! So, the couple of people that I
gainfully employed are now on the dole. That sure makes sense, doesn't it?
On the other hand, There have been times that I have offered signing bonuses
and significantly higher wages than industry standard to attract better
quality people.

My only little point is that I don't think it's always a good idea for the
gov to interfere with supply and demand in the labor market. Wages are
driven up when more jobs than people are available, not by gov decree. Wage
laws don't affect the average employee. If there were no wage laws, do you
really think wages would fall? I don't...supply and demand!

I'm pretty sure there are entire states that don't have a single minimum
wage employee simply because there is nobody that could work for that
little and reside in the state. I know areas where the starting pay
flipping burgers at McD's was $12/hr+ and they could barely get enough
people to maintain staff levels.

Ed Huntress wrote:

Hmm. There was a brief article by a Germany expert in Harper's a few
months ago. It's pretty light but you'll see the general idea,
without the numbers. This may or may not be behind a pay firewall --
I'm a subscriber, but it seems to be accessible without logging in.
Give it a try:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/0082859

http://www.newheadnews.com/harpersGeoghegan/index.html


--
John R. Carroll

On Apr 23, 3:05*am, "Ed Huntress"


So now we're basically stranded with a neoliberal model that's just taken it in the shorts.
--
Ed Huntress

I think I understand why the four day work week did not happen. But I
do not understand why we are " stranded with a neoliberal model."

Dan

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:02:42 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Hmm. There was a brief article by a Germany expert in Harper's a few
months ago. It's pretty light but you'll see the general idea,
without the numbers. This may or may not be behind a pay firewall --
I'm a subscriber, but it seems to be accessible without logging in.
Give it a try:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/0082859

http://www.newheadnews.com/harpersGeoghegan/index.html
=========

Geoghegan raises some interesting points, however it all boils
down to Lord Acton's astute observation "power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely." How well this would work in
the U.S. is problematical without wholesale replacement of the
officers and senior management. As you delve into corporate
history, particurarly of those US firms that went bankrupt, it is
instructive to note how many times an "Imperial" CEO with an
attitude was directly responsible.

Several well known German [export] companies have become
embroiled in bribery scandles, so their "export success" may not
be entirely due to the three factors listed in the article, but
rather the application of considerable sums of money to "smooth
the way."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...686513,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...686238,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...685408,00.html


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:57:42 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:
snip
Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be eliminated.
snip
Another example of micro-optimization.

Most of the people that advocate this are also among the loudest
complainers about high taxes and welfare queens, as well as the
breakdown in "law-n-order."

By eliminating the jobs for the less skilled/motivated, we are
simply creating a permanent under class (and liberal voting
block), and as Grandma observed, "Idle hands are the devil's
workshop." GOOD THINKING....




Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:54:24 -0500, Ignoramus10488
wrote:
snip
My own theory in the widening income gap between well paid people and
badly paid people is very simple. It is not very much about politics
and mostly about economics, IQs and productivity.
snip
An interesting discussion, but one that omits an important
element, namely "luck."

I am not so much referring to winning the lottery, as being
lucky enough to be in the right place, at the right time,
with the required set of talents, skills and knowledge.

In too many cases people confuse the relative importance of
being lucky (including being born to the right parents) with
being smart/exceptional.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:02:42 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Hmm. There was a brief article by a Germany expert in Harper's a few
months ago. It's pretty light but you'll see the general idea,
without the numbers. This may or may not be behind a pay firewall --
I'm a subscriber, but it seems to be accessible without logging in.
Give it a try:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/0082859

http://www.newheadnews.com/harpersGeoghegan/index.html
=========

Geoghegan raises some interesting points, however it all boils
down to Lord Acton's astute observation "power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely." How well this would work in
the U.S. is problematical without wholesale replacement of the
officers and senior management.

We've got a Kenyan President. Why not run Germany's model of governance?
LOL
(That was for the Birther's)

As you delve into corporate
history, particurarly of those US firms that went bankrupt, it is
instructive to note how many times an "Imperial" CEO with an
attitude was directly responsible.

Several well known German [export] companies have become
embroiled in bribery scandles, so their "export success" may not
be entirely due to the three factors listed in the article, but
rather the application of considerable sums of money to "smooth
the way."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...686513,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...686238,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...685408,00.html



It's happened here to George. One that wasn't mentioned was Siemens or
Thyssen. I forget which one
I wouldn't say it's indicative. Would you?

The bottom line seems to be that American government should work for the
broad spectrum of the American people.
Right now, it's rigged to sheer them as a flock in the mistaken belief that
we'll be "stronger" as one result.
The actual fact is that by devaluing the work and people that actually
produce something with their hands and minds combined, we are just screwed.
Geoghegan correctly observes that we wost probably will be sitting out the
next economic revolution. We are far down that road already.

