Y2HH

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:23 PM) Where was it ever written that risk takers are obligated to share their rewards? I still don't understand the sense of entitlement to someone else's risk's payoffs, when the reality is if that person hadn't taken their risk you'd have nothing. I think in large part, he doesn't see established corporations as the risk takers they once were...and to a degree, I agree. For example, the current CEO of Ford, Alan Mulally -- what kind of risk is the success of failure of Ford to him?! He gets paid millions either way. If we are talking about the risk Henry Ford took, however, that's a different story.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 12:16 PM) For the record, I was not originally discussing Reagan, Obama, Carter, Kennedy or any other President in terms of how good or bad they were. Just pointing out the mythological proportions that some people take their heroes to. I personally think Reagan did, overall, a better job than Carter... but I also think that many current conservatives are in laughable denial of the reality of what Reagan was (basically, he'd be thrown off the GOP bus in modern times for being far too liberal). Similarly, many Dems were (not so much ARE anymore) inflating the IDEA of Obama to be something that no President could possibly have achieved even in good circumstances, let alone with a deep recession, major deficit problems and multiple wars going on. I pretty much agree with this 100%.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) See, meaningful discussion! Seriously, I appreciate the elaboration here. I guess the common theme there points back to "lack of bargaining power," then, at least for unskilled or low-skills labor. See, my biggest problem with this is it's a internet forum...I'm much better at such discussions in person, as BS and others found out when I met them. Unfortunately, when you talk about a global economy, an unprecedented and never seen before "unfairness" creeps into the equation as there is no level playing field. Different nations have different laws, different regulations, different rules, etc...so now we have a new economy based on different laws/rules/regulations depending on where you are, some prosecutable sometimes, sometimes not... This is the same basic reason why the EU was destined to collapse (which I called for when they formed it), which a centralized monetary system (the Euro) spread over different governments following their own separate monetary policies. This cannot work...it's baffling that they thought it could, and these are supposed to be the smart people. This is our modern day job system. The playing field is no longer level...thus we have what we have.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:29 AM) That's a completely different explanation from your "jobs got easier thanks to computers/other tech" answer offered up earlier, though. World competition in labor markets may be an answer, but I think that graph looks specifically at American productivity gains. I guess the implication would be that our productivity gains are the only things keeping us employed; were it not for them, we'd have to compete with third-world wages on the same level? Well, it's all encompassing...and of course, every facet of this matters. I was merely giving an example of one facet, but I can give more if you'd like... * Jobs got easier due to automation/computer assistance (thus people are more easily replaced) * World market competition (the talent pool just got far larger) * Many foreign workers are used to having far less and are more accepting of a lower quality of life (which is of higher quality than they had before if they take the job), this effectively drives down wages * Leading to my earlier point that computers and automation have enabled these less skilled workers to be almost as productive as their more skilled counterparts In the end, I don't have an official answer -- because there isn't one specific answer, but many. Corporations are keeping their profits, especially now, in light of the recent economic collapse...as they found out what happens when you don't have BILLIONS of cash on hand just in case of an emergency...including emergencies caused by other entities out of your own control.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) the same people that bought the new technology in the previous decades when productivity gains by labor resulted in increased wages for labor and increased profits for owners. What fundamentally changed in the late 70's or early 80's that changed this dynamic to owners keeping all of the productivity gains? You already know the answer to this...but aren't acknowledging it. What changed? We went from a local "American" economy to a world economy with world competition. That's what changed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) Great! I'd like to talk about why that is, if its fair or desirable and, if not, what might be done to change that. Why? Because of the people we put in the senate, congress, the presidency and our various courts. How does it change? Revolution and nothing short of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) you gotta admit to the irony of saying "shut off the bias" and then following it immediately with a very flowery description of how Reagan saved America. I kind of just did. But to be fair to me, there are degrees of bias...and he's being WAY over the top. As for a "flowery" description? Reagan is largely credited for ushering in a boom period because he was in the right place at the right time, and be that as it may, he's the one many people largely credit. At the same time, he's also the one they largely blame for the eventual collapse of 'what does up must come down'. So I wouldn't truly call what I said flowery, because I never told the ending to the story (which we all know). While he helped build this nation of banks, lawyers and corporations, he also gets blamed for it's eventual collapse. The same can be said for Clinton, who ushered in the era of the .com boom...but if we credit him for that, we have to blame him for the collapse that followed. We give presidents too much credit and too much blame. Congress, the fed, etc...they're the policy makers. Not our Presidents.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:09 AM) I would ask the same, if I can call it that. Please stop believing in the Reagan myth of how great he was, and bad Carter was.. The prosperity was in spite not because of him. Recovery came about because Oil Prices dropped, which he had nothing to do with. If Carter was Reelected he would have had that benefit, as it happened in 1983. Reagan gets credit for something he had ZERO to do with. There is very little Reagan "got right".. IMO. Everything the GOP now stands against, Reagan did.. Which confuses me. I think we blame presidents for too much and credit them for too much, in all honesty. Reagan wasn't a bad president by any stretch, but he wasn't the end all, either... That said, people need to stop this President argument...as they have less to do with things than the senate/congress does.