# Economics



## Sodbuster

*Mod note:* Thread moved, separate topic. Keep this neutral and respectful or it will be canned. 

I think adding politics into the equation is pointless at this juncture. Neither Democrats or Republicans wanted to infect the nation. Information is changing daily, sometimes hourly, and gov't is not known for it's nimbleness.


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> I'm pretty sure we will be some form of socialist after this shakes out. My brother in law is essentially paying his employees to stay home while he continues working. I think eventually all non essential personnel will be paid to stay home until this passes or folks get tired of staying home.


We are more socialist every year, it’s the almost-natural progression of any society experiencing general stability and good times on a decades-long time scale.  If you need any proof of this trend, just go back to your parents’ time and listen to the great Dem JFK, he sounds like today’s Republicans.  But yes, I do anticipate events like this can accelerate this unfortunate direction.

Do note, despite anyone’s party predisposition, that there has never been a successful and sustainable socialist society, the financial collapse of the massive USSR in 1988 is our most recent and dramatic example of failure on a scale comparable to our own.


Sodbuster said:


> I think adding politics into the equation is pointless at this juncture. Neither Democrats or Republicans wanted to infect the nation. Information is changing daily, sometimes hourly, and gov't is not known for it's nimbleness.


So true!  But it’s always encouraging to see the two parties can work together after a crisis, such as this or 9-11-2001.  It’s a shame it never lasts long.


----------



## vinny11950

Ashful said:


> just go back to your parents’ time and listen to the great Dem JFK, he sounds like today’s Republicans



That's an insult to JFK.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> We are more socialist every year, it’s the almost-natural progression of any society experiencing general stability and good times on a decades-long time scale.  If you need any proof of this trend, just go back to your parents’ time and listen to the great Dem JFK, he sounds like today’s Republicans.  But yes, I do anticipate events like this can accelerate this unfortunate direction.
> 
> Do note, despite anyone’s party predisposition, that there has never been a successful and sustainable socialist society, the financial collapse of the massive USSR in 1988 is our most recent and dramatic example of failure on a scale comparable to our own.
> 
> So true!  But it’s always encouraging to see the two parties can work together after a crisis, such as this or 9-11-2001.  It’s a shame it never lasts long.


I wouldn't call Stalin or Lennin socialists! Don't point to Venezuela either. You have cherry picked the worst examples while ignoring all the success. Look at the Scandanavian nations, they have the happiest people and high taxes. Obviously this is the best example. You can't exactly say all socialism is bad because totalitarian dictators couldn't make it work.


----------



## Sodbuster

SpaceBus said:


> I wouldn't call Stalin or Lennin socialists! Don't point to Venezuela either. You have cherry picked the worst examples while ignoring all the success. Look at the Scandanavian nations, they have the happiest people and high taxes. Obviously this is the best example. You can't exactly say all socialism is bad because totalitarian dictators couldn't make it work.



Good read if you are interested, Nordic socialism is different than the type that has failed around the world.

 To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs. 









						Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
					

As much as liberals like to use Nordic countries as examples that socialism and successful societies can co-exist, the reality is that these countries are not socialist, or even farther along the spectrum toward socialism than most other developed countries.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## begreen

Sodbuster said:


> Good read if you are interested, Nordic socialism is different than the type that has failed around the world.
> 
> To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
> 
> 
> As much as liberals like to use Nordic countries as examples that socialism and successful societies can co-exist, the reality is that these countries are not socialist, or even farther along the spectrum toward socialism than most other developed countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


OK folks, this topic could become the third rail. I am going to move it to a new thread. This thread should remain focused on Covid-19.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> . Look at the Scandanavian nations, they have the happiest people and high taxes.


And that model does not necessarily work for a country many times larger. With people who already feel taxed to death. Those who long for the Scandinavian life should relocate and try it,many thousands of muslims recently made that trip.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> And that model does not necessarily work for a country many times larger. With people who already feel taxed to death. Those who long for the Scandinavian life should relocate and try it,many thousands of muslims recently made that trip.


I'm not saying that's what we should do, simply saying that socialism isn't evil because it didn't work for the former Russian empire.


----------



## ABMax24

There's a big difference between socialism and social programs such as healthcare, education, unemployment insurance, old age security etc. I'm not a believer in "each according to their ability, each according to their needs". I work a difficult stressful job and have incentive to work harder because I get compensated more for it. If we were all treated the same I might as well go flip burgers or something. But with the sliding scale tax system we have here I'm beginning to wonder if working twice as hard for 50% more is worth it.


----------



## SpaceBus

In reality the majority of folks everywhere are under paid. Oil field workers, teachers, mechanics, welders, clerks, and most other folks just aren't paid what they are worth and robots are coming for a lot of our jobs. Goods will only skyrocket once the third world workers who build our stuff are paid appropriately. This whole system is built on exploiting those at the bottom, you and I included. That's going to have to change once this is over.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

ABMax24 said:


> . I'm not a believer in "each according to their ability, each according to their needs". I work a difficult stressful job and have incentive to work harder because I get compensated more for it.


Exactly. Also one of the (huge)problems with all these givaways is the hardworking people see this and think ,hey why should i kill myself working and trying to get ahead and im living no better  than those doing nothing .  To some extent we are already doing that,taxing hard work and effort and rewarding those who do less or nothing and are perfectly capable of supporting themselves but for all the freebies. I see it everyday. Overtime should be completely TAX free. Any person working more than 40 hrs a week should pay ZERO extra taxes .


----------



## Sodbuster

Begreen, you seem like a reasonable person, but the only time someone touches the third rail is when they have a point against Socialism. Capitalism can be trashed without any recourse. Socialism, when boiled down to it's most basic core is when the government believes it knows how to spend peoples resources better than the people who earn the money.


----------



## Sawset

In 1900 Norwegians spent 50% of their income on food, and most of the rest on crowded housing. They didn't always have the appearance of affluence and high number of social programs.


----------



## SpaceBus

Sawset said:


> In 1900 Norwegians spent 50% of their income on food, and most of the rest on crowded housing. They didn't always have the appearance of affluence and high number of social programs.


In 1900 it was pretty similar here as well. Food is only cheap because uncle Sam subsidized it.


----------



## begreen

Sodbuster said:


> Begreen, you seem like a reasonable person, but the only time someone touches the third rail is when they have a point against Socialism. Capitalism can be trashed without any recourse. Socialism, when boiled down to it's most basic core is when the government believes it knows how to spend peoples resources better than the people who earn the money.


No, sorry for the misunderstanding. It is the politics that starts turning it into the third rail. Mostly I have been trying to keep the thread on the important health topic of Covid-19. Unfortunately, there are and will be so many downstream effects of the pandemic that the conversation wanders, sometimes into the weeds.  See below, it's easy to rename the thread title. I just ran with where the tangent was wandering.


----------



## vinny11950

Capitalism has become


Sodbuster said:


> Begreen, you seem like a reasonable person, but the only time someone touches the third rail is when they have a point against Socialism. Capitalism can be trashed without any recourse. Socialism, when boiled down to it's most basic core is when the government believes it knows how to spend peoples resources better than the people who earn the money.



Really?  Because I see it the other way.  People trash socialism here all the time.  They trash taxes, regulations, any sort of government intervention to help people generally is seen as negative.   I think Begreen is trying to be fair, and you are trying to work the ref.


----------



## begreen

Folks, I have a life and don't hang out here all day. Right now I am outdoors during the daytime starting garden work. By the time I get inside my hands don't work too well for typing, so mostly now I am just here in the morning. People need to self-regulate. That said, how about I change the title to Economics? House rules still apply


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> In reality the majority of folks everywhere are under paid.


Unless you are producing less than you are being paid ,then you are over paid. Your unlikely to see this unless you run a business.   I laugh when i hear the statement ,"how am i supposed to support a whole family on minimum wage". As if your wage is determined by the amount of bills you have managed to run up.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> As if your wage is determined by the amount of bills you have managed to run up.


People need shelter, clothing, food and usually transportation for a job. Currently the sum cost of those essentials often are not met by the minimum wage in many areas. This is particularly true in areas of economic wealth. High tech workers have driven housing prices up like crazy here. That's great for them, but not for the people that feed and clean up after them.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> Unless you are producing less than you are being paid ,then you are over paid. Your unlikely to see this unless you run a business.   I laugh when i hear the statement ,"how am i supposed to support a whole family on minimum wage". As if your wage is determined by the amount of bills you have managed to run up.


I'm saying this because prices have gone up but wages have not. You are not the norm as an employer. My wife's agency didn't offer her a damn thing after they told her to stay home (her client's mother traveled to FL so the agency is keeping my wife home). Taking care of the people that live on this planet together should not be a political statement.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Perhaps flooding the country with millions of low wage workers has something to do with low wages. Not political, just a fact.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> Perhaps flooding the country with millions of low wage workers has something to do with low wages. Not political, just a fact.


Those jobs have to be done. Would you tell one of your children that they must work for 40 hours every week and still barely cling on just because folks want drive throughs (which are proving to be a great idea now!)?


----------



## ABMax24

Seasoned Oak said:


> Exactly. Also one of the (huge)problems with all these givaways is the hardworking people see this and think ,hey why should i kill myself working and trying to get ahead and im living no better  than those doing nothing .  To some extent we are already doing that,taxing hard work and effort and rewarding those who do less or nothing and are perfectly capable of supporting themselves but for all the freebies. I see it everyday. Overtime should be completely TAX free. Any person working more than 40 hrs a week should pay ZERO extra taxes .



I agree with this. Problem is the government have budgeted that a portion of us want to make more money and will put in the hours to do it, we'd run even bigger deficits if OT was tax free.



SpaceBus said:


> Those jobs have to be done. Would you tell one of your children that they must work for 40 hours every week and still barely cling on just because folks want drive throughs (which are proving to be a great idea now!)?



If that's all they want to do is stand at a drive through and take orders then they deserve to be paid at the value of the service they provide. Who would become a teacher, doctor, lawyer, engineer, or any other profession or skilled trade if the people completing menial jobs got paid the same, or anywhere close to the same? Hard work is rewarded with money, that is the basis of employment and fair compensation for it.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> Would you tell one of your children that they must work for 40 hours every week and still barely cling on just because folks want drive throughs ?


I tell my kids if they want more than minimum wage they have to acquire more than minimum skills with minimum effort.   Its the individuals job to do that ,and not their employers or society's fault if they dont.


----------



## Sodbuster

Working at a drive through is a high school job, meant to earn enough to buy a crappy car, and have gas money, not support a family. If you want nice things in life you have to work for it, it's not given away.


----------



## begreen

Sodbuster said:


> Working at a drive through is a high school job, meant to earn enough to buy a crappy car, and have gas money, not support a family. If you want nice things in life you have to work for it, it's not given away.


That used to be true before so many jobs were off-shored or replaced by robots. Now people are taking these jobs just to try to stay afloat.


----------



## Sodbuster

SpaceBus said:


> I'm saying this because prices have gone up but wages have not. You are not the norm as an employer. My wife's agency didn't offer her a damn thing after they told her to stay home (her client's mother traveled to FL so the agency is keeping my wife home). Taking care of the people that live on this planet together should not be a political statement.



That statement is very geographic in nature. In our county unemployment is so low, that McDonalds is now starting their employees at $12.50 an hour, where only a short time ago it was $8 an hour. The market and the employment rate dictate wages.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Sodbuster said:


> Working at a drive through is a high school job, meant to earn enough to buy a crappy car, and have gas money, not support a family. If you want nice things in life you have to work for it, it's not given away.


Thats the problem,those who try to make a career out of it ,then complain they cant support a family when it was never meant to support a family. Barely can support 1 person.  I would say most of those doing this in my area are well out of high school. (if they ever finished)


----------



## SpaceBus

ABMax24 said:


> I agree with this. Problem is the government have budgeted that a portion of us want to make more money and will put in the hours to do it, we'd run even bigger deficits if OT was tax free.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all they want to do is stand at a drive through and take orders then they deserve to be paid at the value of the service they provide. Who would become a teacher, doctor, lawyer, engineer, or any other profession or skilled trade if the people completing menial jobs got paid the same, or anywhere close to the same? Hard work is rewarded with money, that is the basis of employment and fair compensation for it.


You are assuming that people want to be degraded and demeaned by folks like you. We need drive through techs, cashiers, janitors, etc. And those people need to be paid appropriately. Doctors, lawyers, etc are also underpaid. You keep hearing exclusively that I want low end jobs to be paid more. All jobs are under paid. Also, it costs a lot less to become a professional because of the education requirements, which are massively expensive. This is a barrier to entry for poor folks and many others. The whole system is fucked, not just the bottom rungs.



Also, let's not forget that NONE of us WANT to work, we HAVE to work. I don't know about you all, but fishing or lounging in the sun with my family is much better than most other things on this planet.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> Thats the problem,those who try to make a career out of it ,then complain they cant support a family when it was never meant to support a family. Barely can support 1 person.  I would say most of those doing this in my area are well out of high school. (if they ever finished)


There are not enough teenagers, and would you rather see kids or parents employed. The fact that there are less jobs than people, and that number continues to drop, should make this picture much clearer to you. 

Why do you assume poor people are so different from you? When given the opportunity to be successful, most people will pick it. I laughed at your "dregs" comment from another thread, but it paints the picture of how you feel about folks in a lower socioeconomic bracket than yourself, they are less than human.


----------



## SpaceBus

Sodbuster said:


> That statement is very geographic in nature. In our county unemployment is so low, that McDonalds is now starting their employees at $12.50 an hour, where only a short time ago it was $8 an hour. The market and the employment rate dictate wages.


No, the fed increased min wage.


----------



## festerw

Not adjusted for inflation the minimum wage is less now than it was in 1968 when it peaked. Adjusted it would be 11.80/hr.

At current minimum you'll have a salary of 15,080/year, the cheapest single bedroom apartment in my area will run you 4800/year, health insurance average is 5000 for a single, average food cost is 3000/year, average utilities are $2000/year. After all that you have roughly $300 left over for the year, before taxes.

This pandemic is bringing out the 40 year in the making worker crisis. Large companies have lobbied the government and have held back hourly rates and benefits for the sake of profits and now it's coming home to roost.

The "best" economy was a house of cards built with cheap and outsourced labor to save pennies on the dollar.

To big to fail and bail out are a cop out when you are reporting multi billion dollar profits but not banking much for a downturn but then chastise the workers for not being able to save 6 months of living expenses in case of lay offs.

Plenty of people saw this coming but didn't know what the spark was that would set it off.


----------



## ABMax24

SpaceBus said:


> You are assuming that people want to be degraded and demeaned by folks like you. We need drive through techs, cashiers, janitors, etc. And those people need to be paid appropriately. Doctors, lawyers, etc are also underpaid. You keep hearing exclusively that I want low end jobs to be paid more. All jobs are under paid. Also, it costs a lot less to become a professional because of the education requirements, which are massively expensive. This is a barrier to entry for poor folks and many others. The whole system is fucked, not just the bottom rungs.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, let's not forget that NONE of us WANT to work, we HAVE to work. I don't know about you all, but fishing or lounging in the sun with my family is much better than most other things on this planet.



I guess I come from a different country and also a different viewpoint. Here for those that try hard enough there are ways to pay for school, the government covers the bulk of the cost with scholarships, bursaries, and student loans available to cover the difference. Up until very recently in this area there have always been more jobs than people to fill them, if you are working full time at McDonalds it's because you choose to, not because you have to. At the company I work at starting wage is $20/hr which works out to almost $60k/year at the hours we work. And this is entry level work, no high school diploma required, 2 feet and a heartbeat as most people say. And within 6 months most can be making $25/hr if they apply themselves, and can be over $40 in a few years if they start and complete an apprenticeship.

I have had numerous people work for me over the years that fail to apply themselves to get raises or climb the ladder. They'd rather put in as little effort as possible and complain they don't make enough. I have an example, this person has worked for me for 7 years, in that time they tried to start a trade, but were kicked out of the trade because the failed to pay the $35 entrance fee, they also tried to run equipment, but only want to run half of the equipment in the yard and couldn't be bothered to learn the other machines. This same person makes the above mentioned $60k/year and yet has to bum smokes off everyone in the yard because they can't afford a pack. Seems to me in many of thee cases their poor life choices are to blame, not the employers pay scale.

So is the degrading and demeaning, yeah probably, do I feel sorry for the person however when they were the ones that put themselves there, not one bit. I know this seems harsh, but as my grandmother said "god only helps those that help themselves". I will go out of my way to help those that need it when they too are willing to put in the effort to change their situation.


----------



## SpaceBus

ABMax24 said:


> I guess I come from a different country and also a different viewpoint. Here for those that try hard enough there are ways to pay for school, the government covers the bulk of the cost with scholarships, bursaries, and student loans available to cover the difference. Up until very recently in this area there have always been more jobs than people to fill them, if you are working full time at McDonalds it's because you choose to, not because you have to. At the company I work at starting wage is $20/hr which works out to almost $60k/year at the hours we work. And this is entry level work, no high school diploma required, 2 feet and a heartbeat as most people say. And within 6 months most can be making $25/hr if they apply themselves, and can be over $40 in a few years if they start and complete an apprenticeship.
> 
> I have had numerous people work for me over the years that fail to apply themselves to get raises or climb the ladder. They'd rather put in as little effort as possible and complain they don't make enough. I have an example, this person has worked for me for 7 years, in that time they tried to start a trade, but were kicked out of the trade because the failed to pay the $35 entrance fee, they also tried to run equipment, but only want to run half of the equipment in the yard and couldn't be bothered to learn the other machines. This same person makes the above mentioned $60k/year and yet has to bum smokes off everyone in the yard because they can't afford a pack. Seems to me in many of thee cases their poor life choices are to blame, not the employers pay scale.
> 
> So is the degrading and demeaning, yeah probably, do I feel sorry for the person however when they were the ones that put themselves there, not one bit. I know this seems harsh, but as my grandmother said "god only helps those that help themselves". I will go out of my way to help those that need it when they too are willing to put in the effort to change their situation.


You are missing the fact that you still NEED people in those demeaning jobs that you are so high above. Also, the US government does not have many of the social programs in Canada, hence the thread. People at the bottom of the ladder deserve happiness as well. Who is going to cook your hamburgers when you are  too lazy to cook it yourself? It's easy to call folks at the bottom lazy when you depend on those folks to be lazy yourself. Janitors and fast food employees have become more crucial now than ever, risking their live so folks like you can demean them.


----------



## Sodbuster

SpaceBus said:


> No, the fed increased min wage.



Yes, from 9.45 to 9.65, the 12.50 I'm seeing is market driven. If they paid the minimum wage they'd have no employees.


----------



## festerw

SpaceBus said:


> No, the fed increased min wage.





Sodbuster said:


> Yes, from 9.45 to 9.65, the 12.50 I'm seeing is market driven. If they paid the minimum wage they'd have no employees.



Federal minimum wage is still $7.25, a lot of state have independently raised it but nearly half still are still at the Federal rate.









						Minimum Wage by State 2022 Increases vs 2021 - Paycor
					

On January 1st 2022, more than 20 states in the US will increase their minimum wages for workers. See both the 2022 and 2021 minimum wages for each state here.




					www.paycor.com


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> Why do you assume poor people are so different from you? When given the opportunity to be successful, most people will pick it. I laughed at your "dregs" comment from another thread, but it paints the picture of how you feel about folks in a lower socioeconomic bracket than yourself, they are less than human.


A strange analogy as my income is in most case LESS than those i pay to do work for me. So im not looking down on anyone. But its not about income at all so much as how you spend it . Just about everyone in america has the opportunity to be sucessful but not necessarily the ambition to do so. And yes i do consider drug dealers,thieves,and wife beaters,and those who are a cancer to a normal functioning society "dregs" and we get more than our share from the city for a small quiet town.


----------



## SpaceBus

Sodbuster said:


> Yes, from 9.45 to 9.65, the 12.50 I'm seeing is market driven. If they paid the minimum wage they'd have no employees.


My mistake, it's probably a state increase. It's 12/hr here in Maine.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> You are missing the fact that you still NEED people in those demeaning jobs that you are so high above.


Why do you continue to call low paying jobs "demeaning" . Nothing demeaning about any job.  Its more demeaning to set around and do nothing. When i worked as a dishwasher i was just as proud to work hard and support myself as i was with any other job i ever did. Your attaching a stigma to those jobs by calling them demeaning.


----------



## begreen

The new economy. How to wipe out debt, literally.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> Why do you continue to call low paying jobs "demeaning" . Nothing demeaning about any job.  Its more demeaning to set around and do nothing. When i worked as a dishwasher i was just as proud to work hard and support myself as i was with any other job i ever did. Your attaching a stigma to those jobs by calling them demeaning.


You are the one that said the jobs are only worthy of kids. I don't have the stigma, simply pointing out how min wage jobs are seen by the many. Are only professionals allowed to have families?


----------



## ABMax24

SpaceBus said:


> You are missing the fact that you still NEED people in those demeaning jobs that you are so high above. Also, the US government does not have many of the social programs in Canada, hence the thread. People at the bottom of the ladder deserve happiness as well. Who is going to cook your hamburgers when you are  too lazy to cook it yourself? It's easy to call folks at the bottom lazy when you depend on those folks to be lazy yourself. Janitors and fast food employees have become more crucial now than ever, risking their live so folks like you can demean them.



I'm not sure what you want me to tell you. I'm not going to pay Ferrari prices for a Ford, and I'm sure not paying $20 for a hamburger, so if that means burger flippers get paid low so be it. In the last 4.5 years here in Alberta the minimum wage has went from $10.20 to $15. Guess what, fast food now costs more, gas stations have let go of most of their gas jockeys and went to self serve, restaurants force waiters to wait more tables to keep staffing costs down, many businesses have reduced the number of summer students they take on. And after all that they are calling on the government to increase minimum wage yet again. When does it stop? Many of these businesses mentioned above are small family businesses that don't have a large cash flow to start with, increasing wages almost 50% in 3 years broke some of them.

Now if we want to talk about the large moral-less companies like Wal-Mart, then I agree they need to be kicked to the curb for a multitude of reasons. One being the monopoly they have over employment while running local businesses out of town, and the other the outsourcing of manufacturing to third world countries and China.

I will not back down on my stance of pay based on value provided. It is not my job nor anyone else's to subsidize the low-skill workers in these positions. Automation is just around the corner for these jobs anyway, it really wouldn't be all that hard to fully automate a McDonald's restaurant, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that McDonald's is already looking at this.


----------



## SpaceBus

Almost everyone is underpaid, not just the people at the bottom. Nobody said you have to buy a Honda for Ducati money, but it's pretty horrible to say that folks working in jobs, that you as a consumer demand, don't deserve to live on 40 hrs a week. Maybe instead of blaming the wages you should blame the employers. Perhaps just as a fry cook doesn't deserve professional pay, a ceo doesn't deserve a nation's GDP as a salary either.


----------



## ABMax24

But not every business is a corporation with a millionaire CEO, there are many that are small businesses just struggling to get by, where will this extra cash come from? Will you as a consumer agree to pay say 25% more so the staff can have an equal wage increase? Would that then affect your buying choices causing you to spend money at these places less often because of the cost increase using more of your disposable income?

I have access to some of the financial information for the jobs we do, I'd love to say I'm underpaid, but I know the company makes very little on the work we do, and by far our biggest expense is labor, there is no more room to pay staff more.