--
John R. Carroll

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus5662" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-23, Buerste wrote:

Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be
eliminated. Minimum wages are pushed up and the consequence is these
low-end jobs disappear and society supports these people with social
programs. These people are denied the satisfaction of
accomplishment and contribution and their pride is stolen from them.
Don't blame machines, that is a reaction by business to control
cost, a counterplay to political induced instability to a free
market. Is a person truly better off sitting at home collecting
government hand-outs that keep them under control and in a state of
hopelessness?

I am confused as to what you are saying.

Are you saying that, if minimum wage was eliminated, the progress of
replacing people with machines would stop? I find this to be very
unlikely.

And, if minimum wage was dropped, the wage disparity would increase,
not decrease, so I cannot see how you can blame wage control for
income disparity. It seems to be a bogus argument.

What percentage of the bottom earners are there because they just
lack the ability to be trained for more lucrative positions and what
percentage are there because of bad decisions, bad choices and
apathy? If there are no consequences because society will always
provide a big TV, food, clothing and shelter...why try?

To have a better TV, more clothing and bigger shelter?

i

I think that minimum wage laws have been detrimental to the lowest of the
low end employees, but have not had any impact on anyone else. Minimum
wage laws only affect a very small percentage of people. From my own
tiny
speck of experience, I used to have a couple of min-wage guys to do
gopher
work. I can't do that anymore, those functions have been eliminated or
absorbed by other people. BUT, I sure learned that not all people are
trainable for more complicated tasks! So, the couple of people that I
gainfully employed are now on the dole. That sure makes sense, doesn't
it?
On the other hand, There have been times that I have offered signing
bonuses
and significantly higher wages than industry standard to attract better
quality people.

My only little point is that I don't think it's always a good idea for
the
gov to interfere with supply and demand in the labor market. Wages are
driven up when more jobs than people are available, not by gov decree.
Wage
laws don't affect the average employee. If there were no wage laws, do
you
really think wages would fall? I don't...supply and demand!

I'm pretty sure there are entire states that don't have a single minimum
wage employee simply because there is nobody that could work for that
little and reside in the state. I know areas where the starting pay
flipping burgers at McD's was $12/hr+ and they could barely get enough
people to maintain staff levels.

In my experience, the couple of low-end jobs that I used to offer went to
people that weren't sole supporters of a family but a grandpa or brother
earning a check to help out at home and do something satisfying, or young
kids on break from school. I can't do that anymore and it hurts the local
economy a bit, there are LOTS of small companies that are in the same boat.
Min wage laws have cut the bottom out of the job market. Stupid move on the
gov's part.

My wage averages are pretty good for my industry and most of my people can
make piece-work bonus that can double their pay if all goes right. A lot of
these people take home more than I do. The more automation I do the more my
payroll costs, but productivity and quality go up too.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:57:42 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:
snip
Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be eliminated.
snip
Another example of micro-optimization.

Most of the people that advocate this are also among the loudest
complainers about high taxes and welfare queens, as well as the
breakdown in "law-n-order."

By eliminating the jobs for the less skilled/motivated, we are
simply creating a permanent under class (and liberal voting
block), and as Grandma observed, "Idle hands are the devil's
workshop." GOOD THINKING....




Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

You said it better than I could. Liberals like to feel that everybody is
trainable to do high-paying jobs but it just isn't so. Many years ago, I
had an old guy that swept the floors and moved material around. He took
great pride in how clean he kept the plant and enjoyed doing it. He
couldn't add and subtract or read and write but had pride and satisfaction.
The floors haven't been as clean since he died. I can't afford to hire a
replacement at $15/hr. plus bennies. And, the union won't accept a lower
pay.

Buerste wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:57:42 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:
snip
Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be
eliminated.
snip
Another example of micro-optimization.

Most of the people that advocate this are also among the loudest
complainers about high taxes and welfare queens, as well as the
breakdown in "law-n-order."

By eliminating the jobs for the less skilled/motivated, we are
simply creating a permanent under class (and liberal voting
block), and as Grandma observed, "Idle hands are the devil's
workshop." GOOD THINKING....




Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

You said it better than I could. Liberals like to feel that
everybody is trainable to do high-paying jobs but it just isn't so.
Many years ago, I had an old guy that swept the floors and moved
material around. He took great pride in how clean he kept the plant
and enjoyed doing it. He couldn't add and subtract or read and write
but had pride and satisfaction. The floors haven't been as clean
since he died. I can't afford to hire a replacement at $15/hr. plus
bennies. And, the union won't accept a lower pay.

That's really something Tom. Perhaps you shouldn't abuse your old guys. It
seems they die off on you.
When did minimum wage hit $15.00 per hour? Is that something unique to
Cleveland or is it a State thing?
LMAO
How many sides does your mouth have?
I've seen three so far. Are there more?


