(12-05-2017 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  e]

So to summarize, you think the best way to increase profits for a corporation is to reduce their taxes, so with those savings they can expand production to fill the same amount of demand that already existed for their products.

Quote:My thought would be that if you focus on reducing taxes for more people (i.e. the average worker) they will have more buying power, and thus more demand. Then corporations will use extra profits from extra sales, or loans, to expand their business to meet the new found demand.

(12-05-2017 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  e]

So to summarize, you think the best way to increase profits for a corporation is to reduce their taxes, so with those savings they can expand production to fill the same amount of demand that already existed for their products.

In your example, how do you know demand has been met? And what corporation want is growth, not more production. If more production cannot be sold, they will find other uses for their capital, uses that will grow the bottom line, and nearly all of those uses will help workers in some way.

I grew my business from one branch to five, and it was not to employ more people.

Quote:My thought would be that if you focus on reducing taxes for more people (i.e. the average worker) they will have more buying power, and thus more demand. Then corporations will use extra profits from extra sales, or loans, to expand their business to meet the new found demand.

And when the time comes to expand, why should they locate their new plants in Kentucky rather than Ireland?

And if they locate in Ireland, how many US workers will they hire?

(12-05-2017 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, I take some objection to the stated goal of dropping the corporate tax rate to funnel directly to worker's salaries. The goal of the dropping of the corporate tax rate is to provide a healthier economic environment for the generation of profits; and the increase in available capital for expansion and investment.

That expansion (on a micro scale) leads for more demand across the workforce descriptions per each company. The integral of that on a per position basis simply means more demand for labor per defined position. Which, in classical terms, a shift in the demand curve leads to higher prices overall for given product (the product being a particular work skill set).

But if you dont believe that demand has any impact on the labor force on a per position basis, you almost have to make the aside that corporations and other entities should dedicate the savings on a direct basis to workers as increased salaries, as opposed to indirectly affecting the salaries through expansion in demand.

To be blunt, I was lucky enough to have a skill set that was in short supply and high demand right after law school. I am finding now that it wasnt that confluence in events that fueled a 170 per cent salary bump between day one of year one and day one of year 3 in the law firms. Stupid me thought it was a very basic supply / demand problem.

And OO, I have to agree with you. There will be a lot of slack for salaries given the grotesquely bad participation rate that evolved from 2008.

So to summarize, you think the best way to increase profits for a corporation is to reduce their taxes,

Quote:so with those savings they can expand production to fill the same amount of demand that already existed for their products.

Quote:And to the labor market and wages, I maybe should have been clearer - I will reiterate the labor market does not STRICTLY follow the principle of supply and demand. The legal field is actually a really great example of this. There is a serious glut of lawyers right now, yet wages still remain very high for them on average. If wages followed supply and demand, one would expect wages in law to have bottomed out, but they haven't. The effect of supply and demand on wages is a bit more complicated than the fundamental Econ 101 theory (and I already outlined a bit of why it is). There is certainly a connection between the fundamental concept, but it is not strictly bound to it.

(12-05-2017 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, I take some objection to the stated goal of dropping the corporate tax rate to funnel directly to worker's salaries. The goal of the dropping of the corporate tax rate is to provide a healthier economic environment for the generation of profits; and the increase in available capital for expansion and investment.

That expansion (on a micro scale) leads for more demand across the workforce descriptions per each company. The integral of that on a per position basis simply means more demand for labor per defined position. Which, in classical terms, a shift in the demand curve leads to higher prices overall for given product (the product being a particular work skill set).

But if you dont believe that demand has any impact on the labor force on a per position basis, you almost have to make the aside that corporations and other entities should dedicate the savings on a direct basis to workers as increased salaries, as opposed to indirectly affecting the salaries through expansion in demand.

To be blunt, I was lucky enough to have a skill set that was in short supply and high demand right after law school. I am finding now that it wasnt that confluence in events that fueled a 170 per cent salary bump between day one of year one and day one of year 3 in the law firms. Stupid me thought it was a very basic supply / demand problem.

And OO, I have to agree with you. There will be a lot of slack for salaries given the grotesquely bad participation rate that evolved from 2008.

