Change we need?

[Claydon]

Facing an increasingly ominous economic outlook, President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats are rapidly ratcheting up plans for a massive fiscal stimulus program that could total as much as $700 billion over the next two years.

That amount, more than the nation has spent over the past six years in Iraq, would rival the sum Congress committed last month to rescuing the country's financial system. It would also be one of the biggest public spending programs aimed at jolting the economy since President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.

Hints of a hefty new spending program began emerging last week. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), an Obama adviser, and Harvard economist Lawrence H. Summers, whom Obama has chosen to lead his White House economic team, both raised the possibility of $700 billion in new spending. Yesterday, Obama adviser and former Clinton administration Labor secretary Robert Reich and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) also called for spending in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion.

Transition officials would not confirm that they are considering spending of that magnitude, but they made clear that economic conditions are dire, and suggested that Obama might be forced to delay his pledge to repeal President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

Last week, Goldman Sachs said it expects the economy to shrink even faster by the end of the year, at a 5 percent annualized rate. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 5.3 percent for the week; and the nation's largest bank, Citigroup, sought government assistance to avoid collapse.

While Obama has set a goal of creating or preserving 2.5 million jobs by 2011, his economic team -- whose members are scheduled to be formally introduced at a news conference today in Chicago -- have yet to decide how that would be accomplished or how much it would cost.

Still, Austan Goolsbee, a spokesman for Obama on economic issues who is in line to serve on the White House Council of Economic Advisers, yesterday acknowledged that Obama's jobs plan will cost substantially more than the $175 billion stimulus program he proposed during the campaign.

"This is as big of an economic crisis as we've faced in 75 years. And we've got to do something that's up to the task of confronting that," Goolsbee said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I don't know what the exact number is, but it's going to be a big number."

Republicans quickly criticized the idea of such a vast initiative, saying Congress should instead cut taxes to spur economic growth.

"Democrats can't seem to stop trying to outbid each other -- with the taxpayers' money," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "We're in tough economic times. Folks are hurting. But the American people know that more Washington spending isn't the answer."

With financial markets fluctuating wildly and unemployment rising, Democrats want to push a stimulus package through Congress in January and have it ready for Obama's signature when he takes office Jan. 20. Over the weekend, the president-elect announced that he had instructed his advisers to assemble a massive jobs program that also would make a "down payment" on much of his domestic agenda.

The plan would include new funding for public-works projects to repair the nation's crumbling infrastructure, as well as a fresh infusion of cash to promote green technology and alternative-energy sources. It also would include targeted tax cuts for working families, students, the elderly and job-creating businesses that Obama touted on the campaign trail.

It may not, however, include one of Obama's central promises: to repeal Bush's tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year. Speaking on ABC's "This Week," David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist, said the president-elect is weighing whether to let the cuts for the wealthy expire on Dec. 31, 2010, as provided in current law. Such a delay would permit Obama to avoid raising taxes during a recession.

"He's committed to getting middle-class tax relief in the pipeline quickly, and there's no doubt that we're going to have to make some hard decisions in order to pay for the things we need, whether it is through repeal of those tax cuts for the very wealthiest or whether we simply allow it to -- allow those cuts to expire in 2010," Axelrod said.

The projected cost of an economic stimulus package has been rising steadily as economic conditions have worsened. Economists who were calling a few months ago for $150 billion in government spending to offset flagging demand elsewhere in the economy are now pushing for $500 billion or more. Adding tax cuts to the package is expected to increase its cost to the Treasury by as much as $200 billion, Democrats said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/23/AR2008112302064_pf.html

Hmmmm....so the 700 billion TARP was just a down payment now we are looking at perhaps another 500 billion to 700 billion?! Ummmm, this country is/going to be so fucking bankrupt in the next couple of years.

[TylerDurden]

claydon, claydon, claydon... i'm surprised that you didn't hear how this is going to be repayed: they're planning on selling your ass many, many times over to whoever wants a thrust at it. i'm sure there's a couple big, strapping men who'd give a five-spot for that privilege.

[Mustard]

For some reason, call me crazy I guess, but I'm just not worried about all of this anymore. There are bigger problems in the world (hard to believe I'm sure) than worrying about economies that are based entirely on the value of utterly worthless paper. Its hard to go bankrupt when the Fed can just print more worthless money, and thats what is going to happen. Where do you suppose the actual money for these bailouts is coming from? The taxpayer? No, they are just getting stuck with the check. The money is coming from the Fed, because the government is issuing bonds to them so they can print more worthless paper (at interest no less). Then the newly issued dollars are spread around to different banks and this increases the M but nobody cares because WOOHOO there is more money to go around, even though our actual money has become even more worthless, if possible.

Hooray.

[IdiotBrain]

Wonderful retort durden.