I would agree there is a wealth distribution issue in most of the developed world, but almost every solution people propose just takes money from the middle class to give to the lower class and vice versa. Increasing wages would do the same, the rich will just pass this cost along to other classes. How do you make incentives to the rich to share their wealth when the only incentive they want is more wealth?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> You are the one that said the jobs are only worthy of kids. I don't have the stigma, simply pointing out how min wage jobs are seen by the many. Are only professionals allowed to have families?


Where did i say that? I said those jobs were not meant to be careers. I suspect thats how _you_ see those jobs, as demeaning. I do not . I see them as starter jobs,entry level jobs, training jobs. Nothing demeaning about them,or any other kind of honest work.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

ABMax24 said:


> But not every business is a corporation with a millionaire CEO, there are many that are small businesses just struggling to get by, where will this extra cash come from?


Bingo! Many small business owners make less than the people they hire,i l know because im one of them. And i also do taxes for some of them.  There are millions of small businesses in this country. Its easy to say everyone should make more money. Try starting a business and see just how easy it is not.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> Almost everyone is underpaid,


Solution: Start a business and pay them more. Problem solved. See how easy that was?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

ABMax24 said:


> . When does it stop? Many of these businesses mentioned above are small family businesses that don't have a large cash flow to start with, increasing wages almost 50% in 3 years broke some of them.


Those who have never owned of tried to start a business will never understand that concept.  The end result of $15 min wage will put many out of work. The country is not a one size fits all when it comes to wages. What works in NYC does not necessarily work in rural america.


----------



## NickW

As a society too many "wants" that we think are needs, and that doesn't change with "class". What 10 year old needs a smartphone? How many of us really NEED a smartphone? And look at the generation coming out for jobs. So many with a sense of entitlement but no work ethic. Spend time on their mobile phones instead of working.

 Then we won't even go in depth regarding  social programs. I'm a strong believer in them, but they have to be done correctly. Free handouts result in desire for more free handouts... "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime..." It's not society's fault if you refuse to learn to fish...


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> A strange analogy as my income is in most case LESS than those i pay to do work for me. So im not looking down on anyone. But its not about income at all so much as how you spend it . Just about everyone in america has the opportunity to be sucessful but not necessarily the ambition to do so. And yes i do consider drug dealers,thieves,and wife beaters,and those who are a cancer to a normal functioning society "dregs" and we get more than our share from the city for a small quiet town.


Not all of the dregs in your area are imports.  There are plenty of home grown ones.


----------



## Sodbuster

I can only speak for myself, but I do not look down my nose at anybody who is working.  Maybe they are working their way through school, maybe they are picking up a little extra money to help the family. It doesn't matter to me, it's none of my business, and I never even thought of it until I read this thread.  Some jobs are only worth so much, they are entry level, and if they quit, they'll be replaced with another entry level person. If you want to make more money, you can't look to the government, you need to find a skill that employers are looking for.


----------



## NickW

Amen Sodbuster.

I reread my previous post about the "new" generation and some might get the wrong idea. There are some that are real go-getters, but it seems fewer every year. I'm looking at personal experience. 

My 20 year old son is a great help at home and chores, but he's a "lost one" right now. Half his college fund on one semester and ended up with no credits... Couldn't handle the responsibility of being off at school alone. Wife and I cut it off and home he came. Worked spring through fall on a good job, made a buttload of money, got layed off. Now he doesn't know if he wants to go back because of the long hours and getting up at 4am. Gave us a line of BS (about the layed off/going back situation) to keep us off his back. Now we told him he SHOULD go get a burger flipping job. Maybe that would motivate him to get some sort of skill... Good kid, Eagle Scout, hard worker, no ambition or direction... FRUSTRATING Wish he'd learn a trade.

16 year old is even scarier. Several emotional/behavioral issues/diagnosis's and thinks he should have everything handed to him on a platter. Huge sense of entitlement. Hates all chores and expectations. Probably will take 5 years to get through high school, which I hope he does. What is an employer going to do with the attitude he gives at home and school? Reality is he won't be an "adult" at 18. One counselor/therapist said "hopefully by 25..." I feel for the poor kid. We adopted him at 5 and everything he had been holding in surfaced shortly into the first full school year he was with us. Will he even be able to hold an entry level job and have a successful future? 

Sorry if I got off topic there, felt the need to vent a bit. Original point was that ANYBODY can become a valuable employee (or entrepreneur), they just have to want it and work at it. Doesn't matter if they're hood or hillbilly. It just can't be given to them. Sure, some have it easier than others and have people to bail them out when they screw up; but it all comes down to making a personal choice. It's difficult to choose to work hard when you can be comfortable not working... Unfortunately, eldest is doing his best to prove that. Time to grow up!


----------



## begreen

This thread seems less about the economy and more about - the kids today are blah blah blah. Heard that same line 50 years ago in a Simon and Garfunkel song "Save the life of my child".  I appreciate that some folks here are self-made and have put in a lot hard work, but the scene today is not like what it was for the enterprising young man or woman in the 1970s. And the cold stop that Corvid-19 has introduced is going to reset the whole equation. The question is, what can we do better when we restart the machine?


----------



## ABMax24

NickW said:


> Amen Sodbuster.
> 
> I reread my previous post about the "new" generation and some might get the wrong idea. There are some that are real go-getters, but it seems fewer every year. I'm looking at personal experience.
> 
> My 20 year old son is a great help at home and chores, but he's a "lost one" right now. Half his college fund on one semester and ended up with no credits... Couldn't handle the responsibility of being off at school alone. Wife and I cut it off and home he came. Worked spring through fall on a good job, made a buttload of money, got layed off. Now he doesn't know if he wants to go back because of the long hours and getting up at 4am. Gave us a line of BS (about the layed off/going back situation) to keep us off his back. Now we told him he SHOULD go get a burger flipping job. Maybe that would motivate him to get some sort of skill... Good kid, Eagle Scout, hard worker, no ambition or direction... FRUSTRATING Wish he'd learn a trade.
> 
> 16 year old is even scarier. Several emotional/behavioral issues/diagnosis's and thinks he should have everything handed to him on a platter. Huge sense of entitlement. Hates all chores and expectations. Probably will take 5 years to get through high school, which I hope he does. What is an employer going to do with the attitude he gives at home and school? Reality is he won't be an "adult" at 18. One counselor/therapist said "hopefully by 25..." I feel for the poor kid. We adopted him at 5 and everything he had been holding in surfaced shortly into the first full school year he was with us. Will he even be able to hold an entry level job and have a successful future?
> 
> Sorry if I got off topic there, felt the need to vent a bit. Original point was that ANYBODY can become a valuable employee (or entrepreneur), they just have to want it and work at it. Doesn't matter if they're hood or hillbilly. It just can't be given to them. Sure, some have it easier than others and have people to bail them out when they screw up; but it all comes down to making a personal choice. It's difficult to choose to work hard when you can be comfortable not working... Unfortunately, eldest is doing his best to prove that. Time to grow up!



The thing they have going for them is someone behind them pushing and encouraging them to head in the right direction. Your 20 year old sounds exactly like me 8 years ago (yes I am only 27). College kicked my but, highschool was a cake walk for me and when I walked into college I wasn't ready for the work. Dropped out after the first semester, second try I made it through the first semester and then dropped out again after the second. Took me a while to figure it out, with a lot of second guessing myself with what I wanted to do. But back to work I went, the first year was tough, every morning I felt like I had to drag myself out of bed, forcing myself to go to work, but eventually it got easier. Of course it didn't help that at the time I was working 60+hrs a week. But as it got easier I signed up for a pipe-fitting apprenticeship and eventually got my ticket. About that same time they made me shop foreman and I moved up from there, eventually to General Foreman where I remain today.

If I went back 10 years I would never guess that I would be where I am today, I have a loving fiance and family, a house, a nice vehicle,  and all the motorized toys and tools in the garage I could want. I guess what I am trying to get at is guide them, but don't force them to do anything, they will figure it out, but be there to be the person they can bounce ideas off of and help with the life skills that aren't taught in school. One of the best things my parents did for me is refuse to buy me anything not essential to life or school, I bought my first vehicle, first snowmobile, first everything, it taught me the value of money, that if I wanted something hard work could earn it. It was also at that point that I learned sometimes lessons cost money, and the best ones cost lots, so to be responsible with the money you had, as it would only go so far.


----------



## NickW

Sorry begreen...  groan/therapy session over.

We need to become a world society of contributors, not recipients - all of us. We need our governments to serve and protect us fairly and honestly. We need to pay our taxes so they can do that. Learn a skill that will help yourself and others. YouTube videos of you playing and commenting on video games is NOT a skill. Everybody should be taxed the same way. Rich folks say the top 1% pay 99% of total taxes collected, poor folks say that's because the rich have 99.9% of the wealth. Loopholes and backdoors need to be closed. We, in this country, have the right to the pursuit of happiness. We do not have the right to have happiness given to us nor should we expect it, because that is impossible.

But can we ever get the whole country much less the whole world to view things this way, or will we forever be at the mercy of those who will trample anyone to get ahead; here and abroad? History shows what is the likely answer... All we can do as individuals is keep trying to do what is right. Unfortunately, every election in the US brings candidates that force a choice of the lesser of 2 evils...


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Not all of the dregs in your area are imports.  There are plenty of home grown ones.


There are, and plenty of high school dropouts. People tend to spoil their kids, dont want them to work as hard as they did ,not with  good result.  The whole east side of town is where the imports are clustered . Like south central LA. Some good kids mixed in ,they tend to migrate out to the larger cities.  My oldest kids still live close.all with good jobs and lots of ambition, 2 more to go.  Economy here is what you make it.


----------



## AlbergSteve

begreen said:


> The question is, what can we do better when we restart the machine?


I'm _not _optimistic.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

The recipe for success has always been the same and it works everywhere , hard work ,persistance, sometimes long hours.  After Corona will be no exception, except we will be deeper in debt.  So what do you guys think of the Corona stimulus bill being debated?


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> The recipe for success has always been the same and it works everywhere , hard work ,persistance, sometimes long hours.  After Corona will be no exception, except we will be deeper in debt.  So what do you guys think of the Corona stimulus bill being debated?


I haven't read the whole bill, but my first thought is that the priority should be people, not corporations. Definitely no bailouts for businesses that avoid taxes, like cruise lines with their boats registered in foreign ports.


----------



## SpaceBus

begreen said:


> This thread seems less about the economy and more about - the kids today are blah blah blah. Heard that same line 50 years ago in a Simon and Garfunkel song "Save the life of my child".  I appreciate that some folks here are self-made and have put in a lot hard work, but the scene today is not like what it was for the enterprising young man or woman in the 1970s. And the cold stop that Corvid-19 has introduced is going to reset the whole equation. The question is, what can we do better when we restart the machine?


This is how I feel as well. I wish I could have been born in the 40's or 60's, what a great time to be a working aged man (except for the Vietnam War). The same system that worked post war is not going to work post Corona.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> There are, and plenty of high school dropouts. People tend to spoil their kids, dont want them to work as hard as they did ,not with  good result.  The whole east side of town is where the imports are clustered . Like south central LA. Some good kids mixed in ,they tend to migrate out to the larger cities.  My oldest kids still live close.all with good jobs and lots of ambition, 2 more to go.  Economy here is what you make it.


What if both of your parents are addicts, one in prison, your extended family are also addicts and criminals, and the police in your city target your neighborhood (because of the mentioned drug issues). How is that any environment to grow up in? Can you blame kids for becoming criminals when they are surrounded by crime? Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime, that's what you did for your kids. The current system keeps those at the bottom chained to the bottom, giving a man just one fish.


----------



## Grizzerbear

I think a lot of our problems are driven by a society with no morals or values. I agree with begreen on not bailing out corporations. What happened when we bailed out gm. Now trucks cost what you can pay for a decent house here. My story is a lot like abmax24....I went to welding school during the last recession and made out alright. The cost to go to college is absolutely ridiculous but a foreigner.....of any creed, not being racist.... can get accepted at a discount. I see it all the time at msu  while I did a job there. There isnt enough jobs for the available workforce in america because we allowed them to be shipped out years ago. Many problems here in america.


----------



## festerw

The systemic problem in place is that it's often easier to live while using subsidized housing/food/health benefits and working part time.

In the current system a lot of folks that jump to full time end up losing a lot of that help, it's almost an all or nothing prospect at the moment instead of a tiered system to help get people into better paying jobs.

In the end the larger issue is the wages for EVERYONE need to increase. Yes "burger flippers" deserve $15, but that doesn't mean everyone else's pay shouldn't increase also.

We've let large corporations dictate the rules and lead us to this situation, it's clear that "trickle down" doesn't work and after 30 years that it never will.


----------



## NickW

SpaceBus said:


> What if both of your parents are addicts, one in prison, your extended family are also addicts and criminals, and the police in your city target your neighborhood (because of the mentioned drug issues). How is that any environment to grow up in? Can you blame kids for becoming criminals when they are surrounded by crime? Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime, that's what you did for your kids. The current system keeps those at the bottom chained to the bottom, giving a man just one fish.


It's a terrible environment to grow up in! I, you and the government are not the ones to blame for the choices your parents made. We also are not to blame that your parents taught you to blame everyone else for your problems instead of taking personal responsibility. The rights and freedom we have includes the right to screw yourself up and unfortunately your kids too. If anyone steps in all that is heard is how rights are being trampled. How can a society help the ones "at the bottom" (children) without infringing on the rights of others helping keep them there (the P.O.S. parents)? It's a catch 22/vicious cycle that can only be broken by personal choice.



Grizzerbear said:


> I think a lot of our problems are driven by a society with no morals or values. I agree with begreen on not bailing out corporations. What happened when we bailed out gm. Now trucks cost what you can pay for a decent house here. My story is a lot like abmax24....I went to welding school during the last recession and made out alright. The cost to go to college is absolutely ridiculous but a foreigner.....of any creed, not being racist.... can get accepted at a discount. I see it all the time at mau  while I did a job there. There isnt enough jobs for the available workforce in america because we allowed them to be shipped out years ago. Many problems here in america.


Agreed there are few with morals and values, but disagree with some of the assessments. I read a few years ago when the average truck cost 35k or so that it cost 14k to produce. The rest was mostly benefits to union workers and some profit. Also, there are plenty of good jobs, not enough skilled people to fill them. The opportunities are out there. You have to WORK (arggghhhh! Four letter word!) to take advantage of them.


festerw said:


> The systemic problem in place is that it's often easier to live while using subsidized housing/food/health benefits and working part time.
> 
> In the current system a lot of folks that jump to full time end up losing a lot of that help, it's almost an all or nothing prospect at the moment instead of a tiered system to help get people into better paying jobs.
> 
> In the end the larger issue is the wages for EVERYONE need to increase. Yes "burger flippers" deserve $15, but that doesn't mean everyone else's pay shouldn't increase also.
> 
> We've let large corporations dictate the rules and lead us to this situation, it's clear that "trickle down" doesn't work and after 30 years that it never will.


Agree with a better balance tier system. Still disagree with a burger flipper making $15/hr...  are you going to pay the corresponding increase in the cost of a Big Mac or Whopper? Entry level job = entry level pay, not intended to be a career... Everyone's pay increasing will only result in everyone's costs going up - rampant inflation.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> I haven't read the whole bill, but my first thought is that the priority should be people, not corporations. Definitely no bailouts for businesses that avoid taxes, like cruise lines with their boats registered in foreign ports.


Plus 100 on that. The whole point of foreign registration is to AVOID us taxes.  Other than to convert some of these temporarily into hospital ships the US should, let LIBERIA handle any bailouts.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

NickW said:


> It's a catch 22/vicious cycle that can only be broken by personal choice.


I agree. The fundementals are always the same. I wont bore everyone with the details of my childhood but id wager no one here had it worse or started with so little. That doesnt mean i had to continue that cycle. All my siblings rose above it as well. When you grow up with nothing, you realize the only helping hands are at the end of your arms.


----------



## Grizzerbear

NickW said:


> Everyone's pay increasing will only result in everyone's costs going up - rampant inflation.


I agree their. We are seeing this here in missouri after it was voted to raise minimum wage.....which was never intended to be a living wage in the first place. Basically everyone that has a skilled trade just took a paycut.


NickW said:


> Agreed there are few with morals and values, but disagree with some of the assessments. I read a few years ago when the average truck cost 35k or so that it cost 14k to produce. The rest was mostly benefits to union workers and some profit. Also, there are plenty of good jobs, not enough skilled people to fill them. The opportunities are out there. You have to WORK (arggghhhh! Four letter word!) to take advantage of them.


At 35k they were too damn expensive......especially for a item that everyone must have....and I drive 30 miles to nearest city to work.....5 of them all gravel so a cheapo fiesta wont quite cut it. And I can't see that there are plenty of jobs....maybe in the big cities or where you are at but here....I would have to travel fifty miles for a job that paid over 15 an hour. Two empty factories here in town that used to employ over 200 people but now they are over seas. And no amount of work ethic is going to change that....luckily when I was a younger man I saved my cash and paid my house and land off so I dont require much. I agree with space bus as well. My mother has owned a daycare for over thirty years. She gets a lot of children that have been taken away from their parents by the state for some of the most awful reasons...sexual abuse, drugs , you name it. Born into life with mountains to hurdle.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

NickW said:


> Agree with a better balance tier system. Still disagree with a burger flipper making $15/hr...  are you going to pay the corresponding increase in the cost of a Big Mac or Whopper? Entry level job = entry level pay, not intended to be a career... Everyone's pay increasing will only result in everyone's costs going up - rampant inflation.


Minimum wage doubles ,Rent doubles ,utilities double, food doubles.  Were is the improvement ,only result is higher taxes as income is pushed into higher tax brackets.  A slower COL increase is more sustainable. Starting teacher salary in my area is $15 hr.  Start paying minimum wage to starting teachers and see what happens.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> What if both of your parents are addicts, one in prison, your extended family are also addicts and criminals, and the police in your city target your neighborhood (because of the mentioned drug issues).


 My nephew fits that exact description. (except for the extended family part) Abusive Mother, father in prison. Grew up under terrible conditions.  Today he is a union plumber making over 100k a yr. All about personal choices.


----------



## NickW

Around here McD, Panda Express, Walmart, etc all start at at least $11. Anyone who will work and get up early can have at least $15 to start any number of places... People with skills start around $20.


----------



## festerw

Seasoned Oak said:


> Minimum wage doubles ,Rent doubles ,utilities double, food doubles.  Were is the improvement ,only result is higher taxes as income is pushed into higher tax brackets.  A slower COL increase is more sustainable. Starting teacher salary in my area is $15 hr.  Start paying minimum wage to starting teachers and see what happens.



There's a bunch but I'll pick on you 

The issue is cost of everything has gone up regardless of the wage. The way this works (or should) is you update the wage to what it currently should be (we'll say $15) then add in COL every year so we don't end up back where we currently are. Does it need to jump that high right away? Absolutely not but step it up in a clearly defined pattern lets say $1/hr plus COL every year until we hit $15 then COL increases every year.

So your teacher making $15/hour says "Why should I teach when I can get a job as a fast food worker making the same?"
The school then has an option keep paying $15 or realize they're offering too little for the position (they are, regardless of the current minimum).  This would happen across the board to all jobs thereby increasing the pay for everyone, that whole rising tide deal.

Some things will go up in price, some won't, but the end result is a stronger economy when the people have more money to spend. There also needs to be a regulation in place for the CEO vs employee pay disparity in 1978 it was 30:1 in 2017 it was 270:1 so employees have seen an 11% increase in pay while CEOs have seen 932%.

Clearly at this point we're not going to make any headway by continuing on the same path trying the same things and some major changes need to happen so we're not back in the same situation in the future


----------



## Seasoned Oak

festerw said:


> So your teacher making $15/hour says "Why should I teach when I can get a job as a fast food worker making the same?"
> The school then has an option keep paying $15 or realize they're offering too little for the position (they are, regardless of the current minimum).  This would happen across the board to all jobs thereby increasing the pay for everyone, that whole rising tide deal.


Sounds easy but most of the residents here are retired on SS. So we would need a big jump in SS checks to cover the much higher school taxes and overall wage increases that would result. Double my SS check and im all in. As i said in my post COL increases over time make sense. If the no skilled and low skilled group are given 100% pay raise everyone else will follow suit with a laundry list of demands. Plus there is a glut of no skills high school dropouts to (hopefully) employ. The law of supply and demand does have some effect.


----------



## NickW

I will agree with fester about the CEO vs employee disparity though... are we going to cap the ridiculous athlete contracts too?


----------



## Sodbuster

Athletes, CEO's, Talk Show Hosts. News Anchors, all make ridiculous amounts of money each year, but as long as the stadiums are full, and the show has high ratings, they'll continue to get paid that much. I read somewhere that it costs a family of 4 about $450 to attend a NFL game. That's crazy money for me, but the stadiums are full, so the owners get (or stay) rich, and so do the players. They are worth what someone is willing to pay them, wages cannot be arbitrarily set, the market will sort it out.


----------



## festerw

I'm on board tying it to other employees. No reason anyone in any organization should be make more in an day or week than most of the employees make in a year.

Look at Bloomberg, dude can blow a billion on a 2 month presidential run like a normal person is renting a hotel room.

Reality is our country is leveraged to the hilt and we're at the breaking point of becoming a 3rd world country with 1st world tendencies. If you want to have a fun time go back and look at personal/corporate tax rates, inflation, minimum wage, and corporate profits from 1950-on. The system has been rigged against the middle class for a long time.


----------



## Sodbuster

begreen said:


> I haven't read the whole bill, but my first thought is that the priority should be people, not corporations. Definitely no bailouts for businesses that avoid taxes, like cruise lines with their boats registered in foreign ports.



I agree Begreen, no money should go toward corporations, they'll simply use it for stock buybacks, and laugh all the way to the bank.  My wife and I were watching the news last night, actually it was 60 minutes. They interviewed one of the members of the Federal Reserve. He said people didn't have to worry about a shortage of money (they were on the subject of bank runs) because the gov't said they could print as much as they needed, and there would be no shortage of liquidity. How long will it be before people realize they are holding Monopoly money backed by nothing?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, a huge chunk  of the wealth disparity IMO is coming from the practice of taxing incomes of the wealthy at "special"  rates. Billionaires dont draw a big salary to be taxed at 40% , Instead they get Capital gains and dividends, at 15 and 20% and enjoy the loopholes of carried interest.  The difference between 40% and 15% is quite a lot when your talking billions of $.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> My nephew fits that exact description. (except for the extended family part) Abusive Mother, father in prison. Grew up under terrible conditions.  Today he is a union plumber making over 100k a yr. All about personal choices.


He's lucky to have had you in his life. Without any positive influences what do you think would happen?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> He's lucky to have had you in his life. Without any positive influences what do you think would happen?


I had very little to do with it. He basically did the samething i did growing up which was to use my parents for an example of what i didnt want from life.  And make the appropriate choices to make that happen.


----------



## Sodbuster

begreen said:


> This thread seems less about the economy and more about - the kids today are blah blah blah. Heard that same line 50 years ago in a Simon and Garfunkel song "Save the life of my child".  I appreciate that some folks here are self-made and have put in a lot hard work, but the scene today is not like what it was for the enterprising young man or woman in the 1970s. And the cold stop that Corvid-19 has introduced is going to reset the whole equation. The question is, what can we do better when we restart the machine?