So to summarize, you think the best way to increase profits for a corporation is to reduce their taxes,

You are reading the word "best" into it. But yes, one way to make the business landscape more hospitable to business is to lower corporate taxes. That should be a no-brainer.

Quote:so with those savings they can expand production to fill the same amount of demand that already existed for their products.

Expansion does not equal the same products and/or services that they already provided. It can also mean adding slates of products and/or services that they are not currently providing.

Quote:And to the labor market and wages, I maybe should have been clearer - I will reiterate the labor market does not STRICTLY follow the principle of supply and demand. The legal field is actually a really great example of this. There is a serious glut of lawyers right now, yet wages still remain very high for them on average. If wages followed supply and demand, one would expect wages in law to have bottomed out, but they haven't. The effect of supply and demand on wages is a bit more complicated than the fundamental Econ 101 theory (and I already outlined a bit of why it is). There is certainly a connection between the fundamental concept, but it is not strictly bound to it.

Fair enough. There *are* people who actually completely disavow the supply/demand paradigm to the labor market as a whole. I was *really* hoping you were not one of them....

As for the comments on the legal market, I will correct you a bit. The average wage for an attorney is quite low --- it has been for close to two decades. The average starting salary for newly minted attorneys is somewhere close to 50k, iirc. There is a dearth of "zeroes" in every graduating class, and many end up in the public sector.

The average wage for someone coming out of a top 25 school and in the top 15 per cent is quite high -- huge competition for them. But aside from that the prospects for newly minted attorneys that dont get one of those jobs is not good at all. And hasnt been since the early 2000's.

(12-05-2017 09:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 04:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way your item about 'skyrocketing' CEO pay really falls short; perhaps you should actually compare apples to apples (i.e. CEO wages against one another, and a consideration that the skill set of a CEO is limited to literally no more than 5 per cent of the working population at tops.)

All you are doing is comparing the wages of one subgroup to another subgroup where the skill sets do not overlap much. And, I hate to tell you, B-school degree does not equal just add water CEO skill set.

Why is it not appropriate to compare the ratio of the CEO's compensation to the median worker over time? This helps to normalize for inflation. Also, one could reasonably expect pay across the spectrum of jobs to increase at a similar rate because we're offshoring a lot of the menial labor jobs, so even the average employee's job is getting more complicated and difficult. And that says nothing about increases in work efficiency over time.

Regardless, this article (http://www.epi.org/publication/top-ceos-make-300-times-more-than-workers-pay-growth-surpasses-market-gains-and-the-rest-of-the-0-1-percent/) provides CEO pay and the ratio to average pay - so both numbers being discussed. I don't have time to dig deep into what companies or what the data set was, but it shows that average CEO compensation has (in 2014 dollars) increased significantly since 1965 (first year in the data set; $832k to $16.3M; 20x increase) while worker compensation has increased by 1.4 times in the same period.

So even if we were just comparing CEOs, how do you not think that a 20x increase in annual compensation (in 2014 dollars, so inflation is accounted for) is considered sky rocketing?

(12-05-2017 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  e]

So to summarize, you think the best way to increase profits for a corporation is to reduce their taxes, so with those savings they can expand production to fill the same amount of demand that already existed for their products.

In your example, how do you know demand has been met? And what corporation want is growth, not more production. If more production cannot be sold, they will find other uses for their capital, uses that will grow the bottom line, and nearly all of those uses will help workers in some way.

I grew my business from one branch to five, and it was not to employ more people.

Quote:My thought would be that if you focus on reducing taxes for more people (i.e. the average worker) they will have more buying power, and thus more demand. Then corporations will use extra profits from extra sales, or loans, to expand their business to meet the new found demand.

And when the time comes to expand, why should they locate their new plants in Kentucky rather than Ireland?

And if they locate in Ireland, how many US workers will they hire?

You're only looking at manufacturing in the last part. You're not taking into account logistics, sales, management, etc. all of which need to expand with increased demand. And we're also only talking about manufacturing, not purchasing of services.

You really don't think that raising the salaries of average American workers would lead to the increase in demand for goods and services? Thereby spurring on growth to meet said demand?