--
John R. Carroll

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:33:37 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
It's happened here to George. One that wasn't mentioned was Siemens or
Thyssen. I forget which one
I wouldn't say it's indicative. Would you?
snip
It is indicative, but not definitive, and appears to have
involved both Siemens and Thyssen.

Before we charge more windmills by attempting to impose
German style corporate goverance/labor relations on American
corporations, it is critical that far more in-depth work be
done. This may well be another situation where something
works and works well in the German society/culture but is
not exportable. FWIW -- much of their vocational education
appears to fall into this category.

Siemens was indeed involved in paying hidden commissions
[bribes].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens
snip
Bribery case

Siemens agreed to pay a record $1.34 billion in fines in
December 2008[25] after being investigated for serious
bribery, involving Heinz-Joachim Neubürger, former chief
financial officer, Karl-Hermann Baumann, another former CFO
and ex chairman, and Johannes Feldmayer, a former management
board member.[26] The investigation found questionable
payments of roughly €1.3 billion, from 2002 to 2006 that
triggered a broad range of inquiries in Germany, the United
States and many other countries.[27]

In May 2007 a German court convicted two former executives
of paying about €6 million in bribes from 1999 to 2002 to
help Siemens win natural gas turbine supply contracts with
Enel, an Italian energy company. The contracts were valued
at about €450 million. Siemens was fined €38 million.[28]
snip

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/st...line-item.html

Thyssen

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...s-1311321.html

http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload...Newsletter.pdf

http://www.whitecollarcrime.co.za/news.php?item.101

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...vereign_debt_0


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:33:37 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
It's happened here to George. One that wasn't mentioned was Siemens
or Thyssen. I forget which one
I wouldn't say it's indicative. Would you?
snip
It is indicative, but not definitive, and appears to have
involved both Siemens and Thyssen.

Before we charge more windmills by attempting to impose
German style corporate goverance/labor relations on American
corporations, it is critical that far more in-depth work be
done.

I wasn't aware that we were charging anywhere.
Are we?

This may well be another situation where something
works and works well in the German society/culture but is
not exportable. FWIW -- much of their vocational education
appears to fall into this category.

You wouldn't be importing anything George.
Although far less structured, the US had a very similar structure until the
late 50's.
Our trade schools were the equal of anyone's, including the German's.

Siemens agreed to pay a record $1.34 billion in fines in
December 2008[25] after being investigated for serious
bribery, involving Heinz-Joachim Neubürger, former chief
financial officer, Karl-Hermann Baumann, another former CFO
and ex chairman, and Johannes Feldmayer, a former management
board member.[26] The investigation found questionable
payments of roughly ?1.3 billion, from 2002 to 2006 that
triggered a broad range of inquiries in Germany, the United
States and many other countries.[27]

I read an extensive article on this one. There was a decent interview on 60
Minutes or one if the other newsinfomertial shows.
I distinctly remembered the fine involved and that a single individual was
responsible for the actual mechanics of distributing the payments and
keeping the off the books record of everything. That was what screwed
everything up. The high mucky mucks wanted complete and detailed accountings
of everything, thereby creating the paper trail the burned them. Typical
German fastidiousness.


--
John R. Carroll

Buerste wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus5662" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-23, Buerste wrote:

Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be
eliminated. Minimum wages are pushed up and the consequence is these
low-end jobs disappear and society supports these people with social
programs. These people are denied the satisfaction of
accomplishment and contribution and their pride is stolen from them.
Don't blame machines, that is a reaction by business to control
cost, a counterplay to political induced instability to a free
market. Is a person truly better off sitting at home collecting
government hand-outs that keep them under control and in a state of
hopelessness?

I am confused as to what you are saying.

Are you saying that, if minimum wage was eliminated, the progress of
replacing people with machines would stop? I find this to be very
unlikely.

And, if minimum wage was dropped, the wage disparity would increase,
not decrease, so I cannot see how you can blame wage control for
income disparity. It seems to be a bogus argument.

What percentage of the bottom earners are there because they just
lack the ability to be trained for more lucrative positions and what
percentage are there because of bad decisions, bad choices and
apathy? If there are no consequences because society will always
provide a big TV, food, clothing and shelter...why try?

To have a better TV, more clothing and bigger shelter?

i

I think that minimum wage laws have been detrimental to the lowest of the
low end employees, but have not had any impact on anyone else. Minimum
wage laws only affect a very small percentage of people. From my own
tiny
speck of experience, I used to have a couple of min-wage guys to do
gopher
work. I can't do that anymore, those functions have been eliminated or
absorbed by other people. BUT, I sure learned that not all people are
trainable for more complicated tasks! So, the couple of people that I
gainfully employed are now on the dole. That sure makes sense, doesn't
it?
On the other hand, There have been times that I have offered signing
bonuses
and significantly higher wages than industry standard to attract better
quality people.