I disagree, the problem was when I was in high school, the guidance counselors pushed everyone toward college that had any aptitude for it.  What we ended up with was a bunch of college graduates with no marketable skills, only a piece of paper that showed they went through 4 years of additional education.  What that meant for employers was the person had the capability to learn and comprehend, and to problem solve. 
Covid 19 is a bump in the road, and will pass provided we take the steps necessary and listen to the advice being given by the experts, we will get past it, although it will be a rough road; my daughter's test came back positive today, (5 day turn around), but she is already feeling better, but working from home due to a state wide shut down. 
Some people are good at learning from books, while others are better at watching others do the job, then trying it themselves. My friend did that, and started out as an apprentice pipe-fitter. He is now a Journeyman pipe-fitter, works on some serious equipment, and easily makes over 100K a year with zero college. Opportunities still abound, you just need to look for them.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Sodbuster said:


> . Opportunities still abound, you just need to look for them.


And they always have. Even during the depression. Of course you can always talk yourself out of them if you try.  When i traveled in 
the philippines i saw a lot of poverty but also a lot of opportunity .Those that looked for it did quite well.


----------



## Sodbuster

festerw said:


> The systemic problem in place is that it's often easier to live while using subsidized housing/food/health benefits and working part time.
> 
> In the current system a lot of folks that jump to full time end up losing a lot of that help, it's almost an all or nothing prospect at the moment instead of a tiered system to help get people into better paying jobs.
> 
> In the end the larger issue is the wages for EVERYONE need to increase. Yes "burger flippers" deserve $15, but that doesn't mean everyone else's pay shouldn't increase also.
> 
> We've let large corporations dictate the rules and lead us to this situation, it's clear that "trickle down" doesn't work and after 30 years that it never will.



Festerw, I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this, and that's fine, but as employees start to demand more than their job is worth they will price themselves out of a job. I rarely go to fast food restaurants, because I'm supposed to be on a diet. But I've noticed that McDonald's and Taco Bell have already begun to replace their order takers with order your own kiosks. It's only a matter of time before the entire production is handled by machines. The big chains, maybe with the exception of Wendy's don't even "flip" burgers anymore. The employee takes a precooked patty and nukes it for a given time then assembles it.  I would point you back,(if your old enough) to full service gas stations. You'd drive up the attendant would come out, fill your tank, clean your windshield, and check your oil. The last time I saw that was in the late seventies.


----------



## SpaceBus

There are not enough opportunities for every person, especially during a depression. Covid 19 is also hardly a bump in the road.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Sounds easy but most of the residents here are retired on SS. So we would need a big jump in SS checks to cover the much higher school taxes and overall wage increases that would result. Double my SS check and im all in. As i said in my post COL increases over time make sense. If the no skilled and low skilled group are given 100% pay raise everyone else will follow suit with a laundry list of demands. Plus there is a glut of no skills high school dropouts to (hopefully) employ. The law of supply and demand does have some effect.


So your solution is just continue to do nothing adding to wage stagnation and the massive pay gap?  You do realize prices are going up anyway but only to increase profits for share holders and upper management don't you?  Why shouldn't the workers who actually make the money get some of those increased profits?


----------



## bholler

Sodbuster said:


> Festerw, I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this, and that's fine, but as employees start to demand more than their job is worth they will price themselves out of a job. I rarely go to fast food restaurants, because I'm supposed to be on a diet. But I've noticed that McDonald's and Taco Bell have already begun to replace their order takers with order your own kiosks. It's only a matter of time before the entire production is handled by machines. The big chains, maybe with the exception of Wendy's don't even "flip" burgers anymore. The employee takes a precooked patty and nukes it for a given time then assembles it.  I would point you back,(if your old enough) to full service gas stations. You'd drive up the attendant would come out, fill your tank, clean your windshield, and check your oil. The last time I saw that was in the late seventies.


So why is the job workers do worth so little while the CEOs and upper management continue to enjoy massive increases in profits?  It profits were not increasing the way most are I would agree with you.  But that isn't the case.


----------



## NickW

SpaceBus said:


> There are not enough opportunities for every person, especially during a depression. Covid 19 is also hardly a bump in the road.


There doesn't have to be multiple opportunities per person. There doesn't need to be one per person with the attitude of "the government should take care of me - I deserve it..." by able bodied folks.

I have to agree that the Covid-19 is more than a bump in the road, but I think the point is that economy wise it shouldn't be catastrophic other than the loss of wisdom and judgement from the group that is being hit hardest.

Now before I go further and get called names, let me explain that I LOVE seniors. Actually all people in general, not so much a few people in specific... I call bingo at the local retirement home (I know nobody there). I lead a group in fall to do yard work for those who can't. This next paragraph is PURELY ECONOMICS.

The hardest hit group fatality wise is the elderly. That group controls a significant amount of capital. That group also is extremely conservative regarding use of those funds (for good reason). Those funds will be distributed among a group that will use them (hopefully wisely) thereby stimulating the economy. Sectors that will be hit will be drug companies, retirement homes and healthcare providers. There was a shortage of providers before this started, and maybe it will drive costs down on retirement homes due to supply and demand. There will be financial repercussions, but they need not be catastrophic except by our own doing (panic). Also, as others have stated previously, the SS system will become solvent for a few years more (which FDR couldn't have foreseen the huge drop in birthrate or so many drawing from without contributing to).


----------



## Sodbuster

bholler said:


> So why is the job workers do worth so little while the CEOs and upper management continue to enjoy massive increases in profits?  It profits were not increasing the way most are I would agree with you.  But that isn't the case.



You are oversimplifying the case, major corporations do not employ the majority of people in this country, small business does. As the Owner/CEO you have to lay out your own money, or borrow against a secured asset, to start the business which is very risky, because many small businesses fail. With risk comes reward. BTW I am completely against any corporate bailout with this latest stimulus package, all the money should go to individuals, not corporations, large or small.  As to your first question, if the CEO is running the company and it is producing good profits, then the workers should share in the reward. Did you happen to notice GM's latest bonus to factory workers? Many CEO's are paid bonuses in the form of stock options, if you want to participate in the profits of any company, buy it's stock.


----------



## bholler

Sodbuster said:


> You are oversimplifying the case, major corporations do not employ the majority of people in this country, small business does. As the Owner/CEO you have to lay out your own money, or borrow against a secured asset, to start the business which is very risky, because many small businesses fail. With risk comes reward. BTW I am completely against any corporate bailout with this latest stimulus package, all the money should go to individuals, not corporations, large or small.  As to your first question, if the CEO is running the company and it is producing good profits, then the workers should share in the reward. Did you happen to notice GM's latest bonus to factory workers? Many CEO's are paid bonuses in the form of stock options, if you want to participate in the profits of any company, buy it's stock.


Do you really think I don't understand how small businesses work.  I currently own and fun one and before this started one built it up then sold it.  And to me my employees are my most important asset and they are treated as such.  

Why should an employee have to give money back to their employer in order to possibly benifit from profits?  Why not just pay them a fair wage?


----------



## Sodbuster

bholler said:


> Do you really think I don't understand how small businesses work.  I currently own and fun one and before this started one built it up then sold it.  And to me my employees are my most important asset and they are treated as such.
> 
> Why should an employee have to give money back to their employer in order to possibly benifit from profits?  Why not just pay them a fair wage?



So when you sold your business, is it safe to assume that the profit was divided equally between yourself and  your employees?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> So your solution is just continue to do nothing adding to wage stagnation and the massive pay gap?  You do realize prices are going up anyway but only to increase profits for share holders and upper management don't you?  Why shouldn't the workers who actually make the money get some of those increased profits?


No, my solution as i stated twice is COL raises slowly. My SS check comes to about $5 per hour for a 40 hour week before taxes. So after working for 50 Years do you think thats adequate? Try living on that for awhile. 50 to 60% of retirees are doing that, as they have ZERO retirement savings or a fancy 401K . The Avg SS check is $1200. I dont hear a huge outcry about that. Like many seniors Im still working ,living on heart pills and a leg brace,wore out from working 50 yrs.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> So why is the job workers do worth so little while the CEOs and upper management continue to enjoy massive increases in profits?  It profits were not increasing the way most are I would agree with you.  But that isn't the case.


This may be true of the few dozen very large companies but there are millions of small business that also live week to week. Those CEOs are NOT drawing $million salaries. Without much of a financial cushion.  Most cant simply raise prices to cover higher wages especially restaurants and other small business who operate on razor thin margins to begin with.  I regularly pay part time helpers more than i make myself an id venture im not the only one who does that. I have a friend with a restaurant who does the same,and.has to work a  second job to pay his own bills. Many farms in that position as well.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> No, my solution as i stated twice is COL raises slowly. My SS check comes to about $5 per hour for a 40 hour week before taxes. So after working for 50 Years do you think thats adequate? Try living on that for awhile. 50 to 60% of retirees are doing that, as they have ZERO retirement savings or a fancy 401K . The Avg SS check is $1200. I dont hear a huge outcry about that. Like many seniors Im still working ,living on heart pills and a leg brace,wore out from working 50 yrs.


COL increases are great but they weren't added for so long or were added but at much lower rates than inflation that wages are way to low.  The reason people have no retirement plan is partly due to lack of pay.  As well as lack of planning.  The healthcare problems are a completely different problem.  And those costs add to the lack of retirement plans.  As well as greatly increasing the need for higher pay.


----------



## bholler

Sodbuster said:


> So when you sold your business, is it safe to assume that the profit was divided equally between yourself and  your employees?


No my employees stayed with the business several are still there.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I think the major problem is most people dont realize just how many small business would "go under" overnight if small business were all forced to jump from the current min wage to $15 overnight, I would guess at least half of the,maybe more. Many farms as well. The big ones will get more robots and cut staffing. I already pay more than 15 but dont make that myself on average. If min were 15 id have to pay much more and thats just not possible.  Most will not operate on that formula.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> No my employees stayed with the business several are still there.


And i assume you had great retirement package setup for them. Healthcare and profit sharing as well.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> I think the major problem is most people dont realize just how many small business would "go under" overnight if small business were all forced to jump from the current min wage to $15 overnight, I would guess at least half of the,maybe more. Many farms as well. The big ones will get more robots and cut staffing. I already pay more than 15 but dont make that myself on average. If min were 15 id have to pay much more and thats just not possible.  Most will not operate on that formula.


Most people don't want that jump to happen overnight.  And the fact that wages are that low.  Or at least you believe they are is the problem.  In my mind if you can't afford to pay your people a decent wage you can't afford to be in business


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> And i assume you had great retirement package setup for them. Healthcare and profit sharing as well.


I offered 401ks and heath insurance to those who wanted it.  Some chose it others chose to take the money.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> .  In my mind if you can't afford to pay your people a decent wage you can't afford to be in business


Sure, i could fold up cuz the big money is not there for me.  Several more people would lose work ,houses would not get finished and sit empty ,more people would not have a decent affordable home to live in. Doesnt sound like a great solution to me.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Sure, i could fold up cuz the big money is not there for me.  Several more people would lose work ,houses would not get finished and sit empty ,more people would not have a decent affordable home to live in. Doesnt sound like a great solution to me.


But if people were paid more across the board you could charge what the work you are doing is actually worth.  And pay your employees what they are actually worth.  I loose jobs all the time because I am not willing to work for less than what I need to pay my self and my guys.  But I still have work.  For me it isn't worth working if I can't make enough money to pay myself and employees well.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> For me it isn't worth working if I can't make enough money to pay myself and employees well.


I have to work with what iv got. Sure i could make more if i want travel out of the area every day. Iv did that when i was young. People here need housing,same as anywhere else. There is a ceiling on what i can charge for rent or what i get when i sell a home. I have to make it work with those numbers.
I cant simply raise rents in the area or raise house prices myself, like the local commisioners do with taxes to cover their retirement plans.  Thankfully for you, you dont have too much competition,and can keep your prices high. For me the Govt is my competition.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> I have to work with what iv got. Sure i could make more if i want travel out of the area every day. Iv did that when i was young. People here need housing,same as anywhere else. There is a ceiling on what i can charge for rent or what i get when i sell a home. I have to make it work with those numbers.
> I cant simply raise rents in the area or raise house prices myself, like the local commisioners do with taxes to cover their retirement plans.  Thankfully for you, you dont have too much competition,and can keep your prices high. For me the Govt is my competition.


My prices aren't high they are fair.  We are not getting rich by any means.  Just paying everyone involved a fair wage.


----------



## bholler

And the reason you can't charge more is because wages in your area are way to low.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> My prices aren't high they are fair.  We are not getting rich by any means.  Just paying everyone involved a fair wage.


Im already paying more than twice the minimum ,out of my own share. If the minimum is raised to 15, that will not be enough.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> And the reason you can't charge more is because wages in your area are way to low.


Have you got a solution for that? I dont think forcing a mandated wage will do the trick. All the businees here are small business. Except for wal mart of course.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im already paying more than twice the minimum ,out of my own share. If the minimum is raised to 15, that will not be enough.


And I don't think 14.50 is anywhere near enough for skilled labor.  I mean 10 years ago I was paying the kid that swept up the shop $12.  And that was far from skilled labor.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

For the most part your wage for any particular skill all depends on how far your willing to drive. No skilled, can make 30hr plus in mid town manhatten.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> For the most part your wage for any particular skill all depends on how far your willing to drive. No skilled, can make 30hr plus in mid town manhatten.


Well yes obviously you will be able to make more in certain areas.  But that doesn't mean wages as a whole in the country are not to low.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> And I don't think 14.50 is anywhere near enough for skilled labor.  I mean 10 years ago I was paying the kid that swept up the shop $12.  And that was far from skilled labor.


Your absolutely right. Ill fold up tomorrow. I might also be able to convince my friend to sell his restaurant, since hes not making big city wages ,who needs all those extra headaches anyway. Screw the town ,let it die.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Your absolutely right. Ill fold up tomorrow. I might also be able to convince my friend to sell his restaurant, since hes not making big city wages ,who needs all those extra headaches anyway.


These are not big city wages.  I am not very far from you at all (about 35 miles).  And far from a big city.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

We will have to agree to dis-agree. The govt mandating 15min wage is not a cure all, will more likely put more people out of business than it helps. Of course in some areas it s fine. They are already at that level.   Its not a one size fits all country.IMHO.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> We will have to agree to dis-agree. The govt mandating 15min wage is not a cure all, will more likely put more people out of business than it helps. Of course in some areas it s fine. Its not a one size fits all country.IMHO.


I completely agree it should not be one size fits all.  And  at this point $15 is probably to high for many areas.  And it is absolutely to much of a jump at once.  But the current minimum is absurdly low for any area.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Traveling is not always a cure all either. One on my tenants/buyers got a a job in Philly and decided to give up his house he had almost paid off. I tried to talk him out of it but he insisted that was that best choice since he could make so much more money in Philly than he could here. Long story short he got that great job in philly ,making the big bucks and found that once he paid all his living expenses to live in philly he was broke every week. So eventually he moved back here, kept the good job and now travels back and forth ,a horrendous commute.


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> Traveling is not always a cure all either. One on my tenants/buyers got a a job in Philly and decided to give up his house he had almost paid off. I tried to talk him out of it but he insisted that was that best choice since he could make so much more money in Philly than he could here. Long story short he got that great job in philly ,making the big bucks and found that once he paid all his living expenses to live in philly he was broke every week. So eventually he moved back here, kept the good job and now travels back and forth ,a horrendous commute.


Yet another example of wages being to low across the board.  I moved out of Philly and back to this area years ago because of the cost of living.


----------



## Grizzerbear

bholler said:


> But if people were paid more across the board you could charge what the work you are doing is actually worth.


I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone....their are a lot of valid points made but their are also a lot more forces at play for why people can't live on the current low wages that folks make. Healthcare costs being the chief problem imo. If we raised wages and then the cost of work and services raised we would be right back at square one I believe.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> I completely agree it should not be one size fits all.  And  at this point $15 is probably to high for many areas.  And it is absolutely to much of a jump at once.  But the current minimum is absurdly low for any area.


I agree in part . But in practice, iv found that employees are all different as well and some cant not even justify their wage at the current min wage,they get so little work done. To remedy that  i convert them to  piece work or contract work.  Iv seen some of them make half or less the min wage when working this way, while the next guy can double or triple his wage doing the same work.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

bholler said:


> Yet another example of wages being to low across the board.  I moved out of Philly and back to this area years ago because of the cost of living.


Thats kinda my point ,if we were to raise wages to philly level ,all our living expenses would also go to philly level and would we be any better off? Or would we be looking for the exits?


----------



## bholler

Seasoned Oak said:


> I agree in part . But in practice, iv found that employees are all different as well and some cant not even justify their wage at the current min wage,they get so little work done. To remedy that  i convert them to  piece work or contract work.  Iv seen some of them make half or less the min wage when working this way, while the next guy can double or triple his wage doing the same work.


Absolutely I have had plenty of people work for me who weren't worth what I offered them.  I didn't lower their pay to what they were worth I fired them.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

The cost of living here needs to remain low since weve got half the town living on those $1200 a month SS checks.  If it goes up too much too fast weve got another problem.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

So latest news is the Fed Govt is adding $600 a week to unemployment checks. UE check now about $600 week or less for lower income workers.  Well that will make people stay home for sure even if their job is calling them back. Thats about = to a $25Hr boost in pay. For min wage folks tha would be about  $35 hr  to stay home . For higher wage about $50hr to stay home. Unemployment cks paying about= to earn a take home pay of $1200 week. Would make more sense to extend regular unemployment for more weeks.








						'A massive drafting error': GOP senators warn coronavirus relief bill could incentivize mass layoffs
					

Three Republican senators said the new coronavirus relief bill could lead to employers putting many out of work.




					www.washingtonexaminer.com


----------



## Sodbuster

Seasoned Oak said:


> So latest news is the Fed Govt is adding $600 a week to unemployment checks. UE check now about $600 week or less for lower income workers.  Well that will make people stay home for sure even if their job is calling them back. Thats about = to a $25Hr boost in pay. For min wage folks tha would be about  $35 hr  to stay home . For higher wage about $50hr to stay home. Unemployment cks paying about= to earn a take home pay of $1200 week. Would make more sense to extend regular unemployment for more weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'A massive drafting error': GOP senators warn coronavirus relief bill could incentivize mass layoffs
> 
> 
> Three Republican senators said the new coronavirus relief bill could lead to employers putting many out of work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com



That is good news, because around here, you can't tell there is a stay at home order, even though we have one. Any details on the cutoff point?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Sodbuster said:


> That is good news, because around here, you can't tell there is a stay at home order, even though we have one. Any details on the cutoff point?


Senate now backtracking on this. Makes no sense to pay people twice as much to stay home as to work.  Looks like they didnt think this through.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> Senate now backtracking on this. Makes no sense to pay people twice as much to stay home as to work.  Looks like they didnt think this through.


I think at the moment the whole point is to pay folks to stay home and prevent the spread.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

SpaceBus said:


> I think at the moment the whole point is to pay folks to stay home and prevent the spread.


Well that will certainly do it.  Lots of people we dont want staying home like medical personnel.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> Well that will certainly do it.  Lots of people we dont want staying home like medical personnel.


Currently hospitals are offering $100+/hr for nurses, at least those who aren't afraid of getting a life threatening virus.


----------



## CaptSpiff

SpaceBus said:


> Currently hospitals are offering $100+/hr for nurses, at least those who aren't afraid of getting a life threatening virus.


There are 2080 hours in the typical work year (inc holidays & vac). There are few nurses earning $100/hr, or $208,000 per year. They can earn that total in a year with OT pay, and a few I know do. I don't see them much. They work their asses off picking up extra night and weekend shifts.


----------



## SpaceBus

CaptSpiff said:


> There are 2080 hours in the typical work year (inc holidays & vac). There are few nurses earning $100/hr, or $208,000 per year. They can earn that total in a year with OT pay, and a few I know do. I don't see them much. They work their asses off picking up extra night and weekend shifts.


I meant currently as in this current pandemic, hospitals dealing with coronavirus are willing to pay just about anything right now. They aren't paying nurses $100/hr to work at a clinic.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> We will have to agree to dis-agree. The govt mandating 15min wage is not a cure all, will more likely put more people out of business than it helps. Of course in some areas it s fine. They are already at that level.   Its not a one size fits all country.IMHO.


That was the worry and threat when Seattle decided to raise the minimum wage to $15 a few years back. None of it came true. Actually, the restaurant industry grew, until recent events.


----------



## vinny11950

Let me just say that unregulated capitalism and stock markets have been once again rescued by the Federal Government....  For about $8 trillion dollars so far. By a Republican administration none the less.  And the Federal Budget deficit this year is going to be between $3 and $4 trillion. I don't ever want to hear how we can't afford to spend money of green energy initiatives, education, infrastructure, or healthcare.


----------



## kennyp2339

begreen said:


> That was the worry and threat when Seattle decided to raise the minimum wage to $15 a few years back. None of it came true. Actually, the restaurant industry grew, until recent events.


Funny that you said that, I recently (month ago) watched a documentary on Seattle's minimum wage increase, I walked away feeling more negative about it then anything. 
The restaurant industry is actually hurting, along with the low wage earners (even at $15.00) people are worse off. The issue was the average consumer isn't going to pay $23.00 for a side salad, because of the populated growth in Seattle (amazon) rents for apartments, and commercial shot up, restaurants profit margins went down, then the wage increase created a microcosm of sorts, long time dependable workers even at $15 an hour could not afford to live within viable commuting distance, public transportation went up or just isn't available to where they moved to, there hours were cut due to wage increase, so they left, the ones that were able to figure out something and stay are now under employed due to the same issues stated above with rents, hours cut, then there's the younger worker which makes a small egg from the higher wage, has no rent to cover (student, still lives at home, lives with multiple roommates..ect…) wont cover any shifts if someone else calls out, so the full circle is the restaurant suffers some more.


----------



## vinny11950

kennyp2339 said:


> Funny that you said that, I recently (month ago) watched a documentary on Seattle's minimum wage increase, I walked away feeling more negative about it then anything.
> The restaurant industry is actually hurting, along with the low wage earners (even at $15.00) people are worse off. The issue was the average consumer isn't going to pay $23.00 for a side salad, because of the populated growth in Seattle (amazon) rents for apartments, and commercial shot up, restaurants profit margins went down, then the wage increase created a microcosm of sorts, long time dependable workers even at $15 an hour could not afford to live within viable commuting distance, public transportation went up or just isn't available to where they moved to, there hours were cut due to wage increase, so they left, the ones that were able to figure out something and stay are now under employed due to the same issues stated above with rents, hours cut, then there's the younger worker which makes a small egg from the higher wage, has no rent to cover (student, still lives at home, lives with multiple roommates..ect…) wont cover any shifts if someone else calls out, so the full circle is the restaurant suffers some more.











						CORRECTION: This is What Minimum Wage Would Be If It Kept Pace with Productivity - Center for Economic and Policy Research
					

Until 1968, the minimum wage not only kept pace with inflation, it rose in step with productivity growth. The logic is straightforward; we expect that wages in general will rise in step with productivity growth. For workers at the bottom to share in the overall improvement in society’s living...




					cepr.net
				




_While the national minimum wage did rise roughly in step with productivity growth from its inception in 1938 until 1968, in the more than five decades since then, it has not even kept pace with inflation. However, if the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968 it would be over $24 an hour today, as shown in the Figure below.

It is worth considering what the world would look like if this were the case. A minimum wage of $24 an hour would mean that a full-time full year minimum wage worker would be earning $48,000 a year. A two minimum wage earning couple would have a family income of $96,000 a year, enough to put them in the top quintile of the current income distribution. 

It is worth noting the standard counter to the argument that the minimum wage should keep pace with productivity growth. It would be claimed that the productivity of minimum wage workers has not kept pace with average productivity growth, so that it would not be feasible for minimum wage workers to earn pay that rises in step with average productivity growth.