Did anyone expect any different? This doesn't come as a surprise to me.

[TylerDurden]

Wonderful retort durden.

For some reason, call me crazy I guess, but I'm just not worried about all of this anymore.

bingo. there's not a whole lot that any of us can do at the moment but wait, and there are already three or so other anti-obama/end-of-days threads. although i'm fairly certain that i could actually get a fiver for claydon's (highly unlikely) virgin ass.

[kid_vidrio]

Look at our GDP. Look at our overall deficit.
700 billion is chump change, and they are buying assets anyway.
This is about cash flow, not profit.
Run lean for a few years and it all works out.
See? I just solved the crisis.

[Claydon]

Look at our GDP. Look at our overall deficit.
700 billion is chump change, and they are buying assets anyway.
This is about cash flow, not profit.
Run lean for a few years and it all works out.
See? I just solved the crisis.

kid vidrio for president?

[Feng]

It's all just monopoly money at this point...

PS: Claydon, the "change" we need refers to one thing - changing from the Bush/Cheney/Rove style of governing. Ie: Ending pre-emptive wars/strikes, returning science and intellect to the governing process, less fear-mongering, etc....

[Claydon]

It's all just monopoly money at this point...

PS: Claydon, the "change" we need refers to one thing - changing from the Bush/Cheney/Rove style of governing. Ie: Ending pre-emptive wars/strikes, returning science and intellect to the governing process, less fear-mongering, etc....


yah, the left NEVER participates in fear politics.

[Yelram]

It's all just monopoly money at this point...

PS: Claydon, the "change" we need refers to one thing - changing from the Bush/Cheney/Rove style of governing. Ie: Ending pre-emptive wars/strikes, returning science and intellect to the governing process, less fear-mongering, etc....


Its becoming a MONOPOLY of money, thats the problem, the key to the plan is to put the dollar into the toilet, so that we will be forced to accept the new world currency.

[Debo]

Look at our GDP. Look at our overall deficit.
700 billion is chump change, and they are buying assets anyway.
This is about cash flow, not profit.
Run lean for a few years and it all works out.
See? I just solved the crisis.

USD 700bn is far from chump change for us or anyone else. If it was, the CDS (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2446382720081124) spreads on treasuries wouldn't be going through the roof.

We can't spend our way out of the current mess that we are in. We need to take our lumps, adjust our consumption and savings habits and move on.

To Sink: I don't know if you are serious about printing our way out of this. We do have deflation (Or a reversion to the mean) in the housing market and we have deleveraging in the banking sector. Firing up the printing presses isn't going to fix either of those problems. Removing supply from the housing market and taking our hits on the de-lev is the only way to go.

[Mustard]

I was making a rather sarcastic and pointed comment about how the federal reserve is bullshit, more or less.

[Debo]

I was making a rather sarcastic and pointed comment about how the federal reserve is bullshit, more or less.

I have plenty of issues with the Fed, but revoking the bank's charter comes with a whole mess of new problems that are probably worse than what we have now.

[Mustard]

Well shit, if we were gonna choose a time to abolish the Fed, (which would surely fuck lots of stuff up for awhile) but only to make the situation far better in the end, I see now as a pretty opportune time to do that. You know the analogy, bandaid ripping and such...

I see the Fed as a pile of garbage; a less than worthless and totally unnecessary insitution that has been a cancerous growth on the USA since 1913. If our economy is to truly get better, it cannot do so without being free of the Federal Reserve, so I think the time has come to cut that cancer out.

[Rover]

That's some strong language. Better watch your back. JFK hated the federal reserve system and look where it got him.

[Claydon]

Well shit, if we were gonna choose a time to abolish the Fed, (which would surely fuck lots of stuff up for awhile) but only to make the situation far better in the end, I see now as a pretty opportune time to do that. You know the analogy, bandaid ripping and such...

I see the Fed as a pile of garbage; a less than worthless and totally unnecessary insitution that has been a cancerous growth on the USA since 1913. If our economy is to truly get better, it cannot do so without being free of the Federal Reserve, so I think the time has come to cut that cancer out.


a pure captialist that voted for obama?

inconceivable!

[taters]

a pure captialist that voted for obama?

inconceivable!

Yes, because only commies and socialist vote for obama!

/sarcasm, moron.

Then again, if hes a socialist, that makes you and your side fascist. Better a french republican than a nazi.

[Claydon]

Yes, because only commies and socialist vote for obama!

/sarcasm, moron.

Then again, if hes a socialist, that makes you and your side fascist. Better a french republican than a nazi.

you forgot to include whiney ass cunts from the 'victim-hood' society voted for obama.

[taters]

you forgot to include whiney ass cunts from the 'victim-hood' society voted for obama.

