The Economic Populist
Speak Your Mind 2 Cents at a Time
Most Popular
BREAKING: Wall Street Mega-Merger!!!
- 21694 reads
Ignoring the Big Picture/Disturbing Trend in Graphs
- 29134 reads
US oil supplies at a 36½ year low, SPR at a 39 year low; oil+products supplies at an 18½ year low
- 181968 reads
Bonddad versus Bonddad
- 71400 reads
2009: Recession vs. Recovery (Update 2)
- 66571 reads
Industrial production, capacity utilization rebound
- 23290 reads
User login
Recent comments
Poll
BREAKING: Wall Street Mega-Merger!!!
- 21694 reads
Ignoring the Big Picture/Disturbing Trend in Graphs
- 29134 reads
US oil supplies at a 36½ year low, SPR at a 39 year low; oil+products supplies at an 18½ year low
- 181968 reads
Bonddad versus Bonddad
- 71400 reads
2009: Recession vs. Recovery (Update 2)
- 66571 reads
Industrial production, capacity utilization rebound
- 23290 reads
The Golden Rule
- 1826049 reads
Will the NY Attorney General Bring Doomsday Charges Against Wall Street? If So, How Long Will He Survive?
- 1215832 reads
New York Post Claims Census Falsifies Unemployment Figures
- 948725 reads
How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth?
- 361412 reads
VAT or Value Added Tax is Getting a Look in D.C.
- 344998 reads
U3 and U6 Unemployment during the Great Depression
- 320581 reads
The war on the middle class
- 314610 reads
House discusses 401k/IRA confiscation
- 313732 reads
Tax Cuts for the Rich Do Not Generate Jobs
- 279502 reads
.
The Senate passed a Republican budget plan (52-46) that would cut spending by $5.1 trillion over 10 years, raise military funding and repeal Obamacare.
The budget provides extra money for the military through the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, adding $38 billion to $58 billion already allotted. The defense money isn't subject to automatic sequestration budget caps and, in effect, would bring the Pentagon’s budget to $612 billion.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) says the Democrats want any increases to be 50-50 --- for every dollar of defense there is a dollar of non-defense.
But all the GOP's bells and whistles in their newest budget plan is just for show, as it will never pass as a real budget bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/senate-budget-vote-republicans_...
bruce rauner is a walker puppet to the max and at new governor he is pushing all the Right to work for less walker propaganda,and then touts he came from a union background,the only background he is from is a bankrupt business agenda that he has eartned millions of dollars from the ole rob the taxman to pay the richman behind laws that were passed by his republican fellowship for years,right to work is just what it means right to work for less all the way around,money benefits and prosperity,wake up
more goes into PCE beyond gas but I can calculate real when March Personal income comes out. I think Q1 GDP ain't gonna be pretty.
prices for all commodities less food and energy rose 0.2% in February, the largest jump in more than a year and only the second time since September 2011 that index rose as much as 0.2%...this suggests a similar deflator will be used on retail sales for February when computing personal consumption expenditures of goods for the month, and since retail sales ex groceries and gas stations fell by 0.93%, that implies real personal consumption expenditures of all other goods would be down by more than 1.1% for the month...
1) President Obama's
2) House Budget Committee
3) Senate Budget Committee
4) House Congressional Progressive Caucus
Check it out:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/competing-visions-2015/
* Every Senate Democrat voted in favor of Sen. Bernie Sanders' budget proposal, making it a 45-52 party-line vote in the Republican-controlled Senate (Most probably all for show, knowing it could never pass.)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
Good op-ed at The Hill about "The People's Budget" (proposed by the Progressive Caucus)
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/236658-stark-choices-peoples-budget-vs-...
My choice: The People's Budget
http://cpcbudget.org/#peoples-budget
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget-a-raise-for-america/
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/uploads/FINAL%20FY16%20Peoples%20Budget.pdf
what middle class would you be talking about?? This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Bush II inherited a SURPLUS, REMEMBER A SURPLUS say it with me one more time you right wing hack A SURPLUS from Bill Clinton, and then what happened ???
oh he gave it all to his rich plutocrats and the economy tanked in '08 before Obama was elected.
WTF does entitlement spending have to do with that genius?
It's the liberal dem's that keep giving out free social security to every criminal who can jump the border fence, years ago they called it welfare. the republicans are Finally taking a stand for the working middle class. Let me make this perfectly clear no entitlements, you should get what you work for. Need more money get another job or get training in a better job, put down the x-box put on your work boots and get a job.
Too bad that the right wing media won't promote it. The 0.01 have that covered too.
The only tax plan worth discussing is to restore the pre-Reagan tax structure. Paying 50% on tens of millions of obscene profit isn't too much to ask in support of the society that the filthy rich exploit. And for the knucklehead Senator from Florida- why in the world should capital gains be taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income? After all, most capital gains tend to be the result of good fortune, rather than hard work.