There is some truth to this claim, but only at a superficial level. *The productivity of any individual worker is determined not just by their skills and technology, but also by the institutional structure we put in place. *In a world without patent and copyright monopolies, the skills of bio-technicians and software designers would likely be much less valuable than they are today.

Similarly, the skills of experts in stock trading and designing complex financial instruments would have much less value if we had a financial transactions tax in place and allowed large banks to fail when their mistakes made them insolvent. And, the skills of doctors and other highly paid professionals would have much less value if our trade policy was as committed to subjecting them to international competition, as has been the case with auto and textile workers.

Lower pay for those at the top increases the real pay for those at the bottom and middle. A $15 an hour wage goes much further when all drugs are selling as low costs generics, the financial sector is not sucking 2 percent of GDP ($230 billion a year) out of the economy, and doctors get paid the same as their West European counterparts. _


----------



## NickW

vinny11950 said:


> Let me just say that unregulated capitalism and stock markets have been once again rescued by the Federal Government....  For about $8 trillion dollars so far. By a Republican administration none the less.  And the Federal Budget deficit this year is going to be between $3 and $4 trillion. I don't ever want to hear how we can't afford to spend money of green energy initiatives, education, infrastructure, or healthcare.


#1. Our system of capitalism is regulated - one side says not enough, the other says too much...

#2. Political party doesn't matter, the "rescue" would have been necessary regardless. The federal government is the only entity able to do this. Should the collapse have been allowed to happen?

#3. There is only so much $ to go around. All of these things are funded - again, one side says not enough, the other says too much. 

In this great experiment of being human, there are many theories as to the "right" way. Utopia is not realistically attainable. No matter the system, there will always be those who take advantage. It is what it means to be human. Have you read Orville? That is why socialism is difficult- "some are more equal than others". 

I have stated before and continue to believe our current system is correct, but flawed. Too many loopholes, backdoors and special interest influences; but it allows those with the wherewithal, ambition and initiative to thrive. Some definitely have a harder path due to where they start from, but just about anyone can make something of themselves if they are willing to work for it and apply themselves. Too many are not willing to do this.


----------



## begreen

kennyp2339 said:


> Funny that you said that, I recently (month ago) watched a documentary on Seattle's minimum wage increase, I walked away feeling more negative about it then anything.
> The restaurant industry is actually hurting, along with the low wage earners (even at $15.00) people are worse off. The issue was the average consumer isn't going to pay $23.00 for a side salad, because of the populated growth in Seattle (amazon) rents for apartments, and commercial shot up, restaurants profit margins went down, then the wage increase created a microcosm of sorts, long time dependable workers even at $15 an hour could not afford to live within viable commuting distance, public transportation went up or just isn't available to where they moved to, there hours were cut due to wage increase, so they left, the ones that were able to figure out something and stay are now under employed due to the same issues stated above with rents, hours cut, then there's the younger worker which makes a small egg from the higher wage, has no rent to cover (student, still lives at home, lives with multiple roommates..ect…) wont cover any shifts if someone else calls out, so the full circle is the restaurant suffers some more.


High tech growth and the Amazon/Google takeover of S. Lake Union is a separate phenomenon that happened in parallel. I can assure you that the average restaurant price for a salad is not $23, more like $7-9 depending on size. I have never paid even half that amount and then the salad was huge and we split it.


----------



## begreen

Meanwhile













						New York Fed pledges to offer $1 trillion a day in overnight repo loans
					

The New York Federal Reserve said it will make up to $1 trillion a day available for loans in the repo market for the remainder of this week.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## SpaceBus

begreen said:


> Meanwhile
> 
> View attachment 259184
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New York Fed pledges to offer $1 trillion a day in overnight repo loans
> 
> 
> The New York Federal Reserve said it will make up to $1 trillion a day available for loans in the repo market for the remainder of this week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com


After not watching news all day we were wondering why the market was up. I've been saying for years that the federal government can absolutely do a tricare style health insurance system for the whole country


----------



## NickW

The Medicare would have simply been money spent. The trillion a day is loans...


----------



## begreen

NickW said:


> The Medicare would have simply been money spent. The trillion a day is loans...


Point taken. It's still wealth taking care of its own. And not accounting for the health savings to the nation, not to mention the working class.


----------



## NickW

The delicate balance that everything hinges on can be fragile. If the bailout doesn't happen, not only do these companies fail but also all of our 401k's and other investments along with them. Other businesses that supply those company's fold, the economy collapses, the government can't support all of us... The bailout will help everyone who has a portfolio as was pointed out by someone else (I believe before this thread was moved).

Social Security is already in trouble, Medicare is money going out but not back in from it's users and there are fewer people paying taxes as the birthrate continues downward (except those already living off the government, they keep adding to the number living off the government...comfortably). It's all a big sh*to show. Too many trying to live off of too little, too many placing "wants" in the "need" category. Medicare & S.S. supporting people who never put a dime in. Let those programs support the retirees who busted their butts their whole lives, not expand it to support the leeches.


----------



## SpaceBus

NickW said:


> The Medicare would have simply been money spent. The trillion a day is loans...


Do you think they will pay it back?


----------



## begreen

That's pretty off base. Social Security is not in trouble except from politicians that refuse to simply raise the income cutoff from $128K to $200K. And no, you don't get any Social Security if you paid nothing into the system. 









						Those Who Didn't Pay Taxes In Their Day Will Now Have To Pay For Medicare
					

Back in the early days of my career, a friend, in his early 30s, had a government job. Tom heckled me a bit because he was not paying Social Security taxes and, on top of that, he had a great retirement package, the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).




					www.forbes.com
				




Unless you are disabled you don't qualify for Medicare unless:

You are receiving retirement benefits from Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board.
You are eligible to receive Social Security or Railroad benefits but you have not yet filed for them.
You or your spouse had Medicare-covered government employment.
and that is just for Medicare part A. I still pay for the other parts.


----------



## NickW

THAT is the trillion dollar question (whether it gets paid back...)! It sure the heck should!


----------



## begreen

NickW said:


> THAT is the trillion dollar question (whether it gets paid back...)! It sure the heck should!


Trillion a day question. The debt is now at $24 Trillion and counting. 


			https://www.usdebtclock.org/


----------



## NickW

begreen said:


> That's pretty off base. Social Security is not in trouble except from politicians that refuse to simply raise the income cutoff from $128K to $200K. And no, you don't get any Social Security if you paid nothing into the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those Who Didn't Pay Taxes In Their Day Will Now Have To Pay For Medicare
> 
> 
> Back in the early days of my career, a friend, in his early 30s, had a government job. Tom heckled me a bit because he was not paying Social Security taxes and, on top of that, he had a great retirement package, the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are disabled you don't qualify for Medicare unless:
> 
> You are receiving retirement benefits from Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board.
> You are eligible to receive Social Security or Railroad benefits but you have not yet filed for them.
> You or your spouse had Medicare-covered government employment.
> and that is just for Medicare part A. I still pay for the other parts.


Apologies, Medicare comment withdrawen. Sentiment remains the same. Money making life comfortable  for leech's could go to Medicare then...

I don't expect Social Security to be there when I become eligible...


----------



## Highbeam

I do expect social security to be there when I’m eligible, but I’m not depending on it. The payout may be reduced but it will be there. Look at how easily trillions of dollars have been cut loose to help the temporarily unemployed pay their cell phone bills during this temporary bad time. Don’t you think that the same will happen to keep granny from starving in good times?


----------



## NickW

I hope there will still be something there, but I certainly don't expect it. Unfortunately, many from my generation and the next one are not saving enough on their own and will be relying on S.S., which is not a good plan...


----------



## Seasoned Oak

NickW said:


> I hope there will still be something there, but I certainly don't expect it. Unfortunately, many from my generation and the next one are not saving enough on their own and will be relying on S.S., which is not a good plan...


 Of the 6 in 10 (60%) who do not have any plan or savings beyond SS the majority of  those also claimed they are not worried about it. Since in most parts of the country its very hard to live on $1300 a month (Avg amount of SS checks.) And many get quite a bit less. Id be interested in knowing why that is.  This is a very large group of people.


----------



## NickW

Well obviously, the government will/should take care of them!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

NickW said:


> Well obviously, the government will/should take care of them!


With an avg of 10000  people turning 65 every day, possibly 6000 of those with NO plan and NO money.


----------



## Highbeam

Seasoned Oak said:


> Of the 6 in 10 (60%) who do not have any plan or savings beyond SS the majority of  those also claimed they are not worried about it. Since in most parts of the country its very hard to live on $1300 a month (Avg amount of SS checks.) And many get quite a bit less. Id be interested in knowing why that is.  This is a very large group of people.



Sounds like semantics. Since I’m not relying on social security I’m not worried about it.


----------



## peakbagger

There is long term conservative strategy called "starve the beast", it was formulated back in the late sixties as method of rolling back the great society expansion (Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education ACT  ). The problem is that once major expansion of social benefits are passed in congress it almost impossible to get rid of them. The concept of "starve the beast" is pretty simple, bankrupt the government so that current programs are so severely compromised that future entitlements are cut back to support current programs. The Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts all put the government in deepening deficits. Pre CV-19 various conservatives and even Trump claimed that job 1 after reelection was to cut future entitlements. It comes down to either the US scales way back on the military budget and stops being the police for the world, entitlements get cut or the tax system is scrapped and more equitable means of taxing both the rich, poor and corporations and raise revenue.


----------



## Sodbuster

peakbagger said:


> There is long term conservative strategy called "starve the beast", it was formulated back in the late sixties as method of rolling back the great society expansion (Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education ACT  ). The problem is that once major expansion of social benefits are passed in congress it almost impossible to get rid of them. The concept of "starve the beast" is pretty simple, bankrupt the government so that current programs are so severely compromised that future entitlements are cut back to support current programs. The Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts all put the government in deepening deficits. Pre CV-19 various conservatives and even Trump claimed that job 1 after reelection was to cut future entitlements. It comes down to either the US scales way back on the military budget and stops being the police for the world, entitlements get cut or the tax system is scrapped and more equitable means of taxing both the rich, poor and corporations and raise revenue.



Part of the problem lies in the fact that entitlements keep increasing like you said, but the number of workers to support those entitlements as a ratio is getting smaller.  Not to mention, we just spent more on a stimulus package than we do for three years of the military budget.  I agree we need to bring our boys and girls home, but every time we leave an area a power vacuum is created. It's not a simple problem with a simple answer.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> Of the 6 in 10 (60%) who do not have any plan or savings beyond SS the majority of  those also claimed they are not worried about it. Since in most parts of the country its very hard to live on $1300 a month (Avg amount of SS checks.) And many get quite a bit less. Id be interested in knowing why that is.  This is a very large group of people.





Highbeam said:


> Sounds like semantics. Since I’m not relying on social security I’m not worried about it.


Well done I hope, but this is not about you. It's about a sizeable portion of the population that has not been as fortunate.


----------



## kennyp2339

We can argue all day long about SS and 401k's both in my opinion were invented as supplemental for an older person. 
The big elephant in the room, one of which burns me up to no end is the drift away from true pensions from large corporations, states, counties, and public service employers. 
For the large corporations, they have successfully lobbied, and changed the common workers culture to accepted long hours, mediocre benefits and smaller workforces; they offer a 401k plan as the only planning substance which burns me up to no end, the fact that someone is hired to a company and offered a 401k as the only retirement benefit with a 1:1 match capped normally at the first 6% is absolute bull crap imo. 
Essentially these large corporations that would normally offer a traditional pension system (not enough to live off by itself, but when combined with SS, a persons life savings, and possibly a persons 401k that person and there next of kin could live a wonderful golden years life) 
Instead these large corporations have taken a savings plan that was designed as supplemental (401k) and some how fenagled it to make it seem like this is a persons only retirement solution, basically they sent a person that has skill set to make there company profitable and also turned a blind eye and just hope that same person has finical training to manage there own affairs. 
3 months ago I had this argument with my boss, my boss's stance was that he's good to go and many workers want to have control over there retirement planning / money, that big corporations have lifted the net to allow there workforce expand outward and away from a lower paying traditional pension plans. 
Well rather then have a hypothetical argument, (I like using real examples) for the second time in my career, I am witnessing people that saved money through a 401k, have there rug ripped out from beneath them, men and women that had plans to retire in the next 2 years, are now saddled with stretching there careers an additional 2 years to recover the losses of 2 months. How is this right? 
What this does is clog the pipeline of workers and causes stagnation in jobs, how can a company reasonably let a guy that works on power lines, that has so many other things going on through there heads like safety, fatigue and little family life expect them to make finically sound moves within the stock market which ultimately impacts there long term lives? 
The fix here is to bring back pension benefits, let the company pay for 1 fund, have them invest into that fund and manage it, offer the finical stability to the worker, this will attract good workers and retain them, offer a 401k as supplemental, this allows the common person to have a nest egg to enhance there retirement, not be dependent on it for there retirement. BTW the same boss that was "good to go" is now one of the people that is looking to extend there career another 4 years.


----------



## SpaceBus

Sodbuster said:


> Part of the problem lies in the fact that entitlements keep increasing like you said, but the number of workers to support those entitlements as a ratio is getting smaller.  Not to mention, we just spent more on a stimulus package than we do for three years of the military budget.  I agree we need to bring our boys and girls home, but every time we leave an area a power vacuum is created. It's not a simple problem with a simple answer.


The power vacuum was already created when our military stepped in. There are loads and loads of "fat" that can be trimmed from the military budget without reducing readiness. Getting the military industrial complex out of the government pockets is a good first step.


----------



## peakbagger

kennyp2339 said:


> We can argue all day long about SS and 401k's both in my opinion were invented as supplemental for an older person.
> The big elephant in the room, one of which burns me up to no end is the drift away from true pensions from large corporations, states, counties, and public service employers.
> ........ (truncated)



IMHO I disagree with you on pensions. Its easy to blame the demise of pensions on evil corporations and governments but the prior system was unsustainable. Up until 1974 when ERISA was passed there was very little legal protection for pensions. Companies did not have to prefund the plans, they paid the annual benefits from profits. Companies were in the post WW2 boom and there was minimal major foreign competition. Large companies were growing and their workforces were young so the ratio of retirees to workers was low. The large companies wanted to encourage loyalty so they took care of retirees and maybe even threw the retirees a cost of living allowance on occasion.  Unionized companies handed the checks to the unions to administer their own plans.

Folks didn’t live s long back then. I am 60 the youngest son of an older father who was the youngest in his family so most of my uncles and aunts were older working folks. Many smoked, with unhealthy diets  and were blue collar so they didn’t exercise and the links between smoking and eating wrong didn’t come into acceptance well until the mid seventies. That meant that most of the aunts and uncles and my parents contemporaries would retire at 62 or on occasion 65 and rarely did they make it to seventy healthy either being in the ground or in some sort of long term care. Usually they had a couple of good years and then health issues waylaid them. Therefore they might work for the same company for 40 years contributing to profits and then the company had to pay out for less than five years.

My mother was somewhat ahead of the curve on health and my dad’s doctor got on his case about getting healthy in his mid 50s, my mom made sure he listened and he went from being sedentary bookkeeper to walking to and back from work 2 miles each way as long as it was over 40 degrees out and the sidewalks were clear. He also quit smoking the cigars he did on occasion. He had a mild heart attack in his 60s and a bypass in his eighties and passed at 97 running out of steam but still pretty active. Therefore his final company he worked for and the federal government had to pay for 30 plus years of retirement for 20 years of working. He was 20 year air force reservist and as he said many a time, best part time job he ever had. Many folks these days are routinely making it to their mid eighties and even my financial planning is based on 100.

In the late seventies and mid eighties came the growth of foreign competition. Automotive, steel and paper companies from the 3rd world countries had young healthy workers that they could replace at any time and there was no such thing as pensions. If the parents made it to the point they could not work, the family was expected to take care of them until they died.  This by the way was the system in the US prior to Roosevelt’s New Deal when social security was put in place to get older worker out of the working population. The result of this major foreign competition is the big companies started to shrink while their pension costs increased. Since they were financing payments off of cash flow it started to impact the bottom line. ERISA was not passed out of nothing, it passed because big pension plans were starting to go bust. Up until ERISA unless someone was working for a unionized company the pension agreement was between the company and the employee If the company was having a tough time they could unilaterally change the plan. Even after ERISA was passed, the companies were given many years to build up actual reserves to cover pensions and in many cases they filled with company stock. If the company went bust the people on pension were not at the top of the line. Canada had this system until recently. One of my employers had operations in the US and Canada, the company went bankrupt. The US workers had their 401k contributions plus vested company match while the Canadians got pennies on a dollar when their corporate parent got paid their senior debt notes as they had priority.

The US unionized plans did not work out so well as many of the union pension plans were under the control of elected officers that didn’t have a lot of oversight, some traded their members future for short term gains in their pockets by hooking up with organized crime to pillage the plans. Across the board, these union plan are suffering from more workers taking out then putting in and inadequate reserves to cover them. They are begging for government help and making benefit cuts. Realistically the only real pensions left tend to be defense companies that can charge pension cost to the government and government entities who also ultimately have access to tax dollars, most corporations firms have frozen their plans.  

On top of that ,only folks who worked for big businesses or government got pensions, most employees of small firms did not get them. They worked their entire career until they could not work any longer and lived off SS. Another big failing with pensions is they were not portable. Most plans were back loaded so the most benefits were obtained in the last few years of working. If a person was laid off or discharged in their later years they missed out on a lot, in many cases they did not get anything as they didn’t meet vesting. The whole deck was stacked to force loyalty to the company as long as they needed someone. I know my dad was threatened that way by mid level managers at one point and knew many other who were also. That was a standard fear of anyone working for company with a pension plan, that they would get fired or laid off before they had a good enough pension plan to retire and had no way to making it up.  Governments generally could not pay private wages so the way of hiring and keeping workers was to give them short retirement (frequently 20 years of service) and generous pension benefits that would not have to be paid until long until the future. Those public plans are now coming to roost and most states and the fed are woefully underfunded, as bad or worse than SS. No matter what the plan, it comes down to demographics, fewer people paying into the system and more taking out of it based on unsustainable promises made years ago by people who knew it but figured they would be long gone before the promises came due.

After the impact to the big companies from foreign competition when they started shrinking, the next part of US growth was the high tech and services industry and most high tech folks were young and highly mobile. I know many tech folks who routinely switched jobs every 2 or 2 years for 20 or 30 years. Far more than half of the companies only lasted over 5 years. They were well paid but a pension did not make sense so 401s were developed as means of giving them control of a portable pension plan that they controlled. Some controlled them well and some used them as a private piggybank to fund a lifestyle they could not afford.

 My first real job with a big company had a frozen pension plan so I only could put money in 401k plan and they did a match. I was there for about a year and when I left my 401 transferred to an IRA. I put it in a very conservative mixed mutual fund and left it ever since. That 1 year of contributions is worth $560 a month until I pass at my full retirement age based on buying a deferred annuity today.  I then worked for a big company that had a “good” pension plan. Both they and I paid into the plan once I vested for 2 years. The big company got in financial trouble as they were a growth company that stopped growing due to foreign competition. Our division was sold off and the company who bought it didn’t have a pension plan so they dumped the underfunded plan on the PBGC. I had about 5 years in that plan. I got a check for my contributions which I invested while the company share for 5 years means I get $300 a month for the rest of my life at full retirement age. I have subsequently worked for three companies with 401K plans and could be retired now as I converted them to IRAs and kept them invested. Of course my lifestyle is intentionally below what I earn, I am a long term conservative investor and as I have gotten older I have gotten more conservative. I keep a reserve fund and ultraconservative funds to cover my living expenses for the duration of a cyclical market so I don’t need to raid the investments. Folks do not seem to understand that they only lose money when they have to sell, otherwise it is better to buy low and sell high then the reverse.

So from my point of view pensions were doomed and 401ks were a sustainable change for world that is changing, not perfect but better than the alternative. In my circle of friends I know very few folks (one worked for a defense contractor) who would have made out any better with pensions, most would not have qualified for them as they didn’t have a choice to move around as the companies they worked for failed.  They most likely would be worse off Folks used to talk about the gold watch given on retirement but very few folks I run into would ever have qualified for one based on longevity with the same company. My dad had a college paper he wrote on the unsustainability of SS back in the 1950s and his advice to me when I went to work was plan as though it is not there when I retire and be happy if it of some semblance of it is. The only way out of this is to change the demographics, if you listen to Bill O’Reilly and other conservative commentators we should contaminate blankets with CV-19 and give it to the old folks to get the sick folks out of the nursing homes like the hyped smallpox in blankets to the Indians. Unfortunately we would need to get to the definition of Decimate (1 in 10 killed) to even make a dent in the demographics. I am already penalized for demographics, my full retirement age is 67 and 10 months. Unfortunately when the change was made they capped it at 1960, had they kept it going it would have taken some pressure off of SS and add in substantially raising the contribution cap will make it sustainable for many more years. SS was never supposed to be comfortable retirement if was the equivalent of welfare with the family and savings kicking in.


----------



## vinny11950

These are the rules of the game.  Capitalism has winners and losers.  Over time it evens out.  Except when the investors are bailed out by the government.  Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.  If you are of the mind to avoid the upheaval of the market, and you want the government to normalize business so the economy doesn't go to hell, then hand out money but get equity or collateral from the businesses that are being bailed out.  Then put that equity in a national fund that pays out that equity, over time, to the public.  This $500 BN slush fund for the treasury has very few rules and oversight.  It is hard to believe this will not go to politically connected people with influence.

This also inflates prices on assets like housing and stocks, making them more unaffordable to the low and middle classes.

It is going to be obscene to have an unemployment rate of 15%-25% and have the stock markets soaring to all time highs courtesy of the Federal Reserve pumping trillions into the banks, backstopping all the risks from them.


----------



## kennyp2339

@peakbagger - Wow, much respect for you. Thanks for taking the time and enlightening me.


----------



## Sodbuster

Take a hard look at the death of the pension, and the beginning of the 401K, and the explosion of people living off credit to keep up with the Jones; doesn't matter what the cost is, what's my monthly payment.  Live within your means, and that may mean well below your neighbors. Pensions have run their course and are dead or underfunded, deal with it Kenny.


----------



## peakbagger

If anyone has not heard of the book "The Millionaire Next Door" I can highly recommend it. It really reinforces how some people get in trouble keeping up appearances or being sold a lifestyle while the guy a few blocks over driving a used car in a modest house may have far more assets. Its a bit dated but the stories and principles are still right on.


----------



## SpaceBus

With all of this taxpayer money bailing out these industries you would think our tax refund would include some of these profits. I have no issue with socialized business if the taxpayers are seeing the benefits. Unfortunately Vinny is right and we won't ever see any benit ourselves for bailing these jerks out without our permission.


----------



## kennyp2339

Sodbuster said:


> deal with it Kenny.


Different perspectives, but I better be careful, you might be my boss.


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> With all of this taxpayer money bailing out these industries you would think our tax refund would include some of these profits. I have no issue with socialized business if the taxpayers are seeing the benefits. Unfortunately Vinny is right and we won't ever see any benit ourselves for bailing these jerks out without our permission.


There are benifits for many of us.  But if they continue to be able to operate with little to no risk it will lead to more and more risk taking.  And more bailouts.


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> There are benifits for many of us.  But if they continue to be able to operate with little to no risk it will lead to more and more risk taking.  And more bailouts.


There are some benefits in the way of jobs and consumer goods, but is that really a benefit?


----------



## NickW

If you are unemployed you MIGHT see the availability of a job as a benefit...  If you are employed you will probably just complain about it. It's the American way, as is the expectation of a vast array of consumer goods...