Or youre whiney 'poor white man-Keep America White' racist radicalist who voted for McCain.

[IdiotBrain]

I'm not the only one who thinks Taters is a complete moron, am I?

[Stax]

I'm not the only one who thinks Taters is a complete moron, am I?

God no.

[taters]

I'm not the only one who thinks Taters is a complete moron, am I?

The guy with the handle of 'idiotbrain' thinks Im a moron because I give that gheylord claydon shit by calling mccain supporters fascist, but to call obama supporters socialist is a-o-k?

Brilliant. The intellect of your party continuously shines even after the election. Why, I cant imagine how McCain and Palin lost with these kinds of genuises on their side.

Well, time to get back to the factory comrades!

[IdiotBrain]

Right.

My plan to piss off the democrats:

Have Gdub resign so Cheney is pres.

Have Cheney Resign so Condi is pres.

Change FTW.

[Debo]

Well shit, if we were gonna choose a time to abolish the Fed, (which would surely fuck lots of stuff up for awhile) but only to make the situation far better in the end, I see now as a pretty opportune time to do that. You know the analogy, bandaid ripping and such...

I see the Fed as a pile of garbage; a less than worthless and totally unnecessary insitution that has been a cancerous growth on the USA since 1913. If our economy is to truly get better, it cannot do so without being free of the Federal Reserve, so I think the time has come to cut that cancer out.

I like this idea:

Do you still think it would be a good idea to have a computer run monetary policy?

Friedman: Yes. Of course it depends very much on how the computer is programmed. I am not saying that any computer program would do. In speaking of that, I have had in mind the idea that a computer would produce, for example, a constant rate of growth in the quantity of money as defined, let us say, by M2, something like 3% to 5% per year. There are certainly occasions in which discretionary changes in policy guided by a wise and talented manager of monetary policy would do better than the fixed rate, but they would be rare.

In any event, the computer program would certainly prevent any major disasters either way, any major inflation or any major depressions. One of the great defects of our kind of monetary system is that its performance depends so much on the quality of the people who are put in charge. We have seen that in the history of our own Federal Reserve System. Surely a computer would have produced far better results during the 1930s and during both world wars.
That raises a question about the desirability of our present monetary system. It is one in which a group of unelected people have enormous power, power which can lead to a great depression or which can lead to a great inflation. Is it wise to have that power in those hands?


An alternative would be to eliminate the Federal Reserve System; to reduce the monetary activities of the federal government to the provision of high-powered money, that is, currency and bank reserves, and to constitutionalize, as it were, what is to be done with high-powered money. My preference is simply to hold it constant and let financial developments produce the growth in the quantity of money in the form of bank deposits, a process that has been going on for many decades. But that is, of course, politically impossible.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009561

BTW - you should read The Panic of 1907 by Bruner and Carr. JP Morgan's actions during the banking crisis of 1907 laid the blueprint for the modern Federal Reserve banking system. A lot of what the book talks about (I am not done with it yet) is similar to what we are experiencing today.

[Claydon]

Something tells me that Tater is NOT a Larry Elder fan.

[freegood]

I like this idea:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009561

BTW - you should read The Panic of 1907 by Bruner and Carr. JP Morgan's actions during the banking crisis of 1907 laid the blueprint for the modern Federal Reserve banking system. A lot of what the book talks about (I am not done with it yet) is similar to what we are experiencing today.

I think a computer would be gamed just as badly as real people. The incentives to cheat from both ends are ridiculously high. I've seen some articles hypothesizing how Bernanke is gaming the dollar and it aint fuckin pretty.

It's almost time to short treasury notes.

[Debo]

I think a computer would be gamed just as badly as real people. The incentives to cheat from both ends are ridiculously high. I've seen some articles hypothesizing how Bernanke is gaming the dollar and it aint fuckin pretty.

It's almost time to short treasury notes.

The dollar is rallying because, believe it or not, we are the least fucked economy in the world.

I don't know. If you set up the parameters so M1 can grow between 2-5% a year, it is going to make it a lot harder to game the money supply like the Fed does now.

Links? That might be a good read.

[Claydon]

But isn't the dollar up because everyone is buying US Treasury securities (ie bonds) even though the yield is like nothing because it is the only place in the world right now where you won't LOSE money, but you might make a meager .1% or something like that.

[freegood]

The dollar is rallying because, believe it or not, we are the least fucked economy in the world.

I don't know. If you set up the parameters so M1 can grow between 2-5% a year, it is going to make it a lot harder to game the money supply like the Fed does now.

Links? That might be a good read.

I don't take this as gospel, but it serves as one possible explanation to the madness.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/109210-the-manipulation-of-gold-prices?source=front_page_most_popular_articles

[Archangel]

The dollar is rallying because, believe it or not, we are the least fucked economy in the world.