And of course you didn't grow your businesses with the express goal of hiring more people - and that's why, to me, it makes more sense to directly impact the wallets of those people we're talking about. To spur growth from the bottom up, not the top down. Because ion reality, you probably tried to grow those branches using the least number of people possible to maximize your profits, because that's how things work, and why I favor my approach.

I would have liked to have seen more focus on actually affecting the middle class with the corporate tax cuts than what we got.

(12-05-2017 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So to summarize, you think the best way to increase profits for a corporation is to reduce their taxes, so with those savings they can expand production to fill the same amount of demand that already existed for their products.

Quote:My thought would be that if you focus on reducing taxes for more people (i.e. the average worker) they will have more buying power, and thus more demand. Then corporations will use extra profits from extra sales, or loans, to expand their business to meet the new found demand.

Quote:In my mind, it makes more sense to try to increase demand from the bottom up to lift all boats, then to hope that demand increases with an increase in supply. But I could be misunderstanding your point.

Quote:And to the labor market and wages, I maybe should have been clearer - I will reiterate the labor market does not STRICTLY follow the principle of supply and demand. The legal field is actually a really great example of this. There is a serious glut of lawyers right now, yet wages still remain very high for them on average. If wages followed supply and demand, one would expect wages in law to have bottomed out, but they haven't. The effect of supply and demand on wages is a bit more complicated than the fundamental Econ 101 theory (and I already outlined a bit of why it is). There is certainly a connection between the fundamental concept, but it is not strictly bound to it.

(12-05-2017 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 04:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way your item about 'skyrocketing' CEO pay really falls short; perhaps you should actually compare apples to apples (i.e. CEO wages against one another, and a consideration that the skill set of a CEO is limited to literally no more than 5 per cent of the working population at tops.)

All you are doing is comparing the wages of one subgroup to another subgroup where the skill sets do not overlap much. And, I hate to tell you, B-school degree does not equal just add water CEO skill set.

Why is it not appropriate to compare the ratio of the CEO's compensation to the median worker over time? This helps to normalize for inflation. Also, one could reasonably expect pay across the spectrum of jobs to increase at a similar rate because we're offshoring a lot of the menial labor jobs, so even the average employee's job is getting more complicated and difficult. And that says nothing about increases in work efficiency over time.

Regardless, this article (http://www.epi.org/publication/top-ceos-make-300-times-more-than-workers-pay-growth-surpasses-market-gains-and-the-rest-of-the-0-1-percent/) provides CEO pay and the ratio to average pay - so both numbers being discussed. I don't have time to dig deep into what companies or what the data set was, but it shows that average CEO compensation has (in 2014 dollars) increased significantly since 1965 (first year in the data set; $832k to $16.3M; 20x increase) while worker compensation has increased by 1.4 times in the same period.

So even if we were just comparing CEOs, how do you not think that a 20x increase in annual compensation (in 2014 dollars, so inflation is accounted for) is considered sky rocketing?

The complexity of mopping floors at McDonalds is skyrocketing? Look I know that most people leaning left love to screech about the 'unfairness' of CEO pay, and that certainly is a valid discussion on its own.

But if you are using the rates of change in CEO pay vs the rates of change in "average worker" pay as a metric in showing how supply/demand does not affect the labor market, that is a little off base.

All those price differentials tend to show is the differences in elasticity of the supply curve for each subgroup. And each elasticity is most likely some function of experience, training, and specific knowledge.

It truly is an apples and cough medicine comparison. The reason for cough medicine is that in a pinch, one can substitute an orange for the apple to sate your hunger. NFW you are going to hire a 2nd year engineer to run IBM.

(12-05-2017 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As I said Lad, the comparison of CEO salary to a 'normal' salary is a valid discussion topic. Problem it has no bearing or impact on a supply/demand/price issue for the labor market as a whole.

And the discussion of what you state as 'jobs being more complex' is actually a discussion of the progression over time of what a 'normal job' is -- that has changed from "high school diploma", to "college degree", to "practical knowledge college degree" (i.e. STEM or accounting) just from the mid 1950's.

What was considered a top level salary entree in the mid 70's (college degree) only just gets you in the door along with tens of millions of others at this point. So given that upward increase in supply of college degreed candidates, it really stands to common sense that that increase in supply will translate to downward salary pressure.