We all have the right to complain, and most of us take full advantage of it - including me.

Happy Easter!


----------



## begreen

Is anyone posting here a bonified economist? I would like a truthful, educated explanation of where the trillions being showered of Wall Street and industry are coming from. 3 months ago it was all about cuts and not enough money for the budget. Now it's like Uncle Sugar at Christmastime. 
This is the best article I have been able to find and it is not comforting. If this is true it looks like if the coronavirus doesn't wipe out seniors, the govt. will. 








						Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?
					

The majority of the U.S. national debt is owned by Social Security, the Federal Reserve, and foreign investors. Learn how that impacts the rest of the nation.




					www.thebalance.com


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Its a wonder anyone is still buying this debt.   Spending money we dont have is one area that is truly bi- partisan.  Both parties seem to be in a competition of who can spend the  most as each administration seems to outdo the one before it. Only way out of this is to inflate their way out which seems to be the long term plan. IMO. More than wiping out seniors we could be wiping out our grandchildrens future or at least making it very hard for them to succeed.


----------



## Sodbuster

Begreen, I am not an economist, but I can tell you where the trillions come from. My wife and I were watching 60 minutes the other night, and they interviewed one of the members of the Federal Reserve Board. He said that they were given the authority to print as much money as was needed to make it through this crisis. This is called Fiat money, and it's only worth is that the United States says it is worth that much, and the world uses the US dollar as a standard of which to base other currencies on.  Almost all other currencies are also Fiat currencies such as the Euro; the US went off the gold standard, I believe in the 30's.  At some point this house of cards will come crashing down, and I hope that it is not in my or yours lifetime, because it won't be pretty. Then there is the subject of derivatives which goes way over my head, but the value of the derivatives is over 100 Trillion dollars.


----------



## begreen

It's still debt and someone is the bank, right?


----------



## Highbeam

Inflate the debt away. If inflation lowers the value of money just right then the debt will be reduced while everything else goes up. Incomes, gdp, real estate prices, etc. 

Obviously not an economist but I know what my father paid for his house 45 years ago and what his income was. His 1100$ mustang  note would be pretty easy to pay off today. 

Sorry for rambling. I have no idea if this debt will ever be a problem.


----------



## vinny11950

begreen said:


> It's still debt and someone is the bank, right?



It's mostly digital money.  It is hard to believe, but it is digital numbers on a ledger.  Basically, the financial institutions come to the Fed for money.  They give the Fed their stressed Loans/Debt, and the Fed transfers the amount to their accounts.  A digital number.


----------



## vinny11950

Below is a good article on it.  I should also add that last week the Fed also announced a program of about $2 trillion for local governments to tap into these digital Fed funds.  By doing this the Fed is keeping interest rates down.  If financial institutions, companies, and now municipalities had to go on the open market to issue debt, they would all be paying higher interest rates because the risk of not getting paid right now is very high.  But eventually the Fed should just work its way  down to households and start sending out checks 

Of course this all leads to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) - basically it says that countries with their own currencies just print money.  The Fed does not endorse it, but everything they have done in the last few weeks is validate the position of people arguing for MMT.  









						Understanding the Federal Reserve Balance Sheet
					

The essence of the Fed's balance sheet is quite simple: Anything for which the Fed must pay money becomes the Fed's asset.




					www.investopedia.com


----------



## Highbeam

I just imagine a big printing machine in the White House basement. Here’s a pallet of cash for you Boeing. How is anybody going to know, much less expect to be paid back? If everybody got a pallet of cash, there would be inflation. 

Seems the magic is not printing out too many pallets of cash.

Is there really any such thing as national debt? Why borrow money when you just print it?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Not many entities that seemingly create wealth out of thin air besides the US Govt and  Bitcoin.  Most other countries dont last too long when going down this path.


----------



## SpaceBus

Seasoned Oak said:


> Not many entities that seemingly create wealth out of thin air besides the US Govt and  Bitcoin.  Most other countries dont last too long when going down this path.


Bitcoin is simply compensation for use of a secure server. It makes more sense than the US dollar at this point.


----------



## begreen

A question to ponder. The past few decades have been building up corporate shareholder value and with it, the coupled huge executive bonuses. Decades of maximizing shareholder value instead of building resilience have made them quite fragile. When the economy collapses they are the first in line for taxpayer bailouts. Do we want this to continue? It wasn't always this way. Socializing their debt does not sit right with many, myself included.

Local example: Boeing, with its 737 Max grounded over the past year, was borrowing cheap money to buy back stock and now it's getting a $17 billion bailout from taxpayers. How is that right without some major executive penalties and laws changed to break this cycle? It's not the virus that is bringing down these companies, it's almost 40 yrs. of greed.


----------



## NickW

Again I will point out that they are theoretically loans...

Begreen and the other liberal minded here are correct in saying that the system is rigged to benefit the wealthy, but the liberal agenda always seems to want to punish success resulting in shipping more jobs outside of our borders. Alternately, the conservative agenda is to continue to rig the system more. 

Unfortunately I doubt we will ever see a truly fair system. Both sides go too far one way or the other. Moderates are shunned by both sides. Add into the complexity of our own nations economy and social state the complexities of the new world economy and there is no easy or simple answer.

Before this country was established, the European feudal system gave NO opportunity for the lower class to better themselves. Here and now that opportunity IS there. Unfortunately the idea is also there that a better life should be given, not earned. The opportunities available here now are better than they were 50 years ago, which were better than 100 or 150 years ago. Before that putting an outfit together, having a pair, and a bunch of luck in not losing your hair opened the West.

There will always be a division. It is inevitable. Political system does not matter. What matters is opportunity, which we all have. Nobody is at fault if people don't recognize or make the most of their opportunities. It is more of a social mindset and poor personal choices than an economic statement. 

The sad part is the perpetuation. How can the cycle be broken? How can the mindset be changed? How do we ever make the system fair AND keep the jobs within our borders? Will anybody be satisfied with a fair system? Those on top will think it goes too far, those at the bottom will think it doesn't go far enough...


----------



## begreen

I think you are missing the point. American corporations may have higher share valuations, but they are intrinsically weaker today due to increased debt, extended supply chains, bad decisions, etc. The Boeing example is just one debt that is being socialized. Should we be bailing out Boeing for the incredibly dangerous decisions made by management for the 737Max? This culture of profit and shareholder value above all else has cost many lives. In Japan or S. Korea there would be criminal charges filed. Here, crickets.

Wealth is now concentrated and hoarded at the top, instead of being much more evenly distributed and invested in the company and its workers. These are the people that will actual spend that money and keep the momentum of capital in the system. There is a reason why savings are lower now. The cost of life is much more expensive. Education, insurance, healthcare all cost a lot more than when I was going to college.  The buying power of the dollar is less and real inflation, not the hedonized govt. variety, has exceeded wage increases for a long time. As a result the middle-class is disappearing quickly.


----------



## NickW

I agree. What is the solution? 

I fear many of the previously proposed solutions will result in more jobs lost over the boarder. Would a law with some sort of formula capping upper management compensation packages and company profits in relation to worker wages be a solution? Would there ever be any ability to come to an agreement on the formula? Would it result in more jobs being lost to automation? Would this be an illegal restriction on free enterprise? There still has to be incentive to have a business. A flat tax has been proposed many times, but that doesn't account for the risk and losses of 9 out of 10 businesses failing. Only those with the amount of wealth at the top can afford those losses, and they need that 1 in 10 to be profitable enough to make up for it; otherwise there is no point in taking the risk.


----------



## paulnlee

NickW said:


> I agree. What is the solution?
> 
> I fear many of the previously proposed solutions will result in more jobs lost over the boarder. Would a law with some sort of formula capping upper management compensation packages and company profits in relation to worker wages be a solution? Would there ever be any ability to come to an agreement on the formula? Would it result in more jobs being lost to automation? Would this be an illegal restriction on free enterprise? There still has to be incentive to have a business. A flat tax has been proposed many times, but that doesn't account for the risk and losses of 9 out of 10 businesses failing. Only those with the amount of wealth at the top can afford those losses, and they need that 1 in 10 to be profitable enough to make up for it; otherwise there is no point in taking the risk.



There is, it's called comunism


----------



## begreen

A solution is to start putting accountability back in the system. Take out the incentives that lead to this behavior.  Roll back the Reagan era gifts that allowed corporate execs to get share bonuses. Those stock buybacks used to be illegal, remember? Get rid of tax loopholes that allow giants like Amazon to pay nothing. Enforce and strengthen anti-trust laws to stop giant mergers and break up the mega-corporations. Europe has much stronger laws for this than here. Stop the attacks on unions. Restore taxes on the wealthiest to 1980 levels. Repeal Citizens United. And above all, start restraining lobbying.

Yes some jobs will be lost to China. Critical supply lines should never have been allowed to go there in the first place.


----------



## NickW

paulnlee said:


> There is, it's called comunism


And those at the bottom have done soooooo well there and have tons of opportunities and those at the top aren't a lot more comfortable...


----------



## begreen

That is neither spelled correctly nor an even remotely correct assessment. But it's ok to socialize the debt of major Wall St. corporations, eh? Total hypocrisy.


----------



## NickW

begreen said:


> That is neither spelled correctly nor an even remotely correct assessment. But it's ok to socialize the debt of major Wall St. corporations, eh?


I assume it was tongue in cheek, as was my response... . The debt isn't socialized if the loans are paid back.


----------



## begreen

Great. Let me know when a real economist shows up here.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> The Boeing example is just one debt that is being socialized.


Should be no such thing as grants to big companies. Any bailouts make no sense unless as loans or equity 100%+ paid back. Also they would have to accept restrictions on executive compensation to get anything otherwise its rewarding incompetance. Gamble with your own money, not the taxpayers. If they want to outsource supply, let them but with tariffs if they want to ship back in for sale here.  I am pro business but not pro business welfare.


----------



## paulnlee

NickW said:


> I assume it was tongue in cheek, as was my response...


So I left out an M for all the so called moderates. You guys should just leave the USA and go find that utopia you're looking for. Damn glad I had none of you next to me Chu Lai


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> Great. Let me know when a real economist shows up here.


How many economists are there in congress? Any at all?  I dont think those making all the descisions are  listening to the economists. Still wondering why no one ever went to jail for all the criminal acts leading up to the great economic meltdown 10+ yrs ago.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> How many economists are there in congress? Any at all?  I dont think those making all the descisions are  listening to the economists.


Good point, it looks like David Brat is the only one in the House. Problem is that good economics often makes bad politics. There's far too few scientists in Congress too. The New Republic has a great POV. It’s a classic example of what I call the Lamppost Theory: Politicians use economics the way a drunk uses a lamppost—for support, not illumination.








						Why Good Economics Make Bad Politics
					

Trump is hardly the first politician to push misguided fiscal policy.




					newrepublic.com


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> Politicians use economics the way a drunk uses a lamppost—for support, not illumination.


That pretty much sums it up. No one ever listened to the US comptroller who was sounding the alarm for yrs before the meltdown.








						U.S. Debt Ceiling Is Like ‘Playing With a Tactical Nuclear Weapon’: Former Comptroller General
					

While most of us are packed up and pumped up about the three-day Memorial Day weekend, former U.S Comptroller General David Walker is fired up about the nation's debt. Walker, who founded the Comeback America Initiative and served 10 years as comptroller general (1998-2008), has been sounding...




					finance.yahoo.com


----------



## Sodbuster

I think what needs to happen is that we need to lose the whole concept of "too big to fail", if a company makes a crappy product, let them go under, keep gov't out of it. GM is a good example, and I drive one, but they are crap when compared to the foreign brands.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Sodbuster said:


> I think what needs to happen is that we need to lose the whole concept of "too big to fail",


That was mostly the banks. And we did lose one american auto brand to foreign ownership over the whole meltdown.  Would have been nice to keep Dodge. Now its the big 2 instead of the big 3.  Foreign brands also subsidize their auto and other critical industries.


----------



## bholler

paulnlee said:


> So I left out an M for all the so called moderates. You guys should just leave the USA and go find that utopia you're looking for. Damn glad I had none of you next to me Chu Lai


I gaurantee there were lots of liberal mined people next to you.  We are all Americans.  We all have different perspective on things.  And what built this country was a balance of capitalism and socialism.  The problem now is there is no balance both sides are so dug in and won't even consider compromises.  That leads to the deadlock we have been in for decades.  And it is attitudes like yours that make that problem even worse.  

That and no one in the govt is fiscally conservative any more at all.  They just spend our money on different things depending upon which political side they are on.


----------



## Sodbuster

bholler said:


> I gaurantee there were lots of liberal mined people next to you.  We are all Americans.  We all have different perspective on things.  And what built this country was a balance of capitalism and socialism.  The problem now is there is no balance both sides are so dug in and won't even consider compromises.  That leads to the deadlock we have been in for decades.  And it is attitudes like yours that make that problem even worse.
> 
> That and no one in the govt is fiscally conservative any more at all.  They just spend our money on different things depending upon which political side they are on.



I agree, they all spend money to buy votes. I am a conservative and a fiscal one at that, so I guess I would be considered a Libertarian. The last Speaker of the House that did a great job in my opinion was the liberal Democrat Tip O'neil. He worked across the aisle to get things done.


----------



## begreen

Sodbuster said:


> I think what needs to happen is that we need to lose the whole concept of "too big to fail", if a company makes a crappy product, let them go under, keep gov't out of it. GM is a good example, and I drive one, but they are crap when compared to the foreign brands.


I have a GM product, made in Detroit. It was the first American car I had owned in years and I love it. No complaints. Previous car was a Prius. The Volt that replaced it was an all-around better car. Much more fun to drive too. I liked it so much I bought a newer one last fall.

But I agree. This too big to fail is BS. It's not always about a crappy product, sometimes it's crappy management.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

There is no auto maker that never put out a bad or defective product a times. Worst truck i ever had was a Toyota, but i wouldnt use that experience to say they only make junk . I know thats not the case.  They are all capable of making both great and not so great products. Except possibly Yugo.


----------



## CaptSpiff

begreen said:


> A solution is to start putting accountability back in the system. Take out the incentives that lead to this behavior.  Roll back the Reagan era gifts that allowed corporate execs to get share bonuses.


Back a lifetime ago, or as you mockingly called it the Reagan era, laws were written to try to corral what was perceived as "runaway executive pay". The politicians were proudly backslapping and issued the proclamation that "any company can pay their executives any amount they want, but any salary over $1Mil/yr cannot be claimed as a business expense".
As expected smart folks found the loopholes and executive compensation drifted toward bonuses. "Suddenly" we found ourselves with negotiated executive bonuses 8-10 times their annual salary value. When a man has the ability to earn 8-10 years salary in one year by focusing on 5 or so tight goals, he will screw the company into the ground to get it.


----------



## Sodbuster

Seasoned Oak said:


> There is no auto maker that never put out a bad or defective product a times. Worst truck i ever had was a Toyota, but i wouldnt use that experience to say they only make junk . I know thats not the case.  They are all capable of making both great and not so great products. Except possibly Yugo.



I drive GM trucks, always have and probably always will, despite the fact that they pi$$ me off from time to time. Case in point, I have a 2010 Chevy Silverado with the 6.2L gas engine, love the engine and the drive train. It's all the little stuff that causes the dislike. My wife's Camry had 180,000 miles on it, and I was planning on 300,000 miles out of that car. A teenager ran a stop sign, and put an end to that quest. Up until then, I had to replace the brakes, tires and fan belts. That's it, and no rust. My 2010 Chevy is rusting out through the rear quarters, as they all do, I had to replace a cable in the door that snapped and I could only open it, by rolling down my window and opening it from the outside. It leaks oil from the oil pan, easy fix, park it on a 4x8 sheet of OSB for $10. The passenger side window cannot be rolled down using the drivers side control, but it can be rolled up using the same button. The seats wore out, and started falling apart at the seams, which caused me to have to buy $300 seat covers. (How long has GM been making seats?) Now the tire pressure monitoring system has failed and that will be another $300 to replace the sensors. I have a feeling that the left front it the culprit, but the others aren't far behind.


----------



## Sodbuster

Seasoned Oak said:


> That was mostly the banks. And we did lose one american auto brand to foreign ownership over the whole meltdown.  Would have been nice to keep Dodge. Now its the big 2 instead of the big 3.  Foreign brands also subsidize their auto and other critical industries.



SOUTHFIELD: General Motors rose in New York trading after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Congress to pass an auto-industry bailout, embracing the premise that GM is too big to be allowed to fail. In urging Congress to enact emergency aid for the ailing auto industry, Pelosi rejected calls to let GM collapse and sided with the company and its allies in trying to prevent a ���devastating��� domino effect that would cost millions of jobs.  









						GM seen as too big to fail; auto bailout gets more backing
					

General Motors rose in New York trading after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Congress to pass an auto-industry bailout, embracing the premise that GM is too big to be allowed to fail.




					economictimes.indiatimes.com


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Sodbuster said:


> Now the tire pressure monitoring system has failed and that will be another $300 to replace the sensors. I have a feeling that the left front it the culprit, but the others aren't far behind.


I have the same problem with that system, but
my solution to that is to let it be ,didnt need it anyway. Just another thing to go wrong in the future. Not worth $300 to me. I can can ck my own tire pressure just fine.  That new tailgate lowering feature is the newest total waste of money. Who is that for? Possibly triple amputees. If you cant lower your own tailgate you probably cant load anything in the box anyway. Whats next self opening front doors? Just another motor to go bad. (end of rant).


----------



## Sodbuster

Seasoned Oak said:


> I have the same problem with that system, but
> my solution to that is to let it be ,didnt need it anyway. Just another thing to go wrong in the future. Not worth $300 to me. I can can ck my own tire pressure just fine.  That new tailgate lowering feature is the newest total waste of money. Who is that for? Possibly triple amputees. If you cant lower your own tailgate you probably cant load anything in the box anyway. Whats next self opening front doors? Just another motor to go bad. (end of rant).



I've found a piece of black electrical tape will make trouble lights go away.


----------



## vinny11950

Sodbuster said:


> SOUTHFIELD: General Motors rose in New York trading after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Congress to pass an auto-industry bailout, embracing the premise that GM is too big to be allowed to fail. In urging Congress to enact emergency aid for the ailing auto industry, Pelosi rejected calls to let GM collapse and sided with the company and its allies in trying to prevent a ���devastating��� domino effect that would cost millions of jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GM seen as too big to fail; auto bailout gets more backing
> 
> 
> General Motors rose in New York trading after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Congress to pass an auto-industry bailout, embracing the premise that GM is too big to be allowed to fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> economictimes.indiatimes.com



GM and Chrysler still went through the bankruptcy process.  Investors did lose money, and new structures and ownerships were setup post bankruptcy.  So the investors were not bailed out, but the employees kept their jobs because the government put up the loans to keep the companies functioning. I think what really annoyed Republicans about that bail out was that it helped the workers and wiped out the investors.

The loans totaled about $85 billion.  Compared to today's bail outs that is a small amount.  Also, most of the loans from the auto bail out were paid back and the government only lost about $14 billion.  Again, a small amount compared to today's money.


----------



## MTY

This is a real mess on top of a government that is self serving and a populace with a me attitude.  How many self proclaimed conservatives will refuse the redistribution of wealth being labeled as a stimulus check?  I still believe the only way out of the Covid 19 mess is individual self control, and that is still not the norm.


----------



## SpaceBus

MTY said:


> This is a real mess on top of a government that is self serving and a populace with a me attitude.  How many self proclaimed conservatives will refuse the redistribution of wealth being labeled as a stimulus check?  I still believe the only way out of the Covid 19 mess is individual self control, and that is still not the norm.


I'm just going to live like a hermit for the rest of my life. All of my local stores have been offering curbside pickup since before the pandemic, so I'll be ok moving forward. I'd like to be more social, but essentially, for me at least, the worst possible scenario has happened. I have nearly all the tools I need to do everything myself on my property. We are working on a garden and chickens, so a few more steps towards self reliance.


----------



## begreen

MTY said:


> This is a real mess on top of a government that is self serving and a populace with a me attitude.  How many self proclaimed conservatives will refuse the redistribution of wealth being labeled as a stimulus check?  I still believe the only way out of the Covid 19 mess is individual self control, and that is still not the norm.


----------



## NickW

I think some of these posts would be more appropriate in the economics thread...

I don't believe the "rules" in our system are fair. I DO believe the system itself is basically correct.

Was this labeled as "wealth redistribution"? Isn't "wealth redistribution" what the liberals want?

Why should someone who identifies as conservative and is furloughed not be "deserving" of the stimulus check as is being suggested? Conservative beliefs does not equal rich. They are more like "stand on your own two feet" (if you can) instead of "stand with your hand out while on your smartphone and smoking a cigarette". Not all conservatives support bailouts and mega-conglomerats,  but do believe if you are able bodied you should support yourself.

Seeing as our conservative President ran it through, maybe all the liberals should refuse the stimulus check in protest... If this stimulus had been run through by a liberal all the liberals out there would be saying it's the greatest deed ever by a president.

Isn't the bumper sticker "no bailouts" the mantra of the liberals?

What happened to the great liberal exodus to Canada that was threatened "if Trump gets elected"?

I await the bashing...


----------



## begreen

It's more of the same, but not really wealth distribution. It's debt based on more taxpayer money going to the corporations and wealthiest.


----------



## paulnlee

begreen said:


> View attachment 259338


Gee, found $2400.00 in my acct this AM, wonder where that came from


----------



## bholler

paulnlee said:


> Gee, found $2400.00 in my acct this AM, wonder where that came from


Did you give it back?  It came from all of us tax payers and those who will be paying it off in the future.


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> Did you give it back?  It came from all of us tax payers and those who will be paying it off in the future.



I'm putting part of mine towards local business since I am still getting my medical retirement pension payments.


----------



## paulnlee

bholler said:


> Did you give it back?  It came from all of us tax payers and those who will be paying it off in the future.


Not a chance in hell, not a whiner like some. I'm 76, been paying taxes for 64 years and still am. Better I get it then some freeloading cry baby wanting his/her college paid for


----------



## bholler

NickW said:


> I think some of these posts would be more appropriate in the economics thread...
> 
> I don't believe the "rules" in our system are fair. I DO believe the system itself is basically correct.
> 
> Was this labeled as "wealth redistribution"? Isn't "wealth redistribution" what the liberals want?
> 
> Why should someone who identifies as conservative and is furloughed not be "deserving" of the stimulus check as is being suggested? Conservative beliefs does not equal rich. They are more like "stand on your own two feet" (if you can) instead of "stand with your hand out while on your smartphone and smoking a cigarette". Not all conservatives support bailouts and mega-conglomerats,  but do believe if you are able bodied you should support yourself.
> 
> Seeing as our conservative President ran it through, maybe all the liberals should refuse the stimulus check in protest... If this stimulus had been run through by a liberal all the liberals out there would be saying it's the greatest deed ever by a president.
> 
> Isn't the bumper sticker "no bailouts" the mantra of the liberals?
> 
> What happened to the great liberal exodus to Canada that was threatened "if Trump gets elected"?
> 
> I await the bashing...


You really are getting things confused here.  No one is saying conservatives needing help right now are not deserving at all.  Just that you shouldn't be bitching about people getting handouts while taking them yourself.  

I don't think many beleive conservative equates to rich.  But it should mean fiscally conservative across the board.  Not fiscally conservative unless it furthers the "conservative agenda".

I also don't think no more bailouts is a liberal thing.   I seem to remember lots of complaints from Republicans when a democratic president was in power when bailouts happened.