I'll go with the "not".

[Debo]

I'll go with the "not".

Who is in better shape than the US?

[Archangel]

People who make money by something else than shuffling money around?

[Debo]

People who make money by something else than shuffling money around?

Who does that? Give me names.

[Archangel]

You know, countries with actual, well, industries. They may be suffering now, but nowhere on a level as catastrophic as the US, the UK (Niall Ferguson paints a gloom picture for the Brits), Ireland or Iceland. We didn't fire half a million people (or anywhere near the relative amount adjusted for population) in one month, last I checked.


The idea that a national economy can be wealthy in the long term off 1s and 0s is what divides modern economy from common sense.

Call me old fashioned, but there is some merit to that idea that usury is, in fact, sin. I know, I know, ethics have no place when people need to buy Guifstreams, but still.

[IdiotBrain]

Who does that? Give me names.


You know, countries with actual, well, industries.



Am I missing something here?

[Morfin]

SUUUU-EEEEE. SUUUU-EEEE. C'mon, Pig, pig, pig, pig.

Yep, the pigs are scramblin' up to the trough.

Citing bailout, union wants to organize bank workers

(CNN) -- The powerful Service Employees International Union has decided that, because of the $700 billion financial-system bailout, it wants to organize bank workers. Banks that get taxpayer money need to "ensure their workers have a voice," a union spokeswoman says.

Banks that get taxpayer money need to "ensure their workers have a voice," a union spokeswoman says.

In an e-mail dated November 12 and obtained exclusively by CNN, a member of SEIU's Private Equity Project outlined initial discussions to organize bank workers "since the banking industry is now being infused with billions of taxpayer dollars."

The e-mail was written by SEIU's Inga Skippings to the director of the Washington office of the Association of Community Organizing for Reform Now (ACORN), a longtime ally and partner of the union.

"We need to get a handle on who these workers are, working conditions, etc.," Skippings wrote.

"Do you have ACORN members who work for banks or Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae? Is there anyway [sic] you could check? The banks we're most concerned about are:-- Fannie Mae
-- Freddie Mac
-- Chevy Chase/B.F.Saul
-- BB&T
-- SunTrust
-- Bank of America/Countrywide
-- Wachovia/Wells Fargo
-- PNC Bank/National City
-- Citigroup
"Please let me know and if you have other suggestions, I'd love to hear them."

Skippings referred questions to a union spokeswoman, who confirmed the authenticity of the e-mail and that the union is considering targeting the banks for unionizing.

"We believe there is special responsibility for companies who receive taxpayer dollars to ensure their workers have a voice on the job," SEIU's Lynda Tran said. "And those workers should have a seat at the table at the companies where decisions that impact the future of their families and the companies that employ them" are made.

"We are talking to workers really broadly in banking," she said.

SEIU is the fastest-growing trade union in North America, according to its own Web site, with a membership of more than 2 million, including health-care industry workers and state and local government employees. It also represents guards and janitors who work in commercial and residential properties.

And its clout continues to grow. SEIU's $85 million in political donations made it the single-largest contributor to either party in the recent elections. The union worked vigorously for the election of Barack Obama, who has named a former union official as his White House political director, a post once held in the Bush administration by Karl Rove.

The official, Patrick Gaspard, formerly was executive vice president of politics and legislation for Local 1199, the SEIU's United Healthcare Workers East.

SEIU, which broke away from the AFL-CIO in 2005, is known for its successful but sometimes controversial tactics: It often targets private equity groups' leaders, as well as banks and companies, with loud and demonstrative rallies. The union's hierarchy has made no secret it hopes to grow under the incoming Democratic administration.Link
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/08/bank.workers.union/index.html?eref=rss_latest)

[madddawggg]

i'm a fan of this plan:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29700

[Claydon]

So the SEU wants to organize bank workers? That is a fucking joke, the SEU makes the Teamsters look lily white.

[Debo]

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It is vague and it doesn't tell me anything. That is why I asked for more information.

[taters]

Are you guys implying unions are the base problems of the auto industry? I assumed it was a competition issue. Specifically the facts that China (which has nationally enforced unions) can produce any car we can cheaper, even if you took out union costs and forced all auto employees to work for minimum wage. Its a cost of labor issue. China = cheaper labor because they simply have several times the workers.

[HAWK]

Bailout blahblahblah

Only one question: Where's my fucking cut?

[freegood]

You may be in luck if...
you're planning to buy a home or...
unemployed and willing to dig ditches and lay some cable for broadband interwebs....

I forgot about the stimulus package in January. Probably because 6 months later people will whine about the other bailouts and how they gave away much more money the US doesn't have than they did to us.

[Morfin]

Are you guys implying unions are the base problems of the auto industry? I assumed it was a competition issue.