You say, "We either need to raise taxes or lower spending, and since a significant amount of spending goes to relatively low income people, and the bulk of taxes are paid by relatively high income people, it will get ugly for somebody."
Since the recession, the rich have made most of the economic gains, and the poor, the least. So for who would it get the ugliest -- with cuts to spending on the poor, or raising taxes on the rich?
You say, "The current occupant of the white house has not raised [the minimum wage] at all."
This is only partly true. Yes, the Democrats held the White House, the House and the Senate throughout 2009 and 2010, but I don't ever recall Congress submitting a bill to raise the minimum wage, and/or Obama vetoing one. But since then, with a GOP House (and now a GOP Senate and House) will they ever pass legislation for raising the minimum wage for Obama to either sign or veto? I doubt it.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you.
Well, I cannot recall any election on a state or local level where I didn't have to hold my nose to vote. Neither side is all that good.
I will say that at this time, we either need to raise taxes or lower spending, and since a significant amount of spending goes to relatively low income people, and the bulk of taxes are paid by relatively high income people, it will get ugly for somebody. The current solution of borrowing/printing money can only go on for so long.
You can blame it on Bush, who cut taxes, or on the current occupant of the white house, who has taken the Bush economic program and doubled down on it. (though W raised the minimum wage 3 times, while the current occupant of the white house has not raised it at all - shameful, as the people who can afford it least have seen their real income drop 20% during this regime.)
There really are no good solutions. The real problem, I think, is that both parties support policies which have the effect of debasing the value of American labor. That results in a loss of tax revenue, an increased need for services, and a net transfer of wealth from the (previously) middle class to the wealthy. On those issues (tariffs and immigration) there isn't any actual difference between the parties that I can see. So you might as well be a social issues voter. Even Bernie Saunders has seen really impressive net worth growth since he made it to the big time.
By the way, I think we should be advocating to raise minimum wage to reflect the real value it had at the end of Bush II, and then indexing it for inflation. This would protect the working poor (to some extent) from being continually at risk of income loss to inflation.
You say labor unions "alienate those who consider it better to be poor and righteous than rich and wicked"? Does earning a living wage make someone rich and wicked?
You say, "The idea that if you are capable and hard working you can rise to the top is also something you have to surrender if you join a union". In a non-union house, the boss's idiot nephew can rise to the top, so what's the difference, except that the idiot nephew doesn't need any seniority at all.
You say, "Being special is more important in people's minds than being wealthy." I'd like a definition of "special", then I'd like to see the poll you must have referred to. You believe that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and the Koch brothers would rather be "special" than uber-rich --- and that they can't be both special AND rich? (And besides, earning a living union wage is a far cry from being "rich".)
And let's be honest: Getting labor unions to support politicians on both sides of the aisle (meaning, the anti-union GOP) is totally ludicrous — and getting labor unions to agree with business lobbyists (like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) seems equally ludicrous. Even though, there are some Democrats who do get support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — such as " New" Democrats, or "Moderate" Democrats or " Third Way" Democrats; but they (like Hillary Clinton) are really Republican-Lites". Or as President Harry Truman had called them, "Phony Democrats." They are not "Progressive" pro-labor Democrats (those who the conservatives and the media like to define as "far left" — just as in the eyes of Fox News, FDR must have also been "a far left loon").
You say you "consider union membership distasteful, as workers can no longer deal as independent agents, exchanging their labor for a compensation which they negotiate". I think McDonald's and Wal-Mart workers can debate that issue with you far better than I could. IMHO: To think that these workers can be "free" and "independent" to "negotiate" with their bosses for living wages and better benefits also seems absurd — unless you consider mass protests, sit-ins, petitions, walk-outs (etc.) a certain form of "negotiation". Because just to "ask" the boss for a raise, doesn't usually get anyone anywhere. Can you imagine 1.3 million Wal-Mart workers each sending a letter to the CEO's secretary to politely ask for meeting with the boss so they can ask for a raise?
You say, "If it is true that right to work laws guarantee poverty, they do so in exchange for freedom of conscience and independence. This is an exchange which many people are happy to make. Personally, I find this admirable." I'd argue that most people can't afford to be Martyrs, Saints, heroes, "special" or "admirable" — because they're just trying to "survive". Why are you mixing morals with living wages? Isn't under-paying someone immoral? And wouldn't paying someone a fair and living wage also make them more "independent"? Would you rather they be a slave to the boss earning slave wages? How is that being "free" and "independent"? (Janice Joplin said "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." But I refer to "economic" freedom.)
You say, "Freedom of action allows the powerful to take advantage of the weak — this is the motivation for the union movement." I would argue that it's the exact opposite — it's the GOP and the "job creators" who are guilty of taking advantage of the weak — and keeping them from unionizing is just another way of keeping them weak (beside suppressing their votes, gerrymandering, lobbying, campaign contributions as "Pay for Play", etc.)