Again we need to stop the childish bickering.  We are all Americans your political affiliation shouldn't matter.  We need both sides working together if we ever want to move forward.  And we need fiscal conservatives from both sides to dig us out of this financial mess.


----------



## bholler

paulnlee said:


> Not a chance in hell, not a whiner like some. I'm 76, been paying taxes for 64 years and still am. Better I get it then some freeloading cry baby wanting his/her college paid for


So govt handouts are fine when they go to you?  But for others they are bad.  I see how that works


----------



## Sodbuster

If Begreen's political cartoon where posted by anyone but himself or another mod, it would be flagged. I find it interesting that there are two sets of rules on this forum. We were not eligible for a stimulus check.


----------



## bholler

Sodbuster said:


> If Begreen's political cartoon where posted by anyone but himself or another mod, it would be flagged. I find it interesting that there are two sets of rules on this forum. We were not eligible for a stimulus check.


We let quite a bit of political discussion go on here in the inglenook as long as things don't get personal or nasty.


----------



## NickW

bholler said:


> You really are getting things confused here.  No one is saying conservatives needing help right now are not deserving at all.  Just that you shouldn't be bitching about people getting handouts while taking them yourself.
> 
> *That's exactly what MTY was saying - that conservatives shouldn't take it... There is also IMO a big difference between "social support" and "handouts". One goes to retirees, injured/sick, handicapped, etc. - what it was always intended to do. The other goes to able people who choose to be non-contributing and expect to be comfortably taken care of. *
> 
> I also don't think no more bailouts is a liberal thing.   I seem to remember lots of complaints from Republicans when a democratic president was in power when bailouts happened.
> 
> *Did the same people hollering now about the "bailout" holler then? And I will keep repeating that this "bailout" of the business's is theoretically a loan...*
> 
> Again we need to stop the childish bickering.  We are all Americans your political affiliation shouldn't matter.  We need both sides working together if we ever want to move forward.  And we need fiscal conservatives from both sides to dig us out of this financial mess.
> 
> *Agreed . Most of my posts about this have been responses to other posts...*


----------



## bholler

Well no mty asked if conservatives would refuse this stimulus plan because many had been so against it in the past.  He was pointing out the hypocracy.  Not saying anyone should or shouldn't turn it down.  Which honestly I don't think is an option anyway.  

I agree with you about support vs handouts.  The problem arises when people's prejudices enter into who they label as a freeloader and who is deserving.  But yes way to many from all walks of life take advantage of the system.


As far as complaining about the bail out.  No the same people are generally not complaining.  That is my point to many it is based solely upon which political party is in charge at the time.  And very little to do with the actual plan.   

As long as the bailout is actually a loan as most previous ones have been i have no issue with it.  But sooner or later we need to let companies fail that continue to make poor buisness decisions.


----------



## paulnlee

Why? Did you make over the limit-99K


----------



## NickW

bholler said:


> Well no mty asked if conservatives would refuse this stimulus plan because many had been so against it in the past.  He was pointing out the hypocracy.  Not saying anyone should or shouldn't turn it down.  Which honestly I don't think is an option anyway.


That's still not how I read his post. Reading sarcasm isn't my strongest suit.  

If you are correct I owe him an apology. 

Maybe I'm getting touchy from being cooped up. Haven't had a card game with the inlaws since this started, big family vacation got cancelled, playing teacher, etc...


----------



## bholler

NickW said:


> That's still not how I read his post. Reading sarcasm isn't my strongest suit.
> 
> If you are correct I owe him an apology.
> 
> Maybe I'm getting touchy from being cooped up. Haven't had a card game with the inlaws since this started, big family vacation got cancelled, playing teacher, etc...


Oh I don't think you were rude or anything.  No need for an apology in my mind.    It has been a fairly friendly discussion by most here.


----------



## Sodbuster

paulnlee said:


> Why? Did you make over the limit-99K



What limit is 99K?


----------



## NickW

Sodbuster said:


> What limit is 99K?


Individuals with under $75k adj gross income get $1200, 75k-99k still get something but less. Couples get $2400 if under 150k adj. Plus $500/child under 16. Didn't realize we'd get it until I googled it. Looked in the account and there it was... Surprise!


----------



## begreen

Another hidden bonus in the 2 trillion package is tax relief for the wealthiest. Sounds about right, yes?









						How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7 Million
					

While wealthy Americans are not eligible for the $1,200 stimulus checks being disbursed to many Americans, they are on pace to do even better. 43,000 taxpayers, who earn more than $1 million annually, are each set to receive a $1.7 million windfall on average thanks to a provision in the CARES Act.




					www.forbes.com
				




This is not a left v right issue, that is contrived by politicians. It's great when we are arguing with each other because that helps keep our eyes off the ball. The fact of the matter is that the foxes are ransacking the henhouse which means that we will be paying this bill for a very long time while the wealthy get richer. It doesn't matter your party persuasion, the bill for this is on all of us with a huge increase in the national debt to fund their gains. The debt used to be a frontline issue for the TeaPartiers. Where are they now?


----------



## MTY

To those who took my post personal, perhaps you should examine the basis of your anger.  The post was, as bholler pointed out, about hypocrisy.  And no matter how you look at it, it is a redistribution of wealth.  An individual not receiving a check still will assume the tax burden.  That individual's debt in many cases will become someone else's toy.  Not groceries, not rent, but a bonus toy paid for by taking what another has earned.  
Imagine in 2018 you pulled money out of your retirement to pay for medical care.  That money counts as income, could put you over the limit of 99K and yet you are responsible for paying the debt for someone's new toy.  And it could be every last cent you have that went toward medical care.  No this is not my situation, but I guarantee it fits someone.  
The true conservative who is not in need of the stimulus check for food, shelter etc., may  not be able to refuse the money, but they certainly could apply it to help someone else.  But no, most who do not need it will either rat hole it or buy a toy.  Sure the toy would put money into the economy, but so would $1200 worth of food given to a food bank.  
We get out of this mess by worrying about the other person as much as we worry about our self.


----------



## Sodbuster

Unfortunately, we missed the cutoff for the stimulus package, seems the gov't picks winners and losers.


----------



## MTY

I am unsure as to what you mean by missing the cutoff, but do agree the government picks winners and losers.


----------



## peakbagger

I had a big reduction of income in 2019. Previously I was definitely over the limit for a single person but I switched to part time (partially by choice, partially by circumstances). The claim is that the IRS uses the 2019 return if filed but defaults to the 2018 return if the 2019 form was not filed. My 2019 return was filed months ago. There are multiple types of "income" so I am not sure what line of the tax form is used. I havent seen a check yet.

The reality is since the mortgage crisis the fed has been artificially keeping interest rate low to drive investments to the stock market. That takes money out of bondholders which tend to be retirees either directly or via pensions. Its been a major shift of money out of the elderlys pocket to the equities markets.  Unfortunately some elderly could not live on the low rates or wanted more and various higher risk financial products have popped up disguised as low risk. So called High Yield bond funds sound great until one realizes that another names for High Yield bond is a junk bond. The reason is that the only way the bond issuer can borrow the money is to pay a high level of interest since the risk of their default is so high. During an economic downturn, high yield debt tends to fail so suddenly that great rate of return is not so great as the investors rapidly sell the funds containing these bonds.


----------



## paulnlee

Sodbuster said:


> If Begreen's political cartoon where posted by anyone but himself or another mod, it would be flagged. I find it interesting that there are two sets of rules on this forum. We were not eligible for a stimulus check.





begreen said:


> Another hidden bonus in the 2 trillion package is tax relief for the wealthiest. Sounds about right, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7 Million
> 
> 
> While wealthy Americans are not eligible for the $1,200 stimulus checks being disbursed to many Americans, they are on pace to do even better. 43,000 taxpayers, who earn more than $1 million annually, are each set to receive a $1.7 million windfall on average thanks to a provision in the CARES Act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a left v right issue, that is contrived by politicians. It's great when we are arguing with each other because that helps keep our eyes off the ball. The fact of the matter is that the foxes are ransacking the henhouse which means that we will be paying this bill for a very long time while the wealthy get richer. It doesn't matter your party persuasion, the bill for this is on all of us with a huge increase in the national debt to fund their gains. The debt used to be a frontline issue for the TeaPartiers. Where are they now?


Yet awhile back you hailed Canada for taking care of it's workers


----------



## mcdougy

Canada should be applauded. Help was needed and given. The system in Canada in a time of crisis is being bipartisan.
WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER


----------



## mcdougy

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-united-states-two-pandemics-1.5532423


----------



## bholler

paulnlee said:


> Yet awhile back you hailed Canada for taking care of it's workers


Yes not sure what the point is you are trying to make.  Nothing you quoted references workers or Canada.


----------



## bholler

mcdougy said:


> Canada should be applauded. Help was needed and given. The system in Canada in a time of crisis is being bipartisan.
> WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER


To be fair the American govt is actually working together to done extent.  I don't agree with some of what they are doing but they are atleast doing something.


----------



## SpaceBus

begreen said:


> Another hidden bonus in the 2 trillion package is tax relief for the wealthiest. Sounds about right, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus ‘Checks’ Averaging $1.7 Million
> 
> 
> While wealthy Americans are not eligible for the $1,200 stimulus checks being disbursed to many Americans, they are on pace to do even better. 43,000 taxpayers, who earn more than $1 million annually, are each set to receive a $1.7 million windfall on average thanks to a provision in the CARES Act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a left v right issue, that is contrived by politicians. It's great when we are arguing with each other because that helps keep our eyes off the ball. The fact of the matter is that the foxes are ransacking the henhouse which means that we will be paying this bill for a very long time while the wealthy get richer. It doesn't matter your party persuasion, the bill for this is on all of us with a huge increase in the national debt to fund their gains. The debt used to be a frontline issue for the TeaPartiers. Where are they now?


I'm also convinced that our government, in addition to the UN, is designed to be ineffective. Folks are just now getting the relief funding, but folks have been out of work for weeks!


----------



## bholler

SpaceBus said:


> I'm also convinced that our government, in addition to the UN, is designed to be ineffective. Folks are just now getting the relief funding, but folks have been out of work for weeks!


And really those relief payments are not directed to those who need it.  And simply are not enough for those who do need it.  While the PPP loans which actually put money where it's needed is already out of money with a tiny portion of the loans applied for going out.


----------



## SpaceBus

bholler said:


> And really those relief payments are not directed to those who need it.  And simply are not enough for those who do need it.  While the PPP loans which actually put money where it's needed is already out of money with a tiny portion of the loans applied for going out.


This morning I'm feeling so depressed about this whole thing. The US government has bungled this pandemic and then bombed the response. The institutions that make the government ineffective, created by previous regimes, have proven to be extremely effective when coupled with foreign propaganda. Yet, somehow, Spain of all nations has gotten a grip on this situation, or are at least doing better than our leadership. 

If a private corporation had responded this way, it would be been destroyed. Military leadership responding in such a deplorable way would have been relieved. This is outrageous.


----------



## semipro

begreen said:


> It's more of the same, but not really wealth distribution. It's debt based on more taxpayer money going to the corporations and wealthiest.


And more debt passed on to our children along with a variety of other problems resulting from the greed of those whose shoulders they were meant to stand upon.


----------



## PaulOinMA

MTY said:


> … The true conservative who is not in need of the stimulus check for food, shelter etc., may  not be able to refuse the money, but they certainly could apply it to help someone else.  But no,* most who do not need it will either rat hole it or buy a toy*.  Sure the toy would put money into the economy, but so would $1200 worth of food given to a food bank.
> We get out of this mess by worrying about the other person as much as we worry about our self … (emphasis added)



That's a bit of a generalization.  Might as well post the opposite: Most that do need it will spend it on crack and alcohol.

We don't need it.  We also just signed an Agreement and Letter of Commitment at the two colleges my wife and I attended to fund scholarships.


----------



## Highbeam

peakbagger said:


> I had a big reduction of income in 2019. Previously I was definitely over the limit for a single person but I switched to part time (partially by choice, partially by circumstances). The claim is that the IRS uses the 2019 return if filed but defaults to the 2018 return if the 2019 form was not filed. My 2019 return was filed months ago. There are multiple types of "income" so I am not sure what line of the tax form is used. I havent seen a check yet.
> 
> The reality is since the mortgage crisis the fed has been artificially keeping interest rate low to drive investments to the stock market. That takes money out of bondholders which tend to be retirees either directly or via pensions. Its been a major shift of money out of the elderlys pocket to the equities markets.  Unfortunately some elderly could not live on the low rates or wanted more and various higher risk financial products have popped up disguised as low risk. So called High Yield bond funds sound great until one realizes that another names for High Yield bond is a junk bond. The reason is that the only way the bond issuer can borrow the money is to pay a high level of interest since the risk of their default is so high. During an economic downturn, high yield debt tends to fail so suddenly that great rate of return is not so great as the investors rapidly sell the funds containing these bonds.



Line 7. AGI is used to determine payout.


----------



## Highbeam

MTY said:


> I am unsure as to what you mean by missing the cutoff, but do agree the government picks winners and losers.



The irs payout is income based. If you make too much AGI then you get nothing. If your child is over 16 then you don’t get the 500) child payout.


----------



## Sailrmike

SpaceBus said:


> created by previous regimes


This language is offensive, we dont have regimes in this country


----------



## Highbeam

I see this stimulus check as I do any other random refund, paycheck, or credit I get in the mail. Throw it in the accounts to hold against the debits in my balance sheet. It’s just not that large of an amount. 

Treat all money with respect, not to be wasted, to be used to increase my personal net worth. 

When I do my annual taxes there are all kinds of plusses an minuses first all sorts of politically incentivized things. This is no different. Use it like any other money as I see fit. 

It just so happens that property taxes are due right now and this irs “gift” will cover it for me instead of some other random digital currency in my account. 

These aren’t special marked dollars with commitments for use.

Every gallon of gas, kilowatt hour of electricity, and sip of coffee is full of tax credits and incentives from the government.


----------



## begreen

semipro said:


> And more debt passed on to our children along with a variety of other problems resulting from the greed of those whose shoulders they were meant to stand upon.


Altruism and fiscal responsibility are gone. This $2.2 trillion package has caused a feeding frenzy amongst the greediest. Fossil fuel companies and stockbrokers are jumping in to grab chunks of the pie. Instead of creating a plan that made sure that the recently stuck at home workers have an income to feed their families and pay the rent, they passed a token $1200 check that won't even pay for a month's rent or mortgage. Meanwhile, high-rolling hedge fund companies are sucking up the bailout cash because they traditionally don't have a lot of workers so that their profits don't get thinned down too much. This rushed plan has more holes in it than swiss cheese. It is more like a big payback to the biggest campaign donors than something that will actually help America.


----------



## NickW

It seems to me that the hypocrisy abounds from both sides... I'm frustrated/angry because that hypocrisy is only seen by some from one side and throw anti sentiment against the other. Now anti big business greed and irresponsibility on the other hand I would agree with along with the anti freeloading... and I definitely am tired of back door riders and loopholes added to legislation last minute to benefit the richest. The backdoor shenanigans (by either side - current or previous) are not right.

Do I agree with the stimulus package - NO! It is not a fair deal. The only long term beneficiaries are the richest. Am I giving it away - NO! I'll be paying for it just like everyone else here.

We (my wife & I) are conservative. We spend conservatively. We make less than some siblings but are viewed as "the well off ones" because of responsible habits (or cheap as the accusation sometimes is). We don't eat out 3 or 5 times a week. We shop the sales at the grocery store and freeze it. We don't immediately spend every dime that comes in so in times of need there is something there. Our tax return goes into savings, not spent on the latest gadgets. The newest and lowest mileage vehicle we have is an '08 with 284k miles. Got teased at Xmas for finally replacing the gigantic old '92 TV with a flat screen - look! They're finally in this century! But it worked until just before Xmas - albeit sometimes with a whack. But it is suggested I should give the stimulus away because I'm conservative when it's just a cash advanced tax credit... and yes, we do support charities both financially and by volunteering.

The previous administration screwed things up in one direction, this administration screwed things up in the other direction, the next will screw it up back, and so forth... There was a radio personality who used to say he was going to start "the Common Sense" political party but it would never take off because common sense is uncommon...


----------



## Sodbuster

Money and politics are never a good combination. I am 53 years old, and started my first big boy job in 1991, as a sales rep covering 3 states, I was gone more than I was home. It doesn't surprise me that many people enter politics just regular wage earning folks and now are millionaires. Once you get into congress, the only thing that is the number one priority is staying there, to hell with the people you supposedly represent.  The reason I bring up my age and when I started working was that many of the same people that were there then, are still there. Being a member of Congress was never designed to be a full time profession, just a way to serve your country, and then move on with your life. The crookedness of both parties is unbelievable, and neither is worse than the other, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Term limits is the only way to right this wrong.


----------



## PaulOinMA

NickW said:


> … We (my wife & I) are conservative. We spend conservatively. We make less than some siblings but are viewed as "the well off ones" because of responsible habits (or cheap as the accusation sometimes is). We don't eat out 3 or 5 times a week. We shop the sales at the grocery store and freeze it. We don't immediately spend every dime that comes in so in times of need there is something there. Our tax return goes into savings, not spent on the latest gadgets …



Well said.  Sounds a lot like us.  Live WELL within our means.

My sister was executor of our late mom's estate.  She kept everything for herself and kids.  Mom and she redid my parents' will after dad died in 2010.  Dad previously told me that he wanted to leave money to my sister and me.  No mention of my sister's kids.

Sister told me that "we don't need it." 

Last time I was at their house, they put in an in-ground pool.  Nice house in CT.  Very large separate garage/shed in addition to a 2-car attached garage.  So many cars that they have a lift to stack cars in the garage in addition to all the ones in the driveway.

Mom told me in late 2015 before she died (hard to tell me after) that, "I've decided to leave 80% to Monica and 20% to you.  Monica (my sister) said that you'll be alright with that, and she'll handle it."

Just about all money was at Merrill Lynch which is outside probate, so my sister kept it all for herself.  Car went to her son.  Jewelry went to her daughter.  Contents of the house went to her son.  House was split between my sister and her kids ... and she was ticked that her kids received a share of the house.

My sister sent me a $5K check.

Needless to say, I haven't talked to my sister in three years.


----------



## begreen

NickW said:


> We (my wife & I) are conservative. We spend conservatively. We make less than some siblings but are viewed as "the well off ones" because of responsible habits (or cheap as the accusation sometimes is). We don't eat out 3 or 5 times a week. We shop the sales at the grocery store and freeze it. We don't immediately spend every dime that comes in so in times of need there is something there. Our tax return goes into savings, not spent on the latest gadgets.


We actually have a lot in common there. Politics aside, we have always leaned towards being fiscally conservative. Any long-term debt like a mortgage, we have paid off early. And that is the only long-term debt we've had since 1983.


----------



## NickW

PaulOinMA said:


> Well said.  Sounds a lot like us.  Live WELL within our means.
> 
> My sister was executor of our late mom's estate.  She kept everything for herself and kids.  Mom and she redid my parents' will after dad died in 2010.  Dad previously told me that he wanted to leave money to my sister and me.  No mention of my sister's kids.
> 
> Sister told me that "we don't need it."
> 
> Last time I was at their house, they put in an in-ground pool.  Nice house in CT.  Very large separate garage/shed in addition to a 2-car attached garage.  So many cars that they have a lift to stack cars in the garage in addition to all the ones in the driveway.
> 
> Mom told me in late 2015 before she died (hard to tell me after) that, "I've decided to leave 80% to Monica and 20% to you.  Monica (my sister) said that you'll be alright with that, and she'll handle it."
> 
> Just about all money was at Merrill Lynch which is outside probate, so my sister kept it all for herself.  Car went to her son.  Jewelry went to her daughter.  Contents of the house went to her son.  House was split between my sister and her kids ... and she was ticked that her kids received a share of the house.
> 
> My sister sent me a $5K check.
> 
> Needless to say, I haven't talked to my sister in three years.


Sheesh! Not to take a shot at your family, but is she practicing for a career in politics? That sounds like Congressional accounting and shenanigans...


----------



## Sodbuster

NickW said:


> Sheesh! Not to take a shot at your family, but is she practicing for a career in politics? That sounds like Congressional accounting and shenanigans...



Ouch, what did you do to anger your mother, usually parents split their estate equally among their heirs? I am executor for my parents estate, and I'm not looking forward to the job. Not only will it mean losing my parents but someone always feels slighted, but 80/20 is rough.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

PaulOinMA said:


> Sister told me that "we don't need it."
> Last time I was at their house, they put in an in-ground pool.  Nice house in CT.  Very large separate garage/shed in addition to a 2-car attached garage.  So many cars that they have a lift to stack cars in the garage in addition to all the ones in the driveway.
> Needless to say, I haven't talked to my sister in three years.


I dont blame you ,you got royally hosed.  Big injustice to punish you for being responsible and to reward your sister for being irresponsible. But i see that a lot. Causes a lot of conflict among siblings.  Not something i would ever think of doing with my kids. The Govt works a lot like that. Constantly rewards bad behavior and punishes  good.  Ill be leaving a good bit of real estate to my kids . They will either take it and prosper or manage it badly and lose it ,  all up to them.


----------



## NickW

Sodbuster said:


> Ouch, what did you do to anger your mother, usually parents split their estate equally among their heirs? I am executor for my parents estate, and I'm not looking forward to the job. Not only will it mean losing my parents but someone always feels slighted, but 80/20 is rough.


Didn't sound to me like he got anything near 20%...

Yes, executor is a thankless job. I was and ended up forfeiting it because a sibling took advantage of my trusting nature. Another sibling straightened it out and we're all good now and the relationships are repaired, but it was unpleasant...


----------



## PaulOinMA

Oh, I effectively nothing.  Mom had a very loose connection with reality.


----------



## Sodbuster

NickW said:


> Didn't sound to me like he got anything near 20%...
> 
> Yes, executor is a thankless job. I was and ended up forfeiting it because a sibling took advantage of my trusting nature. Another sibling straightened it out and we're all good now and the relationships are repaired, but it was unpleasant...



That was my point, but we don't know the value of the estate.


----------



## PaulOinMA

Last time I saw ML statement: over $300k.  Townhouse value probably $140 - $160k when mom died.  Car.  Contents of house.  Jewelry.  Things like dad's gold Rolex from the 1950s that dad said Monica valued it at $15k.  Another $100k or so outside ML.


----------



## Sodbuster

PaulOinMA said:


> Last time I saw ML statement: over $300k.  Townhouse value probably $140 - $160k when mom died.  Car.  Some jewelry.  Things like dad's gold Rolex from the 1950s that dad said Monica valued it at $15k.  Another $100k or so outside ML.



Ouch! Sorry about that, you definitely got the short end of the stick.


----------



## semipro

Sodbuster said:


> Being a member of Congress was never designed to be a full time profession, just a way to serve your country, and then move on with your life. The crookedness of both parties is unbelievable, and neither is worse than the other, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Term limits is the only way to right this wrong.


I used to think that term limits were a bad idea. If someone is good at the job let them stay on right?
I was wrong.  I now strongly believe in single term limits.  
Our elected representatives should be totally focused on the job at hand without the inherent conflict of interest that re-election creates. 
Maybe non-consecutive terms and/or longer terms would be appropriate with single term limits.


----------



## PaulOinMA

I thought Steyer's campaign ads arguing for term limits was pretty hypocritical.   Really, Tom?  You stayed at the company you founded for 26 years!


----------



## Sodbuster

PaulOinMA said:


> I thought Steyer's campaign ads arguing for term limits was pretty hypocritical.   Really, Tom?  You stayed at the company you founded for 26 years!