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 11:06 AM) The truth is, neither president was really that good. You could make that argument, but you would also need to ignore that the person that basically helped steer the government out of its economic morass was a Carter nominee. (He also, arguably, caused the 1981 recession in an attempt to curb inflation.) You can't really pin aiding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan on Reagan, because he just amped up a policy that Carter had already begun pursuing in 1980. Carter also stopped shipments of wheat to African nations in famine during the late 1970's as part of the US pissing match with the Soviet Union. The biggest peacetime proposal for defense spending increases happened under Carter in 1980 as well. It was Reagan who negotiated with terrorists, not Carter by the way. There were a slew of things that I disagreed with Reagan on, not the least of which was Iran/Contra. But he also did many things right. I wouldn't say that Reagan was a failed presidency by any means - but it also wasn't a Presidency that did big things. Conversely, I wouldn't call Carter's presidency a failure either, but I would call him a failure as a politician during that time. This is probably, in all honesty, a better comparison... Pinning anything on 1 person is never a great idea, either. Blaming Carter and only Carter for our woes back then isn't fair of me or anyone either, either. Congress/Senate have a LOT more to do with the state of our nation than a President does, IMO. That said, calling Reagan a bad president isn't fair. Both had their merits and flaws, like any president.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) I could show you graphs showing how that unmatched prosperity wasn't seen by most! What prosperity is, is in the eye of the beholder. I maintain that things have NEVER been better for us than they are now. Don't know about the rest of you, but my life is pretty f***ing awesome...for as s***ty as things apparently are. Even my out of work friend isn't having that hard of a time...somehow. People have lost sight of what a hard life is. They really, really have. Growing up poor, I guess I recognized and remembered what it was like.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:51 AM) Was supporting the Contras a flaw? Is Monday morning quarterbacking a flaw? In hindsight, we can discuss billions of mistakes made by past Presidents.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:49 AM) Utopia? Throwing a tantrum? Saying there's no risk? huh? I thought we might be able to have a discussion on why wages have become separated from productivity, the fairness or justification for it, what implications expanding inequality might have etc. You've decided that I have some "insane utopian thought process" because I raise the question of "why are things different from the 60's and 70's?" I've pretty much made it clear that I don't believe it's fair, but a lot of things aren't fair...I just don't get why you (or others) have expectations or per-conceived notions that your productivity should match profits. Productivity is through the roof in large part to computers and automation that the corporations own, that you use, which make your modern day productivity possible. This also means you are easily replaceable by someone that will be almost as productive (or slightly moreso) in many areas of work. If you believe you are being treated unfairly where you work, then quit...find a job and/or go into politics and change things. I'm not sure what you want to discuss here...other than what amounts to a utopian business environment where businesses share their profits on a nearly equal scale with every employee. Yes, corporate profits are through the roof and for many people wages have stagnated in comparison to productivity. And so has the effort people put into their jobs. It's of my opinion that it's no longer valid to relate job productivity to wages.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:38 AM) Are you thinking Reagan was a good President.. Why ? He was probably one of the worst in the last 50 years.. I think all presidents have their merits and their flaws. To say Reagan was one of the worst presidents in 50 years is just dismissible biased partisan insanity considering Carter and Nixon fall in that span. The fact that you heralded Carter as a "good" president says it all...Carter was one of the worst presidents of ALL time, not just int he last 50 years...and you consider him a great president? Shut off the bias, then we can talk. Reagan ushered in an era of prosperity unmatched by most, in a time where America was all but a blown engine that was stopped dead on the freeway. Do I think he did everything right? No. No president does. But was he bad? Hell no. To say otherwise is just, IMO, ignorant.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:35 AM) If you find discussion of ideas and concepts to be pointless then...stop posting? I have to bring sanity to your insane utopian thought process...which is why I post. If there is no risk, as you say, then start a f***ing business, grow it into a corporation and then you can pay yourself all the profits...oh no, wait...better yet, you can SHARE all of your profits equally with your employees. What I see here is b****ing and tantrum throwing...and if you were in their position, you'd be no different.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:31 AM) No, and the US is actually relatively low in that regard. Firms with 500+ employees account for 50%, and firms with at least 100 count for 64%. eta the problem comes in defining what a "small business" is since it's a vague term. As we saw somewhat recently, Republicans were defining "small business" as all s-corps, which was nonsense since it encapsulated multi-billion dollar firms. I'm not sure how to read that confusing website -- but it looks to me like small employers employ more people than large ones. Edit: Never mind I see it now. But still...so? I guess my question is this, why are you surprised that businesses want to keep their profits? I went into the work force expecting that...it's business...it's not nice, it's not pretty...it's business.