My only little point is that I don't think it's always a good idea for
the
gov to interfere with supply and demand in the labor market. Wages are
driven up when more jobs than people are available, not by gov decree.
Wage
laws don't affect the average employee. If there were no wage laws, do
you
really think wages would fall? I don't...supply and demand!

I'm pretty sure there are entire states that don't have a single minimum
wage employee simply because there is nobody that could work for that
little and reside in the state. I know areas where the starting pay
flipping burgers at McD's was $12/hr+ and they could barely get enough
people to maintain staff levels.

In my experience, the couple of low-end jobs that I used to offer went to
people that weren't sole supporters of a family but a grandpa or brother
earning a check to help out at home and do something satisfying, or young
kids on break from school. I can't do that anymore and it hurts the local
economy a bit, there are LOTS of small companies that are in the same boat.
Min wage laws have cut the bottom out of the job market. Stupid move on the
gov's part.

My wage averages are pretty good for my industry and most of my people can
make piece-work bonus that can double their pay if all goes right. A lot of
these people take home more than I do. The more automation I do the more my
payroll costs, but productivity and quality go up too.

I don't believe that they even have the effect of "cutting the bottom
out of the labor market" as you say, because so few actually work for
minimum wage. Minimum wage laws and promised increases to them serve
only to buy the votes of the ignorant.

The real effect is that when the minimum wage is raised, the very few
people making minimum wage are fooled into thinking that they are better
off, and the liberal folks who are so eager to help the poor with
someone else's money are fooled into thinking that the poor have been
helped. What really happens is that the minimum increase triggers
inflation and within a year the ratio of work hours:buying power is
rebalanced and those minimum wage folks are back exactly where they
started, just with bigger numbers on their pay check and their expenses.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:20:11 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: and Wes clipped a bunch

Today, all of the equations have been changed. Technology was part of it,
but globalization was most of it. But the education idea was not just about
better jobs. It was about a better life. The percentage of students going to
college was going through the roof. The expected outcome was better citizens
and happier people.

The GI Bill was one government social program I truely believe worked.
I believe it had a lot to do with college enrollment going though the
roof.



Capital would be under pressure except for truly entrepreneurial
opportunities; dividends would be reduced because more profit would
return to workers. The gap between returns on capital invested in
mature industries and the rates of return possible for new
enterprise would keep innovation well-funded and expansive.

I cannot see how this logically follows from anything you said.

I'm with Iggy on this one. It would seem to encourage automation.
Since I repair that stuff, good for me, and more education would even
be better for me.

I've also noticed a trend to work people longer as in getting away
from the 40 hour work week. Health bennies and capital cost of
equipment means running Saturdays and Sundays during high demand
periods is the least expensive solution.

Labor laws would wind up reducing mean dividends. The only opportunities for
breakthrough profits would be with innovative products and services that
caught fire.


It was a vision that was similar to European social democracy. It
went to hell in the US for a variety of reasons, and globalization
has given capital the upper hand, basically undercutting the social
democracy model in the US. (It remains effective in Germany,
however, which beats our pants off to this day in balance of trade.)

I cannot make any meaningful comments about Germany.

It's the most successful social democracy in the world.

For how long? Sounds like they have an exploding debt problem also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt
USA 55.9% of GNP
Germany 77.2% of GNP



So now we're basically stranded with a neoliberal model that's just
taken it in the shorts. Also known as the Washington Consensus, it's
in ill repute around the world. Several European countries are
taking a fresh look at Germany's flavor of social democracy, which
is going to cause a lot of turmoil in international trade and
finance if major trading countries adopt conflicting models.


I do not think that the remedies that you outlined, would do us any
good and therefore I disagree with the above paragraph.

i

The above paragraph is not something you can agree with or not. It's
something that you either know or not -- straight facts, well documented.
It's in the economics literature. If you have a university account or other
account that lets you get to the professional econ journals, you'll find it.
You may also find it in the policy journals.

The exception is the idea that it's going to cause trade conflicts. That's
my conclusion, and I've been working on trade issues for the past five
months or so. I see trade conflicts ahead.

Hmm. There was a brief article by a Germany expert in Harper's a few months
ago. It's pretty light but you'll see the general idea, without the numbers.
This may or may not be behind a pay firewall -- I'm a subscriber, but it
seems to be accessible without logging in. Give it a try:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/0082859

It is behind a paywall. What I could read indicated that Germany has
a excellent ballance on exports. I can believe it. Many of the
sensors and positioners we use at work are made in Germany. I'm glad
to see it isn't China but would rather see USA content for many
reasons including JIT replacement.

Wes @ NAMES Southgate tonight

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:51:27 -0400, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:57:42 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:
snip
Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be eliminated.
snip
Another example of micro-optimization.

Most of the people that advocate this are also among the loudest
complainers about high taxes and welfare queens, as well as the
breakdown in "law-n-order."