I don't think staying at a private company that you founded, compares to staying in an elected position for 26 years.


----------



## MTY

PaulOinMA said:


> That's a bit of a generalization.  Might as well post the opposite: Most that do need it will spend it on crack and alcohol.
> 
> We don't need it.  We also just signed an Agreement and Letter of Commitment at the two colleges my wife and I attended to fund scholarships.


Except your statement about drugs and alcohol is on its face patently absurd.  However, to imply that the majority of those receiving a stimulus check that is not needed will fund scholarships or perform another altruistic act is even more absurd.  Your logic is not based in reality.


----------



## PaulOinMA

Sodbuster said:


> … I don't think staying at a private company that you founded, compares to staying in an elected position for 26 years …



You're right.  It's even worst.  Staying in a place you own as a demigod, as opposed being a freely elected public servant the people want.


----------



## PaulOinMA

MTY said:


> Except your statement about drugs and alcohol is on its face patently absurd.  However, to imply that the majority of those receiving a stimulus check that is not needed will fund scholarships or perform another altruistic act is even more absurd.  Your logic is not based in reality.



You surely can't mean to imply or state that your broad-stroke generalizations aren't equally absurd.  Pretty funny.


----------



## NickW

PaulOinMA said:


> You're right.  It's even worst.  Staying in a place you own as a demigod, as opposed being a freely elected public servant the people want.


I don't know about that. 

If you build a successful company, isn't it more sensible to continue to run and build it up rather than sell it off to the highest bidder who would be a larger company and further the "Big Business" model screwing the average Joe? Surely a successful business isn't going to just shut down because it's been there for whatever "too long" is...


----------



## PaulOinMA

And the U.S. isn't just going to shut down either.

We pretty much do have term limits, self-imposed, because we are collectively pissed at whoever we elect, the job they are doing, and replace them with a fair bit of regularity.


----------



## SpaceBus

PaulOinMA said:


> And the U.S. isn't just going to shut down either.
> 
> We pretty much do have term limits, self-imposed, because we are collectively pissed at whoever we elect, the job they are doing, and replace them with a fair bit of regularity.


No, many folks that are not the president have sat in the same seat for many years.


----------



## PaulOinMA

Many?

Yes.  Some.  What percentage of the 535 members in congress would be considered "lifers?"


----------



## NickW

PaulOinMA said:


> Many?
> 
> Yes.  Some.  What percentage of the 535 members in congress would be considered "lifers?"


There are 143 representatives with at least 10 years of "service" (to who I'm not sure - themselves?). The average current tenure is 9.7 years (almost 5 terms). 

Google is my friend... I don't know much, but I can find a lot... My son often asks me ridiculous questions (as he plays games on his phone and snapchats) that I don't know, but in less than a minute I can find the answer.


----------



## PaulOinMA

I have no problem with long-term people in freely elected positions.  It's who the people want.  If they don't want them, vote them out.

Better the Devil you know.


----------



## bholler

PaulOinMA said:


> You surely can't mean to imply or state that your broad-stroke generalizations aren't equally absurd.  Pretty funny.


His "broad generalization" was that people who didn't need the money would either put it in savings or buy some luxury.  I would say that would cover what most people will do with it.  Some of those who don't really need it may even spend it on drugs and or alcohol.


----------



## NickW

bholler said:


> His "broad generalization" was that people who didn't need the money would either put it in savings or buy some luxury.  I would say that would cover what most people will do with it.  Some of those who don't really need it may even spend it on drugs and or alcohol.


But he doesn't say "people". It's "self-proclaimed conservatives" or "true conservatives"... 

It's the generalization that conservative = rich folk and liberal = suppressed poor folk that some of us are taking issue with. We're all pretty much held in check by the 1% and crooked politicians no matter what our political leaning is...


----------



## bholler

NickW said:


> But he doesn't say "people". It's "self-proclaimed conservatives" or "true conservatives"...
> 
> It's the generalization that conservative = rich folk and liberal = suppressed poor folk that some of us are taking issue with. We're all pretty much held in check by the 1% and crooked politicians no matter what our political leaning is...


Yes he said that but he qualified it by saying true conservatives who don't need it.  He in no way implied that no conservatives need it.


----------



## PaulOinMA

Also applies to true liberals that don't need it then.


----------



## NickW

bholler said:


> Yes he said that but he qualified it by saying true conservatives who don't need it.  He in no way implied that no conservatives need it.


Is it just assumed that ALL liberals who qualify and don't "need" it will automatically donate it "for the greater good"? Or is it assumed that ALL liberals who qualify "need" it?

Point being that it is unnecessary to politicize it by calling out "conservatives". Call out the 1% if you like, but rich folk don't qualify for it. They got a whole different deal to screw the rest of us...


----------



## bholler

NickW said:


> Is it just assumed that ALL liberals who qualify and don't "need" it will automatically donate it "for the greater good"? Or is it assumed that ALL liberals who qualify "need" it?
> 
> Point being that it is unnecessary to politicize it by calling out "conservatives". Call out the 1% if you like, but rich folk don't qualify for it. They got a whole different deal to screw the rest of us...


Again he was pointing out the hypocracy of people who typically are the group complaining about people using govt money when they don't need it.  

But yes I agree we as a country need to stop politicising everything


----------



## PaulOinMA

bholler said:


> … But yes I agree we as a country need to stop politicising everything …



Oh, now, that's just crazy talk.  This country is built on politicizing everything.  

Just joking.  I agree.


----------



## Highbeam

What does “need” have to do with it? Everybody has bills that “need” to be paid. We all “need” money to pay bills. I hope my kids never live so far above their means, so paycheck to paycheck, with such limited skills to adapt that they become one of the minority that can’t weather this brief storm without an infusion of helicopter money. I do hope they are smart enough to catch any mysterious helicopter money falling from the sky and put it to good use. They can be liberal, conservative, or just humans and still be smart.


----------



## Grizzerbear

NickW said:


> We (my wife & I) are conservative. We spend conservatively. We make less than some siblings but are viewed as "the well off ones" because of responsible habits (or cheap as the accusation sometimes is). We don't eat out 3 or 5 times a week. We shop the sales at the grocery store and freeze it. We don't immediately spend every dime that comes in so in times of need there is something there. Our tax return goes into savings, not spent on the latest gadgets. The newest and lowest mileage vehicle we have is an '08 with 284k miles. Got teased at Xmas for finally replacing the gigantic old '92 TV with a flat screen - look! They're finally in this century! But it worked until just before Xmas - albeit sometimes with a whack. But it is suggested I should give the stimulus away because I'm conservative when it's just a cash advanced tax credit... and yes, we do support charities both financially and by volunteering.



As the old saying goes, "live poor, you wont be poor." I live buy that motto as well.

Anywho..........as far as term limits go....if their are term limits on the man who is suppose to be running the country...I am of the opinion their should be term limits on everyone else involved in politics. Lobbyists are the main form of corruption in our political system that needs to be addressed to me. Major companies like Amazon need broke up....and every other giant monopoly that we were suppose to have regulations against allowing. Their are so many problems with our system that a guy could rant for days and never cover all of them.....and they all are intertwined. I would say most longterm politicians are beholden to certain companies and lobbyists and that is why they keep their grip on power......theirs too much damn money to be made being a politician that is rotting this country from the inside out. Pure greed and special interest.


----------



## NickW

Highbeam said:


> I hope my kids never live so far above their means, so paycheck to paycheck, with such limited skills to adapt that they become one of the minority that can’t weather this brief storm without an infusion of helicopter money.


Unfortunately, depending on which study you cite, 49%-78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and do not have 3 months worth of emergency funds... I bet most here do, but wood burners are a practical and smart lot...


----------



## semipro

PaulOinMA said:


> We pretty much do have term limits, self-imposed, because we are collectively pissed at whoever we elect, the job they are doing, and replace them with a fair bit of regularity.


The trouble with this is that without term limits the politicians work under the assumption they might be re-elected so they govern with that in mind. 
Then again, (trying to think like a politician here) without the "accountability" of re-election what keeps them from doing whatever they want?


----------



## Highbeam

NickW said:


> Unfortunately, depending on which study you cite, 49%-78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and do not have 3 months worth of emergency funds... I bet most here do, but wood burners are a practical and smart lot...



Those are the people that we don’t want to be. 

Unlike most, my children have been taught and shown how to manage money to land well within the top half of this unfortunate statistic which is actually very easy. I agree that woodburners on a forum like this have much better odds of being a successful bunch! 

You can bet we have been watching this virus situation from an economic future point of view to help teach lessons. Do you want to be a career waitress? Do you want to be “essential”? How long do recessions last? Do we have enough ammo? Will the markets recover? What does 1200$ actually get you?


----------



## mcdougy

What does the term " living pay check to pay check "actually mean? I would assume that's the scenario for everyone?  Some paychecks are just bigger than others......Being fortunate enough that your paycheck allows you to buy a boat, invest in education funds, donate to a charity, save AND pay the mortgage, hydro, utilities and FOOD...isn't alot different than the people whos paycheck only allows them the mortgage, utilities and food without the bonus stuff.  To say that this isn't affecting people because they have some savings is incorrect. I  have zero income currently and not exactly sure when that is going to change. I do have savings and will be able to pay all the listed above, except the savings part. So technically I consider myself as living pay check to pay check. Everyone's life is based on the income they earn.  Just curious what the meaning behind the term truly is? "My paycheck sucks, so I can't budget for non essentials and if I don't have a paycheck I can't pay my required bills"?


----------



## PaulOinMA

Means to me that you have no savings and need your next paycheck to meet one's basic necessities without discretionary spending.


----------



## Highbeam

PaulOinMA said:


> Means to me that you have no savings and need your next paycheck to meet one's basic necessities without discretionary spending.



Right. Has nothing to with a boat or other luxury item. Has to do with income vs. expenses. Some folks have already spent their next paycheck before it arrives. Any small interruption in income puts them in default and possibly out on the street or hungry. I don’t want to live like that.

And no, it’s not a rich vs. poor thing . Many people with high incomes have such high expenses that they are also dependent on that next payday to pay all of their bills.


----------



## NickW

mcdougy said:


> What does the term " living pay check to pay check "actually mean?


I would say (and this is MY definition), that it is the inability to financially deal with unexpected expenses. Some people live paycheck to paycheck barely affording the essentials. Some people could make a million a year and still be living paycheck to paycheck due to irresponsible habits. Wage is not the only determining factor. Living responsibly within your means is. One family might be very comfortable living on 75k a year and be able to save and be charitable; the neighbors might make the same (or more) and not be able to fix a broken vehicle because they have 4 jet ski's, 4 ATV's, a motorcycle, a "Sunday" car, maxed out credit cards from their annual family vacation in Hawaii, etc. For many it is the unfortunate reality, for many others it is a situation of their own doing - not unlike some of the big companies that have been bailed out (in the past or currently).

An example I'll use (not to toot my own or wife's horn, but because we have the majority of both families in the "irresponsible" catagory and get asked for "loans"   on a regular basis...):

I was almost killed in a car wreck in '03. We financially survived (barely...) even though I was out of work for 9 weeks without disability. As soon as we were able (I was semi-coherent), we started making plans for how to deal with the finances if I was off for over 3 months rather than waiting until the worst happened. Alternatively, a family member won $1400 at a casino, blew it in short order, and 2 months later blew the engine in a car... no ability to fix or replace it... 

Or another who goes out and buys every woodworking tool in the book, uses them once a year, eats out 5 times a week, doesn't pay rent because he lives in a "family" house,  but can't afford gas...

Sorry if that got to be another one of my rants...


----------



## Sodbuster

In my opinion, living paycheck to paycheck in it's most basic form, is only being able to cover your most basic needs, food, clothing and shelter, before your next paycheck arrives.  As one country song say's "there's no month end at the end of the money".


----------



## Woody Stover

Guy was on Morning Edition the other day. Made sense to me..
"Ray Dalio is known for making lucrative predictions. His hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, is the largest in the world. But Dalio, a billionaire himself and one of the world's most successful investors, says capitalism is broken. Even before the coronavirus pandemic hit, Dalio had warned that the wealth gap represented a national emergency. The outbreak, he says, is only exacerbating the disparities between the rich and the poor.
"We will have ahead of us the question of who's going to pay the bills and how will we redefine things," he says, adding that the solutions will "necessitate a lessening of the wealth gap." Dalio spoke with NPR's Morning Edition on Wednesday about what he thinks the crisis will mean for income inequality and the future health of the economy more broadly.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-reformed-parts-1-2-ray-dalio/


----------



## Sodbuster

Woody Stover said:


> Guy was on Morning Edition the other day. Made sense to me..
> "Ray Dalio is known for making lucrative predictions. His hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, is the largest in the world. But Dalio, a billionaire himself and one of the world's most successful investors, says capitalism is broken. Even before the coronavirus pandemic hit, Dalio had warned that the wealth gap represented a national emergency. The outbreak, he says, is only exacerbating the disparities between the rich and the poor.
> "We will have ahead of us the question of who's going to pay the bills and how will we redefine things," he says, adding that the solutions will "necessitate a lessening of the wealth gap." Dalio spoke with NPR's Morning Edition on Wednesday about what he thinks the crisis will mean for income inequality and the future health of the economy more broadly.
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-reformed-parts-1-2-ray-dalio/



Always easy to say that AFTER you've made your billions.  Like he said he started investing as a kid and learned what to invest in, nothing to stop anyone here from doing the same. Open a brokerage account (free) and invest in the market, learn as you go. Not for the timid though, I've found out the hard way.


----------



## peakbagger

Saving for the future is a learned behavior. There is the famous marshmallow study where a  child is given a choice between eating one marshmallow now versus 2 later on. The kids almost always grab the one now. Many parents keep their kids isolated from finances and the kids see that whatever the parents want they get (the kids dont see the loan payments or the lack of any retirement planning). The kids are somewhat doomed to failure as the behavior learned and reinforced is grab that "marshmallow" now.  Why set aside money for the bad times, their parents will bail them out and it they have tapped their parents to point where they are on medicaid (welfare for seniors) then the government will step in.  

I guess I and lot of other hearth folks are just the odd ones. Cutting seasoning and burning wood is inherently delayed gratification. Heck of a lot easier to just crank the dial on the oil or gas furnace than dealing with wood.  My guess is take a snap shot of the hardcore wood burners who heat their homes with it and compared to the general population we are probably better equipped for the hard times.


----------



## SpaceBus

Sodbuster said:


> Always easy to say that AFTER you've made your billions.  Like he said he started investing as a kid and learned what to invest in, nothing to stop anyone here from doing the same. Open a brokerage account (free) and invest in the market, learn as you go. Not for the timid though, I've found out the hard way.


Actually there is. It's called socialism if every single citizen invests their money. I have been preaching this for years, but it falls upon deaf ears. If every single American put $20 into an annuity every month then we wouldn't have these problems. That annuity will garner tax money for the man and earn gains for the owner of the annuity. If every single American invested just a small amount of money it would destroy the economy I think. It's not designed to deal with that kind of input. 

Currently in our quasi capitalist system there are artificial road blocks to succces, primarily in the form of our education system.


----------



## PaulOinMA

SpaceBus said:


> …  road blocks to succces, primarily in the form of our education system …



Can you elaborate on that?  What are the roadblocks to success in our educational system?


----------



## NickW

SpaceBus said:


> Actually there is. It's called socialism if every single citizen invests their money. I have been preaching this for years, but it falls upon deaf ears. If every single American put $20 into an annuity every month then we wouldn't have these problems. That annuity will garner tax money for the man and earn gains for the owner of the annuity.


That type of thinking has been preached by many for years, but most don't do it. Run those numbers through an anuity calculator...

If you start an anuity at the age of 18 with $1000 and a rate of 6% and monthly add $20, at age 68 you will have less than 100k. Now start that same thing with $500, add $20 monthly PLUS $500 annually and you'll have 235k. Either way a nice chunk, but not enough to independently support yourself through retirement; although barring catastrophic circumstances the 235k might be close. Add it to Social Security and most would probably be fine.

Is this a mandatory government run anuity like Social Security? Deduct the cost of the fed running it. Now where does that 6% interest come from? How does the federal government make money?

Is this independent investment? Then it's not socialism; but like you said, most don't/won't do it. Those who do will inevitably be supporting "greedy big business" who will make more off your money than you do. Take the incentive of making a bunch of money off of it away and there is no reason for them to do it. Now where do you put your $20/mo?

The fed takes more than that $20/mo for Social Security and you can't really expect to live off of that...

I personally don't trust the fed to manage my money wisely or cost effectively. Most people don't handle their own well. Catch 22... The government isn't efficient or fiscally responsible, people as a general rule aren't either, big business and the 1% are greedy...

So where does this leave us?

IMO (change the order to suit your preference,  but this is the order in my mind - I am sure some would reverse the order):

#1. Personal responsibility. Learn a skill or provide service that is in demand. Nobody should be expected to take care of you if you are physically capable of taking care of yourself. Don't have more kids than you can support. Be fiscally responsible.

#2. The "rules" need to be fair without taking away the incentive to excel or driving companies out of the country.

#3. The government needs to be fiscally responsible.

#4. It appears we may be screwed - as in there won't be any significant change? See #1, 2 & 3... People will always want the easy way, the rules will probably never be "fair", the government will spend our money irresponsibly... Without #1, #2 won't change anything long term. Without #3, #1 & #2 won't change. Without #2, #3 won't change & #1 will continue to feel it's hopeless... All 3 would have to happen at the same time or in very short order, and that my friends is the (impossible?) nature of the task. I think #2 & #3 are possible; unlikely, but possible. #1...? I have faith in a person, almost any person; but in people in general as a whole...? Ahhhh, the complexities of the human condition!

It's (again IMO) the social that shapes the economic. Groups #1 & 3 need to learn responsibility, group #2 needs to be less greedy... and no, I don't endorse Socialism. That removes the incentive to excel or take personal responsibility.


----------



## begreen

Capitalism 1970: Work hard and you too can be rich.
Capitalism 1990: Work hard and a few crumbs will trickle down
Capitalism 2020: You should be willing to die in order to save the economy for the top percent.


----------



## begreen

NickW said:


> That removes the incentive to excel or take personal responsibility.


That is not backed by fact as Germany, Canada, and others have proven. Treat a worker well, with a good wage, benefits and good working conditions and you will get good performance. We used this formula when launching a professional photo-lab in the middle of the Reagan era depression and quickly beat all the competition. We retained the highly skilled workers better than any in the region. This helped propel the lab to one of the top in the nation in just a few years.


----------



## PaulOinMA

Germany and Canada are socialist economies?


----------



## begreen

PaulOinMA said:


> Germany and Canada are socialist economies?


By our definition for sure. Democratic socialist policies abound in comparison to the US. That said, what most Americans call socialism is not even close to the real definition.








						Strong Welfare State
					

A dense web of state insurances protects citizens against existential risks.




					www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de
				











						SGI 2014 | Germany | Social Policies
					

The SGI is a platform built on a cross-national survey of governance that identifies reform needs in 41 EU and OECD countries. The SGI brings together a broad network of experts and practitioners aiming to understand what works best in sustainable governance. Advocating the exchange of best...




					www.sgi-network.org


----------



## PaulOinMA

I thought we were discussing economies and, by default, economic freedom.  Their economic freedom is comparable to ours.


----------



## PaulOinMA

begreen said:


> That is not backed by fact as Germany, Canada, and others have proven. Treat a worker well, with a good wage, benefits and good working conditions and you will get good performance. We used this formula when launching a professional photo-lab in the middle of the Reagan era depression and quickly beat all the competition. We retained the highly skilled workers better than any in the region. This helped propel the lab to one of the top in the nation in just a few years.



Are you saying that absolutely nobody was terminated for under-performing in those few years?


----------



## bholler

PaulOinMA said:


> I thought we were discussing economies and, by default, economic freedom.  Their economic freedom is comparable to ours.


We are not talking about pure socialism here.  That simply doesn't work just as pure capitalism doesn't work.  We are talking about democratic socialism which is a combination of capitalism and socialism.  It is pretty much how our country has worked for a long time.   Just with a few more social programs.


----------



## begreen

PaulOinMA said:


> Are you saying that absolutely nobody was terminated for under-performing in those few years?


A few, but not may. In general we hired the cream of the crop so only a very few left and they were usually maintenance people. We did lose a couple people over the years that went on to develop their own photography careers. But then we gained some new people and cross-trained others to keep up with rapid growth. This was a professional lab, with high-value clients, not the photo-mill for snapshots.


----------



## PaulOinMA

Hire the best and pay them commensurately.  Sounds like a capitalist socio-economic model.

Don't think people in this country want to see a European-model tax structure to pay for socialist programs.


----------



## vinny11950

I am amazed at how poorly this bailout was handled.  I am hearing a lot of stories of small businesses now laying off their employees because their loan applications were denied this week.  It looks like a big chunk of the money went to businesses that didn't need it.  And it looks like there was a lot preferential treatment being done by the banks to channel these loans to their best clients, not the ones who needed it.  



It would have been better for the federal government to pay all wages to July.  Then have the Federal Reserve open accounts for every business that needs the money (means testing), and just give them loans, like they did all those financial institutions for their junk products.  The loans would just go on the Federal Reserve balance sheet, no big deal now that they are handing out trillions.  Over ten years, if the economy keeps growing, those loans will be more than manageable.  Unfortunately the priority from the Federal level is not to save small businesses and keep people with their wages whole until this mess clears out.  

Talking about priorities, if Remdisivir turns out to be a really good treatment for Covid 19, will the owner of the patent allow copies of the drug to be made at lower prices?  I would argue that for the good of the economy their patent should be suspended and cheap versions of the drug manufactured.  If there is a treatment, people will feel confident going back to work and if they get sick they (or their family members) don't have to die because of it.  At this point the hardest part of getting back to work will be restoring confidence that people are safe to move about.  This can be achieved with treatments and testing - both are not guaranteed right now.  So the economy will continue to flounder. 

All the sports are now suspended.  I have heard a few MLB reporters say there is a good chance the season may be cancelled altogether.  Next up is going to be college and NFL football in the fall, when Covid may have another resurgence.  

We are looking at 20% unemployment by July.  People are going to be starving.  Jesus Christ this is bad.


----------



## NickW

Maybe they should hire the $15/hr deserving high school dropout burger flippers at $25/hr so they can really support themselves well instead of the cream of the crop...  



bholler said:


> We are not talking about pure socialism here.  That simply doesn't work just as pure capitalism doesn't work.  We are talking about democratic socialism which is a combination of capitalism and socialism.  It is pretty much how our country has worked for a long time.   Just with a few more social programs.



So what I've suggested several times here about the system is fine, but the rules are broken...?


----------



## begreen

PaulOinMA said:


> Hire the best and pay them commensurately.  Sounds like a capitalist socio-economic model.
> 
> Don't think people in this country want to see a European-model tax structure to pay for socialist programs.


Having co-workers in Germany I can say that they are much more satisfied with what they get for the taxes they pay.


----------



## PaulOinMA

My wife and I worked for a German company.  It's the model they've always known.


----------



## bholler

PaulOinMA said:


> Hire the best and pay them commensurately.  Sounds like a capitalist socio-economic model.
> 
> Don't think people in this country want to see a European-model tax structure to pay for socialist programs.


No from what I have seen the American "capitalist" model is hire as few people as you can pay them as little as you can get away with.  There will always be people to replace those that get fed up and leave.  

If socialism discorages ambition as many claim capitalism discorages taking care of your workers.  Or anything else that could possibly reduce the bottom line.