(12-05-2017 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So to summarize, you think the best way to increase profits for a corporation is to reduce their taxes, so with those savings they can expand production to fill the same amount of demand that already existed for their products.

That may be an accurate summary of what he is saying (although I think not) or it may be an accurate summary of what you took away from what he said, but it's not a correct takeaway. Reducing US corporate taxes is not going to have any material effect on US corporate profits, at least not the big ones. Why not? Because multi-nationals don't pay a country tax rate. They pay a worldwide rate, and move operations around to achieve that. Look at it this way. The weighted average world rate, for developed countries, is 27%. US corporations pay an effective rate of 27%. Duh. It's basically a tradeoff that they plan at the highest level. They do some things in countries tat tax at 20%, they do some things in countries that tax at 15%, they do some things in countries that tax at 30%, and some things in countries that tax at 35%. And they pay taxes on those things at those rates in those countries. When all is said and done, it averages 27%. Some things like sales have to be done in the countries with 35%, so they do those there and they set up transfer prices to minimize the amounts of taxable income in those countries. The parts of their businesses that they can, they move to the 15% and 20% countries. If the US lowers the corporate rate to 20%, what that alters is the mix of what they do here versus what they do in the 30% countries, for example, plus probably taking away some of the things from other 20% countries (and maybe even 15% countries, depending upon non-tax factors). Because a component of that worldwide mix went from 35% to 20%, the worldwide rate probably drops a bit, maybe to 26%.

Your idea, that we increase worker salaries to grow demand, is good, but it assumes a closed system. If I increase worker salaries, yes I increase demand. The question is how to supply demand. In a closed system, I can't go anywhere else. In a global system, I can. Does it make more sense to produce the goods to supply that demand in the US at the higher salaries, or in Germany at lower salaries?

The problem with your Keynesian view of economics is that you look only at the demand side. You have to look at the supply side too. Keynes himself understood that, but most of his followers seem to have forgotten.

Quote:My thought would be that if you focus on reducing taxes for more people (i.e. the average worker) they will have more buying power, and thus more demand. Then corporations will use extra profits from extra sales, or loans, to expand their business to meet the new found demand.

But do they expand here, or elsewhere?

Quote:In my mind, it makes more sense to try to increase demand from the bottom up to lift all boats, then to hope that demand increases with an increase in supply. But I could be misunderstanding your point.

Again you are looking at demand only. You also need to look as supply and investment to understand the whole picture.

Quote:And to the labor market and wages, I maybe should have been clearer - I will reiterate the labor market does not STRICTLY follow the principle of supply and demand. The legal field is actually a really great example of this. There is a serious glut of lawyers right now, yet wages still remain very high for them on average. If wages followed supply and demand, one would expect wages in law to have bottomed out, but they haven't. The effect of supply and demand on wages is a bit more complicated than the fundamental Econ 101 theory (and I already outlined a bit of why it is). There is certainly a connection between the fundamental concept, but it is not strictly bound to it.

As tanq pointed out, there is a glut of lawyers from lesser law schools with lower GPAs. There is a shortage of lawyers from top law schools with high GPAs. So the latter group commands enough of a premium to drive the averages up, while the former end up starving or doing something else. I know a bunch of the former group who are now teaching school. The biggest waste of money is paying for the second best lawyer in the courtroom. So those aren't in demand.

(12-05-2017 12:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As I said Lad, the comparison of CEO salary to a 'normal' salary is a valid discussion topic. Problem it has no bearing or impact on a supply/demand/price issue for the labor market as a whole.

And the discussion of what you state as 'jobs being more complex' is actually a discussion of the progression over time of what a 'normal job' is -- that has changed from "high school diploma", to "college degree", to "practical knowledge college degree" (i.e. STEM or accounting) just from the mid 1950's.

What was considered a top level salary entree in the mid 70's (college degree) only just gets you in the door along with tens of millions of others at this point. So given that upward increase in supply of college degreed candidates, it really stands to common sense that that increase in supply will translate to downward salary pressure.