By eliminating the jobs for the less skilled/motivated, we are
simply creating a permanent under class (and liberal voting
block), and as Grandma observed, "Idle hands are the devil's
workshop." GOOD THINKING....

You said it better than I could. Liberals like to feel that everybody is
trainable to do high-paying jobs but it just isn't so. Many years ago, I
had an old guy that swept the floors and moved material around. He took
great pride in how clean he kept the plant and enjoyed doing it. He
couldn't add and subtract or read and write but had pride and satisfaction.
The floors haven't been as clean since he died. I can't afford to hire a
replacement at $15/hr. plus bennies. And, the union won't accept a lower
pay.

Ohmigod, you're a UNION shop? thud

What if you wrote to the union and asked them if you could hire a guy
off the street to clean your floors and move material for $10/hr?
Might they write back "Hell no!"? Now what would happen if somehow,
those letters found their way into a journalist's hands?

Sorry, I meant FOX journalist's hands. Nobody else'd publish that
story which clearly showed that a union would rather have people out
of work than making normal wages.

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is necessary that he should
not only be capable of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

On Apr 23, 6:28*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us

I am not so much referring to winning the lottery, as being
lucky enough to be in the right place, at the right time,
with the required set of talents, skills and knowledge.

In too many cases people confuse the relative importance of
being lucky (including being born to the right parents) with
being smart/exceptional.

Unka George *(George McDuffee)

I always found the more I learned and the harder I worked, the luckier
I was.

Dan

In article ,
Ignoramus5662 wrote:

On 2010-04-23, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
As computers become smarter, more and more people are being pushed out
of the economic bandwagon and fall on the fringes. They simply cannot
contribute much that is within their abilities.

The full strength version of this is Smart Fraction Theory:

http://www.lagriffedulion.com/


Which article are you referring to, specifically?

Smart Fraction Theory is the method used to do all the various analyses captured
in the articles. The earlier articles lay the theory out most clearly.

Joe Gwinn

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:54:47 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

Subsistence farming - it's the future. Look at Zimbabwe's total collapse
over just a few years...

They import many millions of tons of maize annually, when I
lived there in the 60's about 20 million tons was exported and the
Africans had the second highest standard of living in the continent.
Look south for highest.
The confiscation of white farmers land stopped all major food
production and that prime land has probably reverted to bush. When I
lived there the farmers provided a portion of their land ( 10% ?? ) so
their employees could grow some of their own food. All employees
were provided with basic rations for themselves and family. I very
much doubt if those remaining on the farms receive anything from their
new political masters.

Alan

"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...

Buerste wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus5662" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-23, Buerste wrote:

Far too many people believe that low paying jobs should be
eliminated. Minimum wages are pushed up and the consequence is
these
low-end jobs disappear and society supports these people with
social
programs. These people are denied the satisfaction of
accomplishment and contribution and their pride is stolen from
them.
Don't blame machines, that is a reaction by business to control
cost, a counterplay to political induced instability to a free
market. Is a person truly better off sitting at home collecting
government hand-outs that keep them under control and in a state of
hopelessness?

I am confused as to what you are saying.

Are you saying that, if minimum wage was eliminated, the progress of
replacing people with machines would stop? I find this to be very
unlikely.

And, if minimum wage was dropped, the wage disparity would increase,
not decrease, so I cannot see how you can blame wage control for
income disparity. It seems to be a bogus argument.

What percentage of the bottom earners are there because they just
lack the ability to be trained for more lucrative positions and
what
percentage are there because of bad decisions, bad choices and
apathy? If there are no consequences because society will always
provide a big TV, food, clothing and shelter...why try?

To have a better TV, more clothing and bigger shelter?

i

I think that minimum wage laws have been detrimental to the lowest of
the
low end employees, but have not had any impact on anyone else.
Minimum
wage laws only affect a very small percentage of people. From my own
tiny
speck of experience, I used to have a couple of min-wage guys to do
gopher
work. I can't do that anymore, those functions have been eliminated
or
absorbed by other people. BUT, I sure learned that not all people are
trainable for more complicated tasks! So, the couple of people that I
gainfully employed are now on the dole. That sure makes sense,
doesn't
it?
On the other hand, There have been times that I have offered signing
bonuses
and significantly higher wages than industry standard to attract
better
quality people.

My only little point is that I don't think it's always a good idea for
the
gov to interfere with supply and demand in the labor market. Wages
are
driven up when more jobs than people are available, not by gov decree.
Wage
laws don't affect the average employee. If there were no wage laws,
do
you
really think wages would fall? I don't...supply and demand!

I'm pretty sure there are entire states that don't have a single
minimum
wage employee simply because there is nobody that could work for that
little and reside in the state. I know areas where the starting pay
flipping burgers at McD's was $12/hr+ and they could barely get enough
people to maintain staff levels.