And yes many people would prefer the paying higher taxes if it meant paying less out of pocket for other things


----------



## bholler

NickW said:


> Maybe they should hire the $15/hr deserving high school dropout burger flippers at $25/hr so they can really support themselves well instead of the cream of the crop...
> 
> 
> 
> So what I've suggested several times here about the system is fine, but the rules are broken...?


Our system is not fine.  That is clear.


----------



## PaulOinMA

I can't see Joe Blow Average American wanting to pay a lot more in taxes for benefits-for-all in a more socialist economy.

A very liberal friend of mine is partner and president of a law firm in CT.  He finally got fed up with some of the attorneys not pulling their weight.  His group in the firm, worker's compensation, was very successful and disproportionately funding the entire firm.

He implemented a much more compensation-for-performance system.  Attorneys not needing a fulltime admin will have to share admins.

I commented, "how very Reagan of you."  he laughed.


----------



## bholler

PaulOinMA said:


> I can't see Joe Blow Average American wanting to pay a lot more in taxes for benefits-for-all in a more socialist economy.
> 
> A very liberal friend of mine is partner and president of a law firm in CT.  He finally got fed up with some of the attorneys not pulling their weight.  His group in the firm, worker's compensation, was very successful and disproportionately funding the entire firm.
> 
> He implemented a much more compensation-for-performance system.  Attorneys not needing a fulltime admin will have to share admins.
> 
> I commented, "how very Reagan of you."  he laughed.


So they punished the admins because the attorneys were not performing well?  Yeah that sounds like Reaganomics to me.  The guys at the top make out while the workers suffer.


----------



## NickW

bholler said:


> Our system is not fine.  That is clear.


You just posted about democratic socialism, how that is how this country has worked for a long time, how neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism works, we just need more social programs...? 

I'm sorry, I just don't get what you're trying to say and maybe you don't (or maybe you do) understand what I've been trying to get across... 

The system that I say isn't broken is already a combination of capitalism and socialism. The "rules" that I say are broken are what keeps the crooked politicians and 1% where they are and screws the rest of us financially. Socially, as far as I'm concerned, the money that goes to healthy non-contributing members of society should go to programs that truly do benefit those in need or have "done their time".


----------



## bholler

NickW said:


> You just posted about democratic socialism, how that is how this country has worked for a long time, how neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism works, we just need more social programs...?
> 
> I'm sorry, I just don't get what you're trying to say and maybe you don't (or maybe you do) understand what I've been trying to get across...
> 
> The system that I say isn't broken is already a combination of capitalism and socialism. The "rules" that I say are broken are what keeps the crooked politicians and 1% where they are and screws the rest of us financially. Socially, as far as I'm concerned, the money that goes to healthy non-contributing members of society should go to programs that truly do benefit those in need or have "done their time".


The basic idea of our system is good.  But just about everything about how it is executed is wrong for all but those at the very top.  And it has been that way for decades.  To me that means a broken system.


----------



## PaulOinMA

bholler said:


> … So they punished the admins because the attorneys were not performing well?  Yeah that sounds like Reaganomics to me.  The guys at the top make out while the workers suffer.



No.  Read it again.


----------



## bholler

PaulOinMA said:


> No.  Read it again.


I beleive you said the attorneys weren't pulling their own weight.  In response he fired some of the admins.  How am I wrong there?


----------



## NickW

Nowhere is anything said about anyone getting fired. Only that non-performing attorneys who did not need a full time admin would have to share an admin. Maybe a new attorney was hired who performed and got one of the other admins and then 2 existing attorneys had to share one...


----------



## PaulOinMA

Attorneys not needing a fulltime admin will have to share an admin.  If two attorneys only need a part-time admin, why should the company pay for two fulltime admins?

A former boss came back to the U.S. after running our European Technology Center in Liege, Belgium.  He's the boss I mentioned in the COVID-19 thread.  Great guy.  Great boss.

He noticed a group of people that was always sitting in the cafeteria playing cards and drinking coffee.  He asked why they were always there.

He was told that the government's goal is zero unemployment.  They have to be kept on the payroll to do business in Belgium even though there is no work for them to do.  Great economic system, huh?


----------



## bholler

PaulOinMA said:


> Attorneys not needing a fulltime admin will have to share an admin.  If two attorneys only need a part-time admin, why should the company pay for two fulltime admins?
> 
> A former boss came back to the U.S. after running our European Technology Center in Liege, Belgium.  He's the boss I mentioned in the COVID-19 thread.  Great guy.  Great boss.
> 
> He noticed a group of people that was always sitting in the cafeteria playing cards and drinking coffee.  He asked why they were always there.
> 
> He was told that the government's goal is zero unemployment.  They have to be kept on the payroll to do business in Belgium even though there is no work for them to do.  Great economic system, huh?


If it was all about the admins why did you say the attorneys were not pulling their weight?  To me if the attorneys are not pulling their weight why not make them do it of get rid of them?

Also Belgium does not have a socialist economy.


----------



## bholler

NickW said:


> Nowhere is anything said about anyone getting fired. Only that non-performing attorneys who did not need a full time admin would have to share an admin. Maybe a new attorney was hired who performed and got one of the other admins and then 2 existing attorneys had to share one...


There was nothing said about new attorneys at all.


----------



## bholler

My point is when I was running my cabinet shop if I had a cabinet maker that was not producing I didn't get rid of their helper if that employee was good.  I tried to get them to produce if they couldn't they got replaced sometimes by that helper.


----------



## vinny11950

This story is just bananas.  In a free market economy.  I am beginning to think the son in law is running some type of scam with the supply chain he was put in charge of.


----------



## mcdougy

Does it mean countries/governments live paycheck to paycheck?


----------



## bholler

mcdougy said:


> Does it mean countries/governments live paycheck to paycheck?


Many are far worse than that by running a consistent deficit


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Sodbuster said:


> In my opinion, living paycheck to paycheck in it's most basic form, is only being able to cover your most basic needs, food, clothing and shelter, before your next paycheck arrives.  As one country song say's "there's no month end at the end of the money".


I see this a lot. Must be true as 50 to 80% according to reports of americans are living week to week.  And just whose fault is that. Most of the people buying and renting houses from me make a higher annual salary than i do but also live paycheck to paycheck. I wouldnt blame the Govt. for that or minimum wage or "society",most of them make well over min wage anyway. No wonder they are not prepared for retirement. Or any other  kind of emergency(like this one) . Its about personal choices.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

mcdougy said:


> I  have zero income currently and not exactly sure when that is going to change. I do have savings and will be able to pay all the listed above, except the savings part. So technically I consider myself as living pay check to pay check.Everyones's life is based on the income they earn.  Just curious what the meaning behind the term truly is? "My paycheck sucks, so I can't budget for non essentials and if I don't have a paycheck I can't pay my required bills"?


You are definitely in the minority if you have savings. I would say everyones life is more based on what they spend rather than what they make. A wise man once said "Strive to live on a fracton of your income, save and invest the rest". A very good formula for success.


----------



## mcdougy

I know it's all personal choice, and this event is a rarity, but there is also the old saying of "I've never seen a hearse stop at the bank machine"  It's all a balancing act of what risk your willing to take and how much/what way you enjoy your life. I don't look down on someone for living month to month, I give them credit for having big balls that they make it work somehow. Wether that's the wealthy guy or the struggling guy.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

mcdougy said:


> I give them credit for having big balls that they make it work somehow. Wether that's the wealthy guy or the struggling guy.


Its definitely a balance.  The other extreme is a close family member,regular job but has managed to amass a few million in stocks. I keep wondering when he will break out and buy something. Until now it hasnt happened. Mid sixties heavy smoker. I guess his kids will show him how to enjoy that at some point. Definitely in the minority though ,that kind of austerity. But you have to consider what kind of bailouts  should be considered  when its  Govts or citizens that do not plan for emergencies or short term  income gaps.


----------



## begreen

Seasoned Oak said:


> You are definitely in the minority if you have savings. I would say everyones life is more based on what they spend rather than what they make. A wise man once said "Strive to live on a fracton of your income, save and invest the rest". A very good formula for success.


One of the best books I read on this was: *Your Money or Your Life *by Vivki Robin and Joe Dominguez. Give a copy to your kids too.
Amazon product


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I did read a few books on the subject but after i had already started doing what i set out to do , basically telling me i was going in the right direction.
My goal was spending my winters in the south pacific, which i did achieve to some extent.  Not to get rich. Which was good cuz i never got rich. Asset wise i did ok for my area id say.


----------



## Sodbuster

I don't need a book to teach me how to live within my means. If you need credit to buy it, you can't afford it, the only exception would be your main home. Too many people today live off "whats the monthly payment?" not what's the actual price.  We drive older cars, although we could afford new, cars are a terrible investment. Either fix them yourself, or find a trusted mechanic and keep them going, if fixing is not your thing. Bottom line is you should never live off credit. We have zero debt with the exception of property taxes, those you can't escape.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Sodbuster said:


> I don't need a book to teach me how to live within my means.


Yea its  just common sense mostly, but unfortunately it looks like 50 to 80 % of the country DOES need a book or some other incentive to live within their means cuz they certainly are not doing so otherwise.   Emergencies of all kinds will happen, you can count on it. There is actually a book called "Life for dummies" . Another one called "Life skills 101" i guess to get out of your parents basement.


----------



## PaulOinMA

A group of folks that cuts and splits their own wood would be expected to be fiscally responsible. ("wood would" looks funny)

Even my dad thought I was overly frugal ... and he was born in 1919 and grew up poor during the depression.

He asked  "you're not denying yourself anything are you?" about my frugality.   I replied that I learned it from him.

I told our former financial guys I was buying a new car in 2001.  They commented "that's all?" when I told them what I was buying.


----------



## semipro

begreen said:


> One of the best books I read on this was: *Your Money or Your Life *by Vivki Robin and Joe Dominguez. Give a copy to your kids too.
> Amazon product



I 2nd this - great book.  I own it and re-read every so often. 
It will change how you view material things/work/money/life.


----------



## begreen

Yes, it's about a lot more than just how to save money.


----------



## Sodbuster

begreen said:


> Yes, it's about a lot more than just how to save money.



We're cut to the bone, if theirs a way to save anymore, I'm all ears.


----------



## begreen

Sodbuster said:


> So Begreen, what's your long term way in which to weather this storm?


That's a tough one. It depends on how serious things get, one's skills and the demand for them. Network in the community and find small jobs that fit within your scope. Find things that will go on even in a slower economy. Learn how to repair things. My mom made pies for the local diner during the great depression. My dad taught himself how to repair radios and opened up a shop at that time. He also fixed appliances on the side, learning as he went. It paid the bills. Regardless, start with practicing frugality. Learn to repair and reuse rather than toss and buy another. Cut out packaged and snack foods. Learn to make your own. Pick up new skills like sewing. Let the lawn grow longer and cut it half as frequently. Start a garden and grow your own. Don't defer maintenance, fix it now to avoid larger repair costs later.  Cut all those items that are sucking dollars out of your wallet on a monthly basis. (cable tv, netflix, subscriptions, etc.) and get down to the bare bones if necessary. Sell that extra car. Go to the library for books, videos, and magazines. Remember that every dollar earned took a fraction of your life force that you will never get back. Your time on the planet is finite so treat the money that you exchanged your life for as something precious. Help your community build resilience and support systems that will make it easier to weather the storm. Things like a tool library and repair cafés are a good start.

Also, find out what the market wants. Infrastructure jobs are a good bet. Right now there is a shortage of line workers for electrical companies. Locally, the union will pay for your training. There is also a shortage of water systems operators.

All of this has nothing to do with oil, it's more about home economics. Moving post to the Economics thread.


----------



## PaulOinMA

Seasoned Oak said:


> … My goal was spending my winters in the south pacific, which i did achieve to some extent …



One of the founder of WAGS (Wagner and Griswold Society) and the WAGS forums retired and moved from MA to Fiji.  He recently posted that they were hit by major Category 4 tropical cyclone Harold and he was without power for a while.

I commented that I hadn't heard anything about it since news here is all COVID-19.

_Fellow WAGS members,
Sorry I’ve been a little out of it for about two weeks. Category 4 tropical cyclone Harold hit us 11 days ago and I’ve been without electricity since then. EFL was here today and put in our downed lines and fixed two poles that were destroyed by Harold. 

It has been a matter of survival for a week or more just maintaining power to save food, water etc. today I had my first hot shower in 11 days and started to do laundry for the first time in two weeks. Life should back to normal except that we also have COVID19 to also worry about here. Life goes on. !! Happy hunting!! 



			Wagner and Griswold Society (WAGS) Forum - Sorry but Ive been a little out of it
		

_
May have to join the  forum to see link.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

begreen said:


> Yes, it's about a lot more than just how to save money.


Sounds like a good read. For me its not about money so much as it is about freedom. Money is just a tool to give you the freedom to do what you want.  Piling up more than you need is time and effort wasted when you could be doing what you really want to, where you want to do it. Some will get sidetracked with the money side and lose sight of the real goal.


----------



## peakbagger

Oil or no oil, there is a major brain drain for technical professionals and a "brawn" drain for skilled and unskilled labor. Immigrants may fill in unskilled slots to some extent but skilled labor is another story. Most studies are 10 workers are retiring for every 1 entering the trades. Its not just electricians, welders, pipers, ironworkers, concrete and carpenters are all in demand. Strong union areas will have apprenticeship programs with training facilities while non union areas usually have tech schools. The trick with all the trades is to keep getting training as in most cases a typcial journeyman  is pretty beat up and worn out after 20 or 30 years. Folks who keep up with training tend to move up into management before they are worn out.   Canada has been treating the lack of trades as long term crisis for years, other countries just import the labor (that is how all the buildings in the middle east get built) but with a tight immigration policy i the US importing labor is not going to happen.


----------



## johneh

I have no idea what it is like Stateside but in the Great White North 
in order to get into a trade, you have to know someone. My Youngest is an HVAC teck 2 years of school 
and the only reason he works in his trade is because I know someone and got him his job. The Young
 lad down the road is an electrician only because his uncle is an electrician. If you want 
a job as an apprentice you will look long and hard to find someone to hire you. If you have a Lic. in a trade 
you can get work tomorrow. How do I know I am first and foremost a farmer also I hold interprovincial seals 
as an Auto Teck, A plumber, and an electrician. I am also an Ontario lic Industrial woodworker (Cabinet Maker) 
I have trained many apprentices over the years at my own expense. I wish more kids would get a job in the trades 
you don't become rich as a tradesman but you always have work and an income


----------



## RockCastile

begreen said:


> That's a tough one. It depends on how serious things get, one's skills and the demand for them. Network in the community and find small jobs that fit within your scope. Find things that will go on even in a slower economy. Learn how to repair things. My mom made pies for the local diner during the great depression. My dad taught himself how to repair radios and opened up a shop at that time. He also fixed appliances on the side, learning as he went. It paid the bills. Regardless, start with practicing frugality. Learn to repair and reuse rather than toss and buy another. Cut out packaged and snack foods. Learn to make your own. Pick up new skills like sewing. Let the lawn grow longer and cut it half as frequently. Start a garden and grow your own. Don't defer maintenance, fix it now to avoid larger repair costs later. Cut all those items that are sucking dollars out of your wallet on a monthly basis. (cable tv, netflix, subscriptions, etc.) and get down to the bare bones if necessary. Sell that extra car. Go to t


Totally just reminded me of "Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)". Well put.


----------



## ABMax24

peakbagger said:


> Oil or no oil, there is a major brain drain for technical professionals and a "brawn" drain for skilled and unskilled labor. Immigrants may fill in unskilled slots to some extent but skilled labor is another story. Most studies are 10 workers are retiring for every 1 entering the trades. Its not just electricians, welders, pipers, ironworkers, concrete and carpenters are all in demand. Strong union areas will have apprenticeship programs with training facilities while non union areas usually have tech schools. The trick with all the trades is to keep getting training as in most cases a typcial journeyman  is pretty beat up and worn out after 20 or 30 years. Folks who keep up with training tend to move up into management before they are worn out.   Canada has been treating the lack of trades as long term crisis for years, other countries just import the labor (that is how all the buildings in the middle east get built) but with a tight immigration policy i the US importing labor is not going to happen.



You are right that at least here in Alberta getting new people into the trades has become a major focus of the government. But this also comes full circle from the beginning of this thread that most people now don't want to work hard enough to work actually succeed within
the trades. The nice thing here is getting a trade is the same regardless of being union or non-union, all the trades have mandatory apprenticeship terms and technically training to go with it, for example I'm a steamfitter-pipefitter which was a 3 year apprenticeship with 3-8 week technical training sessions.

It is often very difficult for us to find new apprentices however, where I work starting wage is $20 per hour and most trades make in the $35-$40 range once they achieve their trade certificate, and of course much more in a supervisory position. The money is very good for what we do, yet finding people that actually want to work hard and outside in the cold to earn it is still difficult. My family mostly work in the professions, Engineers, Accountants, Teachers, the difference in earnings between us in the trades vs professions is very similar, if anything most of us in the trades earn more. But there are days when I'm working outside in -40 with the wind blowing that I'd like that office job lol.


----------



## peakbagger

ABMax24 said:


> You are right that at least here in Alberta getting new people into the trades has become a major focus of the government. But this also comes full circle from the beginning of this thread that most people now don't want to work hard enough to work actually succeed within
> the trades. The nice thing here is getting a trade is the same regardless of being union or non-union, all the trades have mandatory apprenticeship terms and technically training to go with it, for example I'm a steamfitter-pipefitter which was a 3 year apprenticeship with 3-8 week technical training sessions.
> 
> It is often very difficult for us to find new apprentices however, where I work starting wage is $20 per hour and most trades make in the $35-$40 range once they achieve their trade certificate, and of course much more in a supervisory position. The money is very good for what we do, yet finding people that actually want to work hard and outside in the cold to earn it is still difficult. My family mostly work in the professions, Engineers, Accountants, Teachers, the difference in earnings between us in the trades vs professions is very similar, if anything most of us in the trades earn more. But there are days when I'm working outside in -40 with the wind blowing that I'd like that office job lol.



A major problem is economic theory assumes that the labor is portable and that available skilled workers will move to where the work is. It may look great on paper but people want to live where they want to live, even if they do want to move, a large amount of their savings are tied up in their home and if they own a home in and area where an industry has collapsed they are stuck . Sure there are attempts at setting up work camps to attract labor to remote areas but that typically only attracts certain types of people.  There are many former workers that have no choice, they have no options for earning living in their home countries, so they work where the work is and send remittances home. In many of these countries, the remittances from workers working off shore is major part of the economy. If they workers are not crippled or killed they eventually go home at the end of the careers.


----------



## mcdougy

It's safe to generalize that most trades working in Western Canada have already followed the work out there, and will follow the work wherever it ends up. Like stated, the difficulty will be selling a home if they were able to buy one, and if they did buy a home the inflated price they paid due to the "good times" may prove hard to get out of at the price paid.
Is there really a possibility that in the case of the Oil sands they can simply ignore the resource sitting there? I don't understand how human nature would allow that? We tend to be a more of a "take and pillage" society of known resources...even if bottom lines in revenue don't make sense, the workers bare the brunt of the hostage game the corporations/industry start playing. Ask the fisherman and wood sector in this country how that goes? "We have a job for you, just don't bank on it to always feed your family,as we squeeze the employee with wage and common layoffs." 
 Again I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## ABMax24

Portability of workers can be a big issue, but it is something both workers and companies are beginning to adapt to. Many of these trades have now settled in the communities where they want to live within the province and commute from there. Many companies now work schedules that allow these workers to go home on a regular basis and usually pay for the accommodations wherever they are working. Shifts like 2 weeks on 1 off, 2 on 2 off, 10 days on 4 off are becoming very common. It used to be at one point that the oil sands where so busy they would work a 3 week on 2 week off shift and would fly the workers to and from within anywhere in Canada, take advantage of labour nationwide. This program even got so big they were flying supervision and management anywhere in the world on there days off, although most of the workers were still Canadian. I know a few people that never went home, they used this system to their advantage to travel the world, every set of days off spending their time on vacation in a different country.

Now some of these travel policies have changed but the higher wage rates have remained. The simple fact is they have to pay more to get workers to come from many hours away to work there. At one point Alberta was so busy that many workers were brought in from outside the province to work here,  the Okanagan Valley in BC became a huge supply of labour for the oilsands. The city of Kelowna alone had about 5,000 people working in the oil sands on a fly in/fly out basis, that puts a lot of money into the local economy having that many people taking home $100,000+ per year.


----------



## peakbagger

Barring a major increase in oil demand, the Tar Sands as well as US shale oil will become economically stranded resources. Same with deep water oil in the gulf of Mexico. The current proven recoverable world wide reserves far exceed the amount of carbon that can be dumped into the atmosphere. That means that the expensive oil is probably going to stay in the ground while the cheap stuff gets pumped. If the cheap stuff gets less cheap than the more expensive stuff will get pumped. The Saudi's knew this for years and tried to keep oil in a certain range of prices, too little and they were leaving money on the table, too much and other producers would start producing.  This optimum price worked for many years and slowly would increase as the Saudis got greedier and needed more money to pay off their population. As some point during one of the Bush adminstration's the price of oil shot up and that suddenly made unconventional oil recovery worth chasing after. The fundamental problem right now is the the Saudi's and Venezuela  need more revenue than the current price of oil to cover their social costs. Putin and the Saudis have big cash reserves to drive the other producers out of business including Tar Sands and US unconventional oil (along with Venezuela) out of the market and then they will slowly let the prices rise. Of course the second as the prices rise, the rigs will go back in the field . How it all ends is a big unknown but with global warming its a zero sum game. 

There were parallels with US natural gas prices until fracking got developed. The price would rise, more rigs went in the field, in 18 months the supply would rise and the price would drop, the rigs would pull out of the field, the price would rise and it would repeat on a 3 year basis.  Fracking changed that and now the US is a net exporter of LNG (once they built enough plants). There are several other large gas supplies like Sakhalin Island (developed by BP and US companies but forcably taken over by Russia) and the Australian off shore oil fields and producing a net surplus of LNG.


----------



## ABMax24

The economics of it are one thing, politics and national security are another. There is no way any US administration would allow US oil production to be significantly rolled back and rely on imports from countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia or Venezuela. This is also where Canada and the oil sands fit into the picture, if the US is to import oil from another country Canada is by far the most friendly ally and the most similar ideologically.

The other part of it is the actual cost of the production of these unconventional resources such as the oil sands. There are a lot of environmental groups that want the oil sands shut down and as such claim the oil cost $65+/barrel to produce. The Narwhal being one of these, in an effort to make people believe these projects are uneconomical and also supported by the government through subsidies, which simply isn't true. I was working just into Saskatchewan a couple weeks on an in-situ SAGD project where the break-even point was $27/barrel, which isn't to far off alot of conventional production in North America.

The other thing to contend with unconventional oil is the high initial capital startup costs. For the plants that are now running that money has been spent and debt repayment is a significant portion of their operating cost. Regardless of the price of oil many of these facilities will continue to run in an effort to repay the initial capital spent to build them.


----------



## Sodbuster

I've heard, 2nd hand that we need $60 a barrel to make mid-western oil pay off.


----------



## PaulOinMA

On China manufacturing, I found this interesting.

Building 19 was an overstock, seconds, and the like retail store here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_19.

Went out of business a while ago. Interview with the owner mentioned, among other things, overseas manufacturing as a reason they went out of business. Said that he used to regularly receive phone calls from companies looking to unload trailer truck loads of seconds. That dried up with manufacturing moving overseas.


----------