You mean there are lots of people with degrees working in Starbucks? How unfair. let's pass a law requiring them to get the same pay as all the other college grads. They must be compensated for their knowledge of Art History and Sociology.

(12-05-2017 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So to summarize, you think the best way to increase profits for a corporation is to reduce their taxes, so with those savings they can expand production to fill the same amount of demand that already existed for their products.

That may be an accurate summary of what he is saying (although I think not) or it may be an accurate summary of what you took away from what he said, but it's not a correct takeaway. Reducing US corporate taxes is not going to have any material effect on US corporate profits, at least not the big ones. Why not? Because multi-nationals don't pay a country tax rate. They pay a worldwide rate, and move operations around to achieve that. Look at it this way. The weighted average world rate, for developed countries, is 27%. US corporations pay an effective rate of 27%. Duh. It's basically a tradeoff that they plan at the highest level. They do some things in countries tat tax at 20%, they do some things in countries that tax at 15%, they do some things in countries that tax at 30%, and some things in countries that tax at 35%. And they pay taxes on those things at those rates in those countries. When all is said and done, it averages 27%. Some things like sales have to be done in the countries with 35%, so they do those there and they set up transfer prices to minimize the amounts of taxable income in those countries. The parts of their businesses that they can, they move to the 15% and 20% countries. If the US lowers the corporate rate to 20%, what that alters is the mix of what they do here versus what they do in the 30% countries, for example, plus probably taking away some of the things from other 20% countries (and maybe even 15% countries, depending upon non-tax factors). Because a component of that worldwide mix went from 35% to 20%, the worldwide rate probably drops a bit, maybe to 26%.

Your idea, that we increase worker salaries to grow demand, is good, but it assumes a closed system. If I increase worker salaries, yes I increase demand. The question is how to supply demand. In a closed system, I can't go anywhere else. In a global system, I can. Does it make more sense to produce the goods to supply that demand in the US at the higher salaries, or in Germany at lower salaries?

The problem with your Keynesian view of economics is that you look only at the demand side. You have to look at the supply side too. Keynes himself understood that, but most of his followers seem to have forgotten.

Quote:My thought would be that if you focus on reducing taxes for more people (i.e. the average worker) they will have more buying power, and thus more demand. Then corporations will use extra profits from extra sales, or loans, to expand their business to meet the new found demand.

But do they expand here, or elsewhere?

Quote:In my mind, it makes more sense to try to increase demand from the bottom up to lift all boats, then to hope that demand increases with an increase in supply. But I could be misunderstanding your point.

Again you are looking at demand only. You also need to look as supply and investment to understand the whole picture.

Quote:And to the labor market and wages, I maybe should have been clearer - I will reiterate the labor market does not STRICTLY follow the principle of supply and demand. The legal field is actually a really great example of this. There is a serious glut of lawyers right now, yet wages still remain very high for them on average. If wages followed supply and demand, one would expect wages in law to have bottomed out, but they haven't. The effect of supply and demand on wages is a bit more complicated than the fundamental Econ 101 theory (and I already outlined a bit of why it is). There is certainly a connection between the fundamental concept, but it is not strictly bound to it.

As tanq pointed out, there is a glut of lawyers from lesser law schools with lower GPAs. There is a shortage of lawyers from top law schools with high GPAs. So the latter group commands enough of a premium to drive the averages up, while the former end up starving or doing something else. I know a bunch of the former group who are now teaching school. The biggest waste of money is paying for the second best lawyer in the courtroom. So those aren't in demand.

Lad???

(12-05-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As I said Lad, the comparison of CEO salary to a 'normal' salary is a valid discussion topic. Problem it has no bearing or impact on a supply/demand/price issue for the labor market as a whole.

And the discussion of what you state as 'jobs being more complex' is actually a discussion of the progression over time of what a 'normal job' is -- that has changed from "high school diploma", to "college degree", to "practical knowledge college degree" (i.e. STEM or accounting) just from the mid 1950's.

What was considered a top level salary entree in the mid 70's (college degree) only just gets you in the door along with tens of millions of others at this point. So given that upward increase in supply of college degreed candidates, it really stands to common sense that that increase in supply will translate to downward salary pressure.