In my experience, the couple of low-end jobs that I used to offer went to
people that weren't sole supporters of a family but a grandpa or brother
earning a check to help out at home and do something satisfying, or young
kids on break from school. I can't do that anymore and it hurts the
local
economy a bit, there are LOTS of small companies that are in the same
boat.
Min wage laws have cut the bottom out of the job market. Stupid move on
the
gov's part.

My wage averages are pretty good for my industry and most of my people
can
make piece-work bonus that can double their pay if all goes right. A lot
of
these people take home more than I do. The more automation I do the more
my
payroll costs, but productivity and quality go up too.

I don't believe that they even have the effect of "cutting the bottom
out of the labor market" as you say, because so few actually work for
minimum wage. Minimum wage laws and promised increases to them serve
only to buy the votes of the ignorant.

The real effect is that when the minimum wage is raised, the very few
people making minimum wage are fooled into thinking that they are better
off, and the liberal folks who are so eager to help the poor with
someone else's money are fooled into thinking that the poor have been
helped. What really happens is that the minimum increase triggers
inflation and within a year the ratio of work hours:buying power is
rebalanced and those minimum wage folks are back exactly where they
started, just with bigger numbers on their pay check and their expenses.

Pete, if the people making minimum wage are "very few," how could an
increase in the minimum wage trigger inflation?

This is another part of the conservative economic catechism that just
doesn't stand scrutiny. The economic effects of raising the minimum wage
are, as you suggested first, too small to make even a dent in the larger
monetary and fiscal policies of the government, and also 'way too small to
make a dent into trade factors that influence it (particularly the effects
of oil prices during the '70s). Increasing minimum wage doesn't dump much
cash into the economy -- note that Tawwwwwm is saying that he's actually let
people go because of minimum wage -- and it doesn't change anything that
would affect velocity. If people have little cash, they spend all of it.
Higher wages could actually *decrease* velocity by increasing savings. But
it doesn't, in general. It just has little net effect either way.

We could look at the numbers and show that there is a correlation between
minimum wage and inflation, but you'd see that, at least since 1968, wage
increases have LAGGED inflation by a substantial amount. And, again, the
monetary effects of increasing minimum wage are so low that they disappear
into the noise.

Here's a table that shows the value of minimum wages since 1955, in current
dollars and constant dollars. In other words, the first column is the face
value of the minimum wage and the second column indicates what it would buy
in that year, adjusted for inflation:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

Here's a graph of inflation:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...CPIAUCSL?cid=9

Unfortunately, they don't tell much from those without some careful thought
and analysis, but you can see from the wage table that minimum wage
increases have lagged inflation by quite a bit in recent years. It's
difficult to make a case that wage rates have driven inflation. If you look
at total monetary effects you'd see it more clearly. But that would take me
a couple of hours to assemble, so you'll have to consider doing it for
yourself. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 23, 10:15*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:28*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us

I am not so much referring to winning the lottery, as being
lucky enough to be in the right place, at the right time,
with the required set of talents, skills and knowledge.

In too many cases people confuse the relative importance of
being lucky (including being born to the right parents) with
being smart/exceptional.

Unka George *(George McDuffee)

I always found the more I learned and the harder I worked, the luckier
I was.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

"Lucky" is a socialist code word for undeserving, used to rationalize
confiscation.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 10:15 pm, " wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:28 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us

I am not so much referring to winning the lottery, as being
lucky enough to be in the right place, at the right time,
with the required set of talents, skills and knowledge.

In too many cases people confuse the relative importance of
being lucky (including being born to the right parents) with
being smart/exceptional.

Unka George (George McDuffee)

I always found the more I learned and the harder I worked, the luckier
I was.

Dan

"Lucky" is a socialist code word for undeserving, used to rationalize
confiscation.

If you hit the lottery, you can send the money to me so you won't have to
revisit your (mis)understanding of "lucky."

I have my own version: Wresting the controls out of the hands of my glider
"instructor" as he was about to stall our Schweitzer 2-33 into a pile of
concrete rubble that looked like a WWII tank trap, from 50 feet, and having
his hand slip off of the stick as I pushed the nose down -- because he
outweighed me by about 100 pounds.

I was lucky that he sweats. It probably was life and death. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 3:05 am, "Ed Huntress"


So now we're basically stranded with a neoliberal model that's just
taken it in the shorts.
--
Ed Huntress

I think I understand why the four day work week did not happen. But I
do not understand why we are " stranded with a neoliberal model."

That's an opinion on my part. As a highly developed country, we are stuck
(according to most economists, liberal and conservative) with a need for
open, if not free, trade in the Ricardo model of comparative advantage. That
model says that we benefit by having no import restrictions, even if the
countries we trade with have tariffs and non-tariff barriers. Anyone
interested can look this up; it's too much to explain here.