I don't think there is any implication, I think it is explicit, that the unions are PART of the problem. There can be little argument that the labor costs, both in terms of wages and incredible benefits (like a paid vacation day to vote) that are not competitive and shackle the companies. I think the larger part has to do with direction of the companies by management, but the unions make it difficult -- both financially and in terms of changing course -- for the companies to compete.

[redsox39]

How long can you pay people $50 a hour to screw screws without getting screwed?

[redsox39]

For some reason, call me crazy I guess, but I'm just not worried about all of this anymore. There are bigger problems in the world (hard to believe I'm sure) than worrying about economies that are based entirely on the value of utterly worthless paper. Its hard to go bankrupt when the Fed can just print more worthless money, and thats what is going to happen. Where do you suppose the actual money for these bailouts is coming from? The taxpayer? No, they are just getting stuck with the check. The money is coming from the Fed, because the government is issuing bonds to them so they can print more worthless paper (at interest no less). Then the newly issued dollars are spread around to different banks and this increases the M but nobody cares because WOOHOO there is more money to go around, even though our actual money has become even more worthless, if possible.

Hooray.

See? there is nothing to worry about now. The Messiah is here. This would be the "worst plan ever" if it came out of anyones elses mouth, but now that Sink has his Obama, things are ok.

I wish I could be short sighted...

[Claydon]

See? there is nothing to worry about now. The Messiah is here. This would be the "worst plan ever" if it came out of anyones elses mouth, but now that Sink has his Obama, things are ok.

I wish I could be short sighted...

If bush had proposed these things it would have been Hitler reborn! For the FATHERLAND!

Since it is Obama, it is a compassionate loving President who cares for his people!

[HAWK]

How long can you pay people $50 a hour to screw screws without getting screwed?

Who said they were getting paid $50 an hour?

[Debo]

Who said they were getting paid $50 an hour?

Cash or with comp and benefits? I think that GM pays UAW members $72 an hour in wages and benefits.

[Okie Medicvet]

We just need to allow the growing of hemp, and legalize cannabis while we're at it too. Grow it, sell it, TAX IT.

[TheImpossibleMan]

How long can you pay people $50 a hour to screw screws without getting screwed?
I admit to knowing shit about the economy - but I don't get the beef a lot of people have with unions. People complain that unions result in too high wages, but...I mean, isn't that the free market ideal? A bunch of people getting their shit together, organizing, and then guaranteeing themselves a lot of money? If companies can organize to keep wages down, why can't workers organize to keep wages up?

[Archangel]

Because guaranteed work/wages breeds laziness, and kills performance. Do you see Saudi princelings busting their arses on a construction site or in an American inner city school, or becoming professors, for that matter? If you would keep your job even if you left a soda tin in the fuel tank of the car you were building (common occurrence at GM in the 80s and 90s), would you actually work hard? Like hell you would.

Unions were necessary when people sent 5-year-olds into the mines for a bowl of lentils a day. When workers were, in fact, exploited. Now, I don't know about working class people in America, but the missus's dad, who is a retired immigrant factory worker, has a small house, a car, satellite TV, eats well, and has put one daughter through vocational school (or whatever you call it there) and another (almost) through graduate school: From what I hear, I guess that American workers don't have it worse. That's hardly suffering or being exploited, but still, these union bitches cry as if they had to subsist on mice and gruel, and had to sell their children into chattel slavery.

Why? Because people are fucking lazy. And greedy. If these fucks could demand that somebody who does something as exceptional as tightening a bolt per minute be paid $100/hr and work 2 days/week, they fucking would. Not to mention the fact that their ridiculous demands cause employers to either not be able to hire anybody new, or to fire people. As former Bavaria governor Stoiber said, "it's better working 32 actual hours than theoretically working 27, but actually being unemployed".

[Morfin]

I admit to knowing shit about the economy - but I don't get the beef a lot of people have with unions. People complain that unions result in too high wages, but...I mean, isn't that the free market ideal? A bunch of people getting their shit together, organizing, and then guaranteeing themselves a lot of money? If companies can organize to keep wages down, why can't workers organize to keep wages up?

In theory, you may be right about the unions and getting together to use the leverage of collective bargaining to increase wages and improve working conditions.

However, the theory would have to allow the companies to fire every last one of them if they did that. But unions are protected by statutes requiring collective bargaining and protecting them from being summarily-fired. It is interesting that people -- white collar and blue collar -- who work in small businesses can be fired for no reason (as long as it isn't based on discrimination). However, if you work in a company with a union, you pretty much have to murder your boss before you can be fired.

As Arch pointed out (and Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, which I happen to be re-reading at the moment), if you have a guaranteed job, you have little incentive to work hard or improve yourself.