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:05 AM) 100% Agree, look how the GOP portrait Reagan as some "god", and how great he was... When in reality, Carter was better, the problem was.. Carter had a crappy situation that was out of his control, which improved dramatically under Reagan.. And what I am talking about is the Oil issue, of OPEC. Did you just say Carter was better? Like...really? Sorry, but you deserve to get hit by a stick for that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:29 AM) But those aren't risks brought on by increased productivity. What's more risky about buying a PC that entitles upper management/ownership to all productivity gains that doesn't apply to buying a typewriter 50 years ago? I already said I think executive and ceo wages are out of control...but in the end, what can you do about it? Nothing. Thus far this discussion has accomplished nothing but highlight that rich people are rich, and they're not sharing with you. I never expected them to share with me...I guess that's the difference in how I see things.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:18 AM) *obviously an illustrative example and not applicable to all businesses, mostly just the large ones who employee a majority of the country. I thought small businesses were the bulk of employment?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 10:18 AM) What additional risk are employers assuming that's led to record profits and record productivity that's fundamentally different from every technological advance before 1980? What additional risk? Legal battles, patent battles (we can talk about the need of patent reform but whats the point), the fact is that right now these largely profitable companies are assaulted by lawsuits all over the place. And a multitude of other fees and risks they take, such as employee safety, etc...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 09:44 AM) ie there is no warfare but class warfare, smash capital, viva la revolucion! more seriously I don't know how you can look at data showing real wages being stagnant for decades and the explosion of household debt that correlates damn near perfectly and not see the connection. Advocating for universal thrift isn't the answer, either, because we see what happens when households stop spending in a consumption-based economy. I guess I can't see it because my wage has gone up slowly and steadily since I entered the work force in the late 90's. I don't really base my life by comparing it to what other people have or don't have...all I can do is watch out for me/my family...reading some chart about someone elses economic woes doesn't do anything for me. Sure, I wish we were all rich and money didn't need to exist...but what does this accomplish aside from nothing? I guess it's hard to see the forest for the trees in my situation, since my wage never stagnated.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 09:34 AM) Somebody still captures those productivity gains, though, and it ain't "the computer." It's another human who's doing no more work than they were doing before. And, really, computers are just another tool. Productivity gains in the past from tool improvements led to increased wages; why do computers get a special position from all other tools? While I agree with you that someone gets those gains, it's not us. While we all wish the corporations would increase our pay by 100% every year since they're making so much money due to increased productivity (assisted by computers or not), I've also accepted reality and that's not going to happen.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 09:14 AM) Why should we expect or accept wage increases to be divorced from productivity increases? If my work is generating more revenue, why should someone else get to keep the difference? I realize that we're probably coming to this from different first principles, but I hope you can see my POV. Are you going to share your wage with the computer that's now doing 90% of your job for you? I see your point...but my point is I EXPECTED my wage to grow at a much slower clip than my productivity BECAUSE I'm not the one being more productive, the technology I use is. What makes me marketable is a skill set that's not easily replicated. This is what I mean by studying something useful in college, or even in high school/trade school. This is more important than your productivity...because without a specialized skill set, anyone can be productive now. Productivity isn't the measuring stick for pay anymore...and people haven't yet accepted that. There are a lot of dime a dozen jobs out there...and a computer will make anyone in that job almost as productive as the next guy/gal on the list...thus production being used as a measuring stick no longer applies.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 09:04 AM) Remember that these things you're pointing to, more cars TV's etc. have come at the expense of moving manufacturing overseas, a second income and, of course, the expansion of credit along with technological improvements. I think you're really sticking on a semantic nitpick that misses the larger issues brought up in the graph. For clarification... I think CEO/executive pay is completely out of whack with reality. I think corporate profits are insane despite the recession (as a matter of fact they've never been higher), etc. I'm not arguing that about the graph in every regard... I'm simply saying that it should be, to some degree, expected that wages slowed while productivity skyrocketed due to automation and advancements in technology that assist us with our work. What I'm not saying is that CEO's deserve to be paid 99% of the companies profits and the rest of the employees 1%.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 09:01 AM) my garbage men don't have the fancy automated trucks! anecdote canceled! But still these gains in productivity haven't resulted in increased real wages or less work. Some jobs have gotten easier; others allow a lot more accomplishment for the same effort, others, like literally cleaning up s***, really haven't. I don't really think there's a fundamental disagreement here? Well see, I won't disagree with you here, because this is of sound logic. I'm not saying that across the board everything is easier...but a LOT of it is. The first things the young generation needs to do is reset themselves and stop studying useless s*** in college...they also need to recognize that all the stuff they take for granted didn't even exist a mere 20 years ago. They need to stop b****ing about how much everything sucks and recognize how great things actually are. For a recession...I have to say, this is the greatest recession I've ever seen in my life...expressways are full, despite gas costing 5000$ a cup, new cars everywhere, restaurants are packed, casinos are packed... Maybe people need to stop f***ing spending what they don't have and we'd start making some progress.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) When did I say that? You didn't...and neither did anyone else. I know I didn't. This is how they argue things... They need to watch that video and stop being b****es.