On top of that, and despite our financial meltdown, we're stuck with a
minimal level of restrictions on business. This is a relative thing but ours
is one golden goose that can be killed with little effort. With our current
need for economic growth, no one in his right mind is going to vote for more
than minimal regulation, except, perhaps, on non-bank finance.

We also cannot afford a lot of restrictions on business in regard to labor.
One thing that has saved our butts in recent decades is our extreme labor
and capital flexibility. We dig out of most troubles by adapting quickly.
We're better at that than anyone.

All of these things are components of the neoliberal economic model. To a
large degree we're locked into it, because of the stage and size of our
economic development, and because of the fierce competition we face from
low-wage countries.

To break out of it we'd have to cover almost everything at once -- a
political impossibility right now. Obama is caught between a rock and a hard
place on this because he *needs* to put heavy restrictions on finance (or
we'll just crash again), but he can't break up our current neoliberal model
for a variety of reasons, the need for comprehensive, simultaneous change
being first among them.

What this administration appears to be doing is to try to whack off the
roughest edges of injustices and economic divisions without assaulting the
basic model. It may be a pipe dream; once you have a fundamental ideology at
work, it's difficult to bend it without meeting huge resistance. And he has.

That's pretty sketchy but the details would keep us going for a year or two,
and I just had another birthday that reminds me I'd better start making
better use of my time. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/22/2010 10:20 PM, Winston wrote:
On 4/22/2010 8:54 PM, Ignoramus10488 wrote:
On 2010-04-23, wrote:
Here is the deal for folks who still cling to that belief:
In a Republican administration, the poor are prevented from becoming
poorer until after the rich become richer.
In a Democratic administration, the rich are forced to become richer
before the poor are permitted to become poorer.

My own theory in the widening income gap between well paid people and
badly paid people is very simple. It is not very much about politics
and mostly about economics, IQs and productivity.

I largely agree. It is all about power not about party.

--Winston



WRONG! It's about options. Job options. Just take a look at all the jobs
available in America at any specific time. It's just like a pyramid with
the great, high paying jobs at the top and the lousy, low paying jobs on
the bottom. As you see in any pyramid the base is wide and the tip is
very small. This is how the jobs are distributed in the country. Most
jobs available to Americans are not good and don't pay much. The jobs at
the top are few and far between and the pay is ridiculously high.

So it doesn't matter what you do because there are only so many jobs as
lawyers, doctors, professional athletes, entertainers, politicians, and
corporate big wigs. They are all taken, there is a waiting list for
every one of these great jobs a mile long, and 99% of Americans can't
get one of them no matter how hard they try.

This leaves a lot of low pay, lousy jobs for the ordinary person to
choose from. So regardless of party, or government, or anything else,
most jobs are not good and don't pay very well. Then you have the
problem of there not even being enough jobs for everyone. There are more
people available to work than there are jobs for them to find. So any
way you slice it only a small fraction of the people have any chance of
getting rich. You have to be born lucky or with great talent to get
rich. The country is full of people who have worked hard and have
nothing to show for it so effort alone means nothing. The road to
poverty is paved with lots of hard work. Just ask a slave who had to
pick cotton for his master.

What it boils down to is that in a capitalist system like we have you
have a small group of winners who are fabulously wealthy and you have a
large group who has only a little to show for their efforts. They get by
and that's about it, and the rest of the people have virtually nothing
and can't even find jobs to pay for a normal living. There used to be a
large middle class but that was a short term fluke which ended when
Reagan got elected. Which is why I prefer getting rich the traditional
way in America, by inheritance.

Hawke

On Apr 24, 3:11*pm, Hawke wrote:

and mostly about economics, IQs and productivity.



What it boils down to is that in a capitalist system like we have you
have a small group of winners who are fabulously wealthy and you have a
large group who has only a little to show for their efforts. They get by
and that's about it, and the rest of the people have virtually nothing
and can't even find jobs to pay for a normal living. There used to be a
large middle class but that was a short term fluke which ended when
Reagan got elected. Which is why I prefer getting rich the traditional
way in America, by inheritance.

Hawke

My own experience differs from yours. Can't say that I am fabulously
wealthy, but I worked or went to school pretty much all the time since
I was 16. I did miss something like 6 days of work because of lay
offs. Always saved money and now I am well off. So regardless of how
the world seems to you, there is a large group that has worked hard
and now has a good bit to show for it.

Don't believe me. Then ask Iggy.


Dan

"Winston" wrote in message
...
On 4/24/2010 11:50 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

and I just had another birthday that reminds me I'd better start making
better use of my time. d8-)

Happy Birthday Ed!
Many happy returns of the day.



--Winston

Thanks, Winston. It was on Income Tax Day, which takes a bit of the edge off
of celebrations. d8-)

On Apr 24, 1:07*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:




I don't believe that they even have the effect of "cutting the bottom
out of the labor market" as you say, because so few actually work for

Pete, if the people making minimum wage are "very few," how could an
increase in the minimum wage trigger inflation?