The result is a one-sided negotiation leading to higher wages and benefits (beyond what the jobs would truly be worth in a non-union free market), with the company having little leverage to lay-off people, rid themselves of incompetent or lazy workers, or manage their workforce should they need to change course. Hence, the situation facing the Big 3.

[taters]

Because guaranteed work/wages breeds laziness, and kills performance.

The only way to get a horse to ride is to beat it or starve it eh? There is no such thing as people who work in their field because they are good at it that bring innovation? People only do anything to get some kind of pay?

[IdiotBrain]

If the horse knows it gets a treat because it performs well in a race, it does its best to perform well.

If the horse knows it gets the treat whether it trots through the whole race or performs well, what do you think it will do?

[taters]

If the horse knows it gets a treat because it performs well in a race, it does its best to perform well.

If the horse knows it gets the treat whether it trots through the whole race or performs well, what do you think it will do?

So then people dont create for creations sake? Einsteins practice of physics was all in hopes he would become rich, and all famous western artists, from Rembrant to Davinci to Picaso only created art to make money (or some other form of wealth), not for talent or love?

[Phil Theehor]

So then people dont create for creations sake? Einsteins practice of physics was all in hopes he would become rich, and all famous western artists, from Rembrant to Davinci to Picaso only created art to make money (or some other form of wealth), not for talent or love?


Right, but someone still has to shovel shit. You're probably not going to be able to staff all of the shit-shoveling jobs with people there "for the love of feces" (a handful of GMFers excepted).

The shit shoveling crew you will have to pay. And if you actually want it done, I'd suggest paying them per pound of poop they move.

[taters]

Right, but someone still has to shovel shit. You're probably not going to be able to staff all of the shit-shoveling jobs with people there "for the love of feces" (a handful of GMFers excepted).

The shit shoveling crew you will have to pay. And if you actually want it done, I'd suggest paying them per pound of poop they move.

I totally agree here. Someone has to do some of the shit jobs.

But then other than manually forcing them to do it, how do you ensure they are properly compensated. Im speaking in defense of Unions (earlier in the topic) of course.

Who makes sure the jobs that otherwise would pay the least because the services arent marketed demands, but are needed nonetheless, are paid in accordance to the workload and necessity of their existence? From Teachers and firemen to shit shovelers and street sweepers. If left 'to the free market' these jobs would get almost no pay at all.

[Yelram]

So then people dont create for creations sake? Einsteins practice of physics was all in hopes he would become rich, and all famous western artists, from Rembrant to Davinci to Picaso only created art to make money (or some other form of wealth), not for talent or love?

Yes, there are those who are so devoted to the right from headlight assembly of a chevy cobalt, that they'd do the job for fucking free. It just happens that they get 50 dollars an hour plus benefits, so it works out for them. Now GM on the other hand, doesnt exactly get the good end of the deal, and neither does the consumer, and neither does the stock holder. So the worker gains a few undeserved bucks while fucking over everyone down the line, makes perfect sense.(/sarcasm)

[taters]

^ Yelram, see the post I made right above that one you just did. It has to do with what you just mentioned.

[Yelram]

I totally agree here. Someone has to do some of the shit jobs.

But then other than manually forcing them to do it, how do you ensure they are properly compensated. Im speaking in defense of Unions (earlier in the topic) of course.

Who makes sure the jobs that otherwise would pay the least because the services arent marketed demands, but are needed nonetheless, are paid in accordance to the workload and necessity of their existence? From Teachers and firemen to shit shovelers and street sweepers. If left 'to the free market' these jobs would get almost no pay at all.

Dude, if people wont work for that wage, the streets will get dirty, the kids will get dumber, the houses will burn, and the shit will pile up, and someone will say, oh yeah, lets offer a couple bucks more an hour for those jobs. They dont need a third party negotiating BUSINESS to come and get in the way.

[taters]

Dude, if people wont work for that wage, the streets will get dirty, the kids will get dumber, the houses will burn, and the shit will pile up, and someone will say, oh yeah, lets offer a couple bucks more an hour for those jobs. They dont need a third party negotiating BUSINESS to come and get in the way.

If all that stuff you mentioned above happens, it has a cascading effect on all other things.

If youre an employer and youre making your money, you dont care about those peoples streets, kids, houses and garbage. You have your money, you can just live somewhere else. Theres never incentive at the top to pay more, only to get more work for less pay. Especially if you are aware people will only work out of desperation (they dont have any other choice).

[Archangel]

So then people dont create for creations sake? Einsteins practice of physics was all in hopes he would become rich, and all famous western artists, from Rembrant to Davinci to Picaso only created art to make money (or some other form of wealth), not for talent or love?
Three people, not one of them spelt correctly. Seriously, stay the fuck away from foreign languages, you ignorant twat: What you do to the language of Milton is plenty bad enough.