You mean there are lots of people with degrees working in Starbucks? How unfair. let's pass a law requiring them to get the same pay as all the other college grads. They must be compensated for their knowledge of Art History and Sociology.

I don't get your fixation on the most menial of jobs in a company - those don't always equate to the average employee because they're at the bottom rung.

But at some point, don't we want, as a society, to make sure that those who are willing to both educate themselves AND work a full time job, to make enough money to live a fruitful life? Since when did our definition of working an honest days work change from just that, to working an honest day's work in a non-service industry position? I actually DO support a law that makes sure they're paid a living wage, as minimum wage laws have not kept up, at all, with inflation.

Ironically, one of the main reasons those people went to school and got an Art History and Sociology degree, is because YOUR generation told them to, and told them that if they got a college degree that they would have a job waiting for them. It seems like nowadays all that Boomers want to do is ***** and moan about how awful my generation is, without taking a good hard look at the opportunities they themselves had, that fact that a good portion of my generation was raised by them, and that the rungs of the ladder up are being pulled up more and more each day (for example, they won't fricken retire and free up salaries for new employees).

We've now gone off of tax policy, but this sure is a fun tangent.

(12-05-2017 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As I said Lad, the comparison of CEO salary to a 'normal' salary is a valid discussion topic. Problem it has no bearing or impact on a supply/demand/price issue for the labor market as a whole.

And the discussion of what you state as 'jobs being more complex' is actually a discussion of the progression over time of what a 'normal job' is -- that has changed from "high school diploma", to "college degree", to "practical knowledge college degree" (i.e. STEM or accounting) just from the mid 1950's.

What was considered a top level salary entree in the mid 70's (college degree) only just gets you in the door along with tens of millions of others at this point. So given that upward increase in supply of college degreed candidates, it really stands to common sense that that increase in supply will translate to downward salary pressure.

You mean there are lots of people with degrees working in Starbucks? How unfair. let's pass a law requiring them to get the same pay as all the other college grads. They must be compensated for their knowledge of Art History and Sociology.

I don't get your fixation on the most menial of jobs in a company - those don't always equate to the average employee because they're at the bottom rung.

But at some point, don't we want, as a society, to make sure that those who are willing to both educate themselves AND work a full time job, to make enough money to live a fruitful life? Since when did our definition of working an honest days work change from just that, to working an honest day's work in a non-service industry position? I actually DO support a law that makes sure they're paid a living wage, as minimum wage laws have not kept up, at all, with inflation.

Ironically, one of the main reasons those people went to school and got an Art History and Sociology degree, is because YOUR generation told them to, and told them that if they got a college degree that they would have a job waiting for them. It seems like nowadays all that Boomers want to do is ***** and moan about how awful my generation is, without taking a good hard look at the opportunities they themselves had, that fact that a good portion of my generation was raised by them, and that the rungs of the ladder up are being pulled up more and more each day (for example, they won't fricken retire and free up salaries for new employees).

We've now gone off of tax policy, but this sure is a fun tangent.

yeah, my generation effed up. don't make me carry the burden for this. In any case, it was your guys who did most of the effing.

The problem of course is that sold a college education as a key to a high paying job. ANY college education. Any major, any school. Then they made government loans available so people could pursue this dream. End result, lots of people with degrees but no skills and a load of debt.

But you want to guarantee a certain wage to all these unprepared people? How Marxist of you. In this capitalistic society, if they want the money, they need to learn a skill. Not just have money legislated into their pocket.

when I had my interview at Rice, the Dean asked me if education had an intrinsic value. IMO, it does, but we have sold the idea that it has a monetary value. Just the degree is supposed to set you for life.

I think the solution is to stop waving this pie in the sky in their faces, not reward it with higher minimum wages.

I encouraged my grandson to start on a plumbing career out of HS. Sorry if I messed up the 50,000,000 or so (just an estimate!!!!!!!!) who wasted their time on stupid degrees.

(12-05-2017 02:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But at some point, don't we want, as a society, to make sure that those who are willing to both educate themselves AND work a full time job, to make enough money to live a fruitful life? Since when did our definition of working an honest days work change from just that, to working an honest day's work in a non-service industry position? I actually DO support a law that makes sure they're paid a living wage, as minimum wage laws have not kept up, at all, with inflation.