Easy. The wages of people like backhoe operators is determined by the
wage of a laborer. A backhoe with a frontloader can do as much work
per hour as about seven or eight laborers. And therefore a backhoe
costs about 7 or 8 times as much per hour as a laborer costs.





We could look at the numbers and show that there is a correlation between
minimum wage and inflation, but you'd see that, at least since 1968, wage
increases have LAGGED inflation by a substantial amount. And, again, the
monetary effects of increasing minimum wage are so low that they disappear
into the noise.

There is not a lot of correlation because a lot of that time, one
could not hire anyone at the minimum wage. It was certainly true in
the Seattle area when I was there. I do not know what the minumum
wage was at the time, but you couldn't hire a high school kid for less
than $10/ hr. And an adult cost a few dollars more.

So what the minimum wage really did was to jack up the labor costs of
the states which had low wages. But did not affect the wages of the
states with high labor costs.

Question for you, Ed. How much per hour does one have to pay for yard
work in your area? Mowing grass, raking leaves, trimming hedges? And
what is the minumum wage?


Dan

On 2010-04-24, wrote:
My own experience differs from yours. Can't say that I am fabulously
wealthy, but I worked or went to school pretty much all the time since
I was 16. I did miss something like 6 days of work because of lay
offs. Always saved money and now I am well off. So regardless of how
the world seems to you, there is a large group that has worked hard
and now has a good bit to show for it.

Don't believe me. Then ask Iggy.

Since you mentioned my name, maybe I will make a little comment. I am
not fabulously wealthy either, but I do OK.

Like Dan, I would say that I had some amount of luck, and pretty much
all luck, with two exceptions, came from either working or actuvely
looking for opportunities. I did not win lottery and I never bought
any single stock that made me wealthy. To clarify the stock comments,
I had decent results with investing and outperformed the S&P 500 by
something like 8 points per year, but since I started off without much
money, this was not enough to make me super wealthy.

I had essentially two elements of luck: 1) I received very decent
education in what proved to be a hot area (computers) and 2) I
registered domain algebra.com. Neither of these was done with any
foresight, and obviously I had to work on getting my education, and on
developing algebra.com into a major source of income for me, but
still, the element of luck is undeniable. I did not inherit any money
and came here with just $2,800 of what I saved, but on the other hand,
education was kind of like inherited wealth in many respects.

Don mentions luck as in "I worked and had luck". I sort of agree, as I
said, but there is one more kind of luck.

I would define it as a "negative luck", which is absence of bad
luck. In my case, I did not have a major body illness, mental illness,
I did not have an accident that was my fault and resulted in a huge
liability, etc.

I am much more reluctant to take much credit for this. Such things
could happen to anyone and they are always unexpected. The health
issue, specifically, is something where I personally want to be
assured could be well covered by the government.

Altogether, by definition of average, some people will do above
average and some people will be below average. There is no society
where that is not the case. The Soviet Union was also the kind of
place where one could be more, or less, successful, by the way.

The questions regarding this, to me, are 1) does the society have a
moral duty towards its citizens to maintain some minimum care for them
and 2) does this inequality create incentives to work. The minimum care
does not have to be large and for me, pretty much, it boils down to
health care and some income for any old person. Also, that minimum
care could, in fact, encourage entrepreneuship.

I would be reluctant to say that anyone down on his luck, like Gunner,
should get no help whatsoever and should shrivel and die. This just
seems somehow bad. I do not really feel that I would be worse off just
because a part of my income goes on to pay for health expenses of
Gunner, for example.

i

On Apr 24, 1:35*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I have my own version: Wresting the controls out of the hands of my glider
"instructor" as he was about to stall our Schweitzer 2-33 into a pile of
concrete rubble that looked like a WWII tank trap, from 50 feet, and having
his hand slip off of the stick as I pushed the nose down -- because he
outweighed me by about 100 pounds.

I was lucky that he sweats. It probably was life and death. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

That was something you wanted to accomplish and made the effort to get
it done.

Luck would be having the "instructor" faint and fall against the
control which nosed the plane down.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 1:35 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I have my own version: Wresting the controls out of the hands of my glider
"instructor" as he was about to stall our Schweitzer 2-33 into a pile of
concrete rubble that looked like a WWII tank trap, from 50 feet, and
having
his hand slip off of the stick as I pushed the nose down -- because he
outweighed me by about 100 pounds.

I was lucky that he sweats. It probably was life and death. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

That was something you wanted to accomplish and made the effort to get
it done.

Luck would be having the "instructor" faint and fall against the
control which nosed the plane down.

Dan

If I was sitting behind him, I might have arranged something that had a
similar result. s8-)

--
Ed Huntress