And there are currencies other than money, as you surprisingly enough allude to. Academics work for the recognition of their peers first and foremost, for example - that was the only reason Communism worked for a while: Their scientists were after the respect of their fellow scientists, and maybe after the glory of their country. There is a direct correlation between the Western commercialisation of academia and the scientific stagnation of communism, by the way: The second certain professors started getting seriously paid, they couldn't keep up.

As fa as art, that's another matter entirely. Recognition and fama (in the Virgilian sense) certainly do play a role, as does the good old ad maiorem Dei gloriam, but there are other factors, as well. If you want to put it simply, artists do because they have to. Goethe could not not write.

But those are hardly GM factory floor folk we're talking about here. Again, surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with IdiotBrain here: The worker, being a simple beast, responds to simple stimuli. Promotions. Boni. A new car. Pistons season tickets. He will work hard for those things if he has to; however, serve them to him on a silver platter, and most won't do shit. Yes, there are those noble individuals who take earnest pride in what they do, and believe in the dignity of work; but if you have to depend on those, you might as well claim for banktruptcy now.

[Phil Theehor]

I totally agree here. Someone has to do some of the shit jobs.

But then other than manually forcing them to do it, how do you ensure they are properly compensated. Im speaking in defense of Unions (earlier in the topic) of course.

Who makes sure the jobs that otherwise would pay the least because the services arent marketed demands, but are needed nonetheless, are paid in accordance to the workload and necessity of their existence? From Teachers and firemen to shit shovelers and street sweepers. If left 'to the free market' these jobs would get almost no pay at all.

Not true. Your garbageman makes more than your teacher in a free market (look into it, btw, he actually does).

Here's why:


Originally posted by Economics 101

1) Really shitty jobs are usually well compensated, because individuals will not do them for less.

2) Not all compensation is monetary. Benefits, excitement, prestige (etc) all play a part. Teaching is prestigious and, as a result, people are willing to do it for less money than they would demand to pick up your trash.

[Archangel]

As Arch pointed out (and Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, which I happen to be re-reading at the moment), if you have a guaranteed job, you have little incentive to work hard or improve yourself.

Dude, don't EVER make me look like I'm agreeing with that cunt again.

[taters]

Not true. Your garbageman makes more than your teacher in a free market (look into it, btw, he actually does).

Here's why:

While that seems a logical standpoint, you are forgetting the pivot of that economics scale in the case of garbage men...most are unionized (either through actual unions of through state civil servant laws). The ones that arent have to compete with the ones that are, which forces their employers to pay more. But, you bring up another good thought


2. Not all compensation is monetary. Benefits, excitement, prestige (etc) all play a part. Teaching is prestigious and, as a result, people are willing to do it for less money than they would demand to pick up your trash.

I would agree with this, except doesnt that fall against the thought of the free market? If prestige didnt pay at some level, it would not be sought. There is little prestige to garbage pickers, but plenty with CEO's or (dare I say) Lawyers. At some point the tire hits the road, otherwise teachers would only teach for free because their employers (the state or private entities) would see that is the lowest pay teachers are willing to accept, and we would have significantly less of them. Teachers unions (Which I am a serious critic of) are probably the only reason teachers get the moderate salaries they do.

[Phil Theehor]

While that seems a logical standpoint, you are forgetting the pivot of that economics scale in the case of garbage men...most are unionized (either through actual unions of through state civil servant laws). The ones that arent have to compete with the ones that are, which forces their employers to pay more.


I'm not sure I see the relevance. Many garbagemen (like mine) are small businessmen with one truck who net six figures per year. Their compensation is purely the result of the free market.

Such is the beauty of our free markets. If anyone wants to earn a good living (really fucking wants it) and is willing to work for it, they can.

I have a meeting, so unfortunately I don't have time to type out my "why unions are the devil" module for you, tates. Too bad. Uncle Phil will have to continue your education at another time.

[Yelram]

I'm not sure I see the relevance. Many garbagemen (like mine) are small businessmen with one truck who net six figures per year. Their compensation is purely the result of the free market.

Such is the beauty of our free markets. If anyone wants to earn a good living (really fucking wants it) and is willing to work for it, they can.

I have a meeting, so unfortunately I don't have time to type out my "why unions are the devil" module for you, tates. Too bad. Uncle Phil will have to continue your education at another time.
Dont even get into a serious talk about freemarket principles with Tater, he just wont get it. He sees every company as an exploiter, and every employee as an exploitee. The guy that started the garbage company around here is a customer of ours. He started it small, grew it larger and larger, and once he was old enough, sold it off, used the money to buy properties which he rents. He's living high on the horse, and noone was there to regulate his wage. There was GARBAGE, and it needed MOVED, and people were willing to PAY for that.