Quote:Wait, it's Marxist to want a minimum wage so that people who work a full time job can afford to live?

Quote:The idea here is that, for those who want to work a full time job, that their employer pays them enough that they're above the floor, so that the government does not have to pick up the slack for them.

Quote:Previously, I was talking about the average worker in a company, which would include office workers and other white collar individuals, who have seen their pay stagnate as well. Those include people who received STEM degrees, who are contributing to society, but who are still not seeing wage growth in the way one would expect.

Quote:I do agree that we need to transition away from the Boomer logic of go to school to get a job - it obviously has not panned out. We need to be encouraging trade schools again and leveraging local colleges, like community colleges, more to help people understand if a college degree is the right choice for them.

Quote:And finally, how exactly could my generation, born in the early 80's to early 2000s have done the most effing? Our oldest members are now in their early 30s - what exactly could they have done to have caused so many problems?

(12-05-2017 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But at some point, don't we want, as a society, to make sure that those who are willing to both educate themselves AND work a full time job, to make enough money to live a fruitful life? Since when did our definition of working an honest days work change from just that, to working an honest day's work in a non-service industry position? I actually DO support a law that makes sure they're paid a living wage, as minimum wage laws have not kept up, at all, with inflation.

So we legislate what is a "living wage" irrespective of the value-add that the position brings. Got it. I just love the government imposing financial determinations on all aspects of life. They are so good at doing that.

Quote:Wait, it's Marxist to want a minimum wage so that people who work a full time job can afford to live?

It is pretty much explicitly the latter half of the Marx quote of ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Considering you are essentially asking those who have more cogent skill sets to foot the bill, it seems to fit the former part of quote rather implicitly well in addition.

Quote:The idea here is that, for those who want to work a full time job, that their employer pays them enough that they're above the floor, so that the government does not have to pick up the slack for them.

Interesting that in the above you are seemingly arguing against government welfare on one hand, but replacing it with corporate welfare enforced by the government on the other.

Quote:Previously, I was talking about the average worker in a company, which would include office workers and other white collar individuals, who have seen their pay stagnate as well. Those include people who received STEM degrees, who are contributing to society, but who are still not seeing wage growth in the way one would expect.

Burgeoning supplies of skill sets coupled with slower economic growth is a fing *****.

But somehow the solution is to institute a government-dictated form of welfare/price control? Sounds like an absolute disaster to me.

Quote:I do agree that we need to transition away from the Boomer logic of go to school to get a job - it obviously has not panned out. We need to be encouraging trade schools again and leveraging local colleges, like community colleges, more to help people understand if a college degree is the right choice for them.

+25(0)

My electrician (whom I met when he was worker bee) now has his own company. Trust me, he does fantastically well. As does my plumber. As does my HVAC guy. As does my structure carpenter. As does my finish carpenter.

Quote:And finally, how exactly could my generation, born in the early 80's to early 2000s have done the most effing? Our oldest members are now in their early 30s - what exactly could they have done to have caused so many problems?

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand you probably wont be able to pay back the 200k in loans for the Art History BA one gets, or the 350k for the Art History MA, or the 450k Art History PhD. My heart goes out to these degree holders; it sucks rocks for them. But most when they made those decisions to piss away loan monies and time on junk degrees *are* old enough to be deemed mature enough to cancel my vote out, right?

(But, just as obviously, an Art History degree holder is by definition *not* a rocket scientist....)

(12-05-2017 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, by "your guys", I meant Democrats, not millennials.

A minimum wage that helps entry level workers make a decent wage is fine. A minimum wage that is supposed to support a family of four is a disaster.

If everybody is above the floor, all you have is a new floor. We could raise the MW to $100/hour, and would everyone be above average? No, we would still have people who could not afford things. it would be the MW workers.

(12-05-2017 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, by "your guys", I meant Democrats, not millennials.

A minimum wage that helps entry level workers make a decent wage is fine. A minimum wage that is supposed to support a family of four is a disaster.

If everybody is above the floor, all you have is a new floor. We could raise the MW to $100/hour, and would everyone be above average? No, we would still have people who could not afford things. it would be the MW workers.