[freegood]

The result is a one-sided negotiation leading to higher wages and benefits (beyond what the jobs would truly be worth in a non-union free market), with the company having little leverage to lay-off people, rid themselves of incompetent or lazy workers, or manage their workforce should they need to change course. Hence, the situation facing the Big 3.

With globalization, unions do not have monopolistic wage bargaining powers. If there were several unions in the same industry, what you mentioned before would not apply. But the question arises of why labor would fracture itself rather than create a monopolistic union.

The current reality is that it's far more complicated than what you wrote or something like a manager/company offshoring everything for a cheaper price. I doubt lower union wage scales (which a auto and UAW agreement will kick in in 2010) will effectively solve all of the Big 3's problems. One is selling the damn good cars and the other is improving brand efficiency and positive brand recognition.

Not true. Your garbageman makes more than your teacher in a free market (look into it, btw, he actually does).

Here's why:

Originally posted by Economics 101

1) Really shitty jobs are usually well compensated, because individuals will not do them for less.

2) Not all compensation is monetary. Benefits, excitement, prestige (etc) all play a part. Teaching is prestigious and, as a result, people are willing to do it for less money than they would demand to pick up your trash.

Cleaning toilets does not merit great compensation or benefits. I doubt taking care of Burger World and the physical and mental toil it carries justifies an equal degree of what an average person deems as fair compensation.

So what else could be at play here? Off the top of my head...the quality and difficulty of tasks the job requires, the supply of available talent, and finally, as you mention in #2, the attractiveness of the job.

Wielding bolts might be a piece of cake to a good number of people, but not many would enjoy doing it 400 feet above sea level.

[taters]

I'm not sure I see the relevance. Many garbagemen (like mine) are small businessmen with one truck who net six figures per year. Their compensation is purely the result of the free market.

Yes, those few that are independent. But the majority are not. Correct me if Im wrong, but arent most employed by the city/state they work in. And since most states have either unions or civil servant regulations, those workers pay is negotiated by their representatives/lobbys/ statutory standards for civil servants.


Such is the beauty of our free markets. If anyone wants to earn a good living (really fucking wants it) and is willing to work for it, they can.

I disagree. If anyone wants a good living, and they work in a market that, for whatever reasons (be it luck or circumstance) offers such pay, they can. If I wanted to be the best wooden spoon maker in the nation, and I worked my days away at it, it would not guarentee that it would make a living for me. Especially if there is no market for them, or the market if dominated already. Regardless of my work ethic and talent.

There are plenty of blue collar people whove worked their lives away at jobs well over 40 hours a week for years and still live check to check (my family for one), even in a two income home. Unless some agent comes into to make sure labor leads to profit at a fair level, nothing happens.

The incentive at the top is to make the most money. One easy way to do that is to pay those below you only as much as they will continue working for and not a penny more. When markets or areas are job stressed, people at the top can pay less because they know theres less choice for jobs. Even if the work is extremely laborsome, intricate, necessary or even prestigious.

I personally dont feel unions are the greatest gift to capitalism, yet I definitely feel they are necessary to fairness in the market (in concept, if not in practice). They are about as necessary and fair as corporations (in the legal mechanical sense) and the various types of Limited Partnerships.

[Phil Theehor]

Cleaning toilets does not merit great compensation or benefits. I doubt taking care of Burger World and the physical and mental toil it carries justifies an equal degree of what an average person deems as fair compensation.

So what else could be at play here? Off the top of my head...the quality and difficulty of tasks the job requires, the supply of available talent, and finally, as you mention in #2, the attractiveness of the job.

Wielding bolts might be a piece of cake to a good number of people, but not many would enjoy doing it 400 feet above sea level.

Fair. I may have oversimplified that a bit. Labor supply must be finite to ensure that lousy jobs pay well.

[Morfin]

Fair. I may have oversimplified that a bit. Labor supply must be finite to ensure that lousy jobs pay well.

And now, we smoothly segue into the illegal immigration debate.

[Phil Theehor]

And now, we smoothly segue into the illegal immigration debate.

And the union debate, as well. One of the aims of unions is to artificially curb labor supply, thus driving up the cost.

As a result, they deny opportunity to people willing to work for less than the market numbers they stipulate.

[Morfin]

Another thing along this same line is the Prevailing Wage statutes, which I am learning about for a client. These were specifically-instituted to prevent laborers from outside the local area coming in and offering to work for less than the "prevailing wage" in the area. This protectionist legislation kept wages artificially-high. Initially, they required government entities to pay the "prevailing wage" in that community, as determined by a State board. It was not too long before those boards merely used whatever the union-set wage was as the "prevailing wage." Now, it is being used by unions to keep non-union shops/companies from undercutting them, and use it to harass non-union companies/shops so as to get them to leave the market, so the union can fill those jobs.