Regarding political candidates, who you say, "aggressively advocate for the killing of children and the normalization of sexual practices". Therein lies the real dilemma, as I noted in another post:
There are many other parts of your argument that make no sense to me either, but time prevents me from going any further. (Maybe it can be a future post). Thanks for your opinions.
From the Roosevelt Institute
The House GOP Budget Ignores the Evidence That Combating Inequality is Good for Economic Growth
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/house-gop-budget-ignores-evidence-combating-inequality-good-economic-growth
The Republican Budget Plan Looks to the Past, Not the Future
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/millennial-pulse/republican-budget-plan-looks-past-not-future
I understand the author's frustration at people who from his perspective just don't get it. But from my perspective, neither does he. I don't mean this pejoratively, as it is often difficult for people to understand the perspectives of others. It is easier to believe they think like us, but are just really stupid. Or are completely blinded by the propaganda. (and that is true in some cases).
There are several reasons why people do not support the union movement. (Ordinary working people, who in some sense would benefit from it.) The main reason is that there is something they value more than money or prosperity. Let me give you an example.
I know a woman who is a Wisconsin teacher. She strongly supported Scott Walker's initiative to dethrone the teachers union in Wisconsin. The primary reason for this is that the teachers union supports political candidates who aggressively advocate for the killing of children and the normalization of sexual practices she views as disordered. And they would require her to fund their efforts to advance these policies. This is very offensive to her. She considers these issues more significant than mere financial matters.
Now it is true these are divisive and controversial issues, and if you were to ask her, she would likely dissemble, but those are her reasons for being 100% behind Scott Walker.
In this, the unions have badly misplayed their hand. If they had used their funds to support politicians on both sides of the aisle, they would not have alienated those who consider it better to be poor and righteous than rich and wicked. (That is how they see it, and whether you agree with the categorizations, that is the view of reality many people have.)
The National Chamber of Commerce was a lot smarter. By funding politicians of both parties, they effectively got control of the entire government. In order to get their money, you need to help advance their agenda. Not so with the unions, If you are a democrat, you can count on the Union money even if you support "free" trade, unlimited immigration, and other policies that debase the value of labor. Likewise if you are a republican, you can count on union opposition even if you favor raising minimum wage, etc. The objection that there are no republicans who support raising the minimum wage misses the point. If it would help them win an election they would. But no union will support a republican even if he is aligned to their goals, so why would a republican alienate others in his support base by espousing a cause like minimum wage?
So there is no motivation for either party to support the union cause, since there are no benefits for such support and no consequences for not supporting or even opposing it.
Lack of political sophistication is the primary reason that the union movement has failed.
Their support of the party of the left (rather than supporting anyone who would advance their agenda) has made them irrelevant politically, and also made them offensive to many people who would rather starve than support the party of the left.
There are of course other factors. Having at times received literature from various union organizations, I have noted the socialist class warfare tone, with its exaggerated style. They portray themselves badly. A little money spent on style coaches would go a long way toward earning respect.
In addition to these things ,there remains a strong independent streak in Americans. Many of them (myself included) consider union membership distasteful, as they can no longer deal as independent agents, exchanging their labor for a compensation which they negotiate. I understand that the average worker does not negotiate in any meaningful sense. I also understand that the power imbalance between employer and employee make such negotiations pretty one-sided in most cases. But to give up the right to negotiate is a blow to self-image.
The idea that if you are capable and hard working you can rise to the top is also something you have to surrender if you join a union, where your compensation is negotiated and depends only on seniority. Now really, the idea you can rise to the top is a bad idea. The union workers in one local facility earn in excess of $100K/year, while other workers in similar jobs locally which are non-union earn about $30K/year. But someone making $35K in a non-union shop where everyone else earns $25K knows he is special. Someone earning $100K at a union shop where everyone earns $100K knows he isn't. And being special is more important in people's minds than being wealthy. People are funny that way.
If it is true that right to work laws guarantee poverty, they do so in exchange for freedom of conscience and independence. This is an exchange which many people are happy to make. Personally, I find this admirable.
It is true that in guaranteeing this freedom to themselves, they also guarantee it to others who would rather not have it. But it is equally true that if things went the other way, in surrendering this freedom in exchange for the financial benefits such surrender provided, the union forces would also deprive everyone of these same freedoms.
All of American social and political life can be viewed as a struggle between those forces which lead to freedom, and those which lead to bondage. In making that observation, I do need to clarify that not everything about freedom is pleasant or virtuous, as freedom of action allows the powerful to take advantage of the weak - this is the motivation for the union movement.
That is a topic for a different discourse.
Pax.
Jon
Interestingly, I think I recognize the location of that beautiful forest. It looks like an area in MN, along MN HWY 43. It is in an area which gets logged for paper pulp every 15-20 years, as it grows mostly aspen. Aspen (Poplar) makes good paper.
Being a farmer's son, and having traveled around the world a bit, I have a pretty good idea about various methods of maintaining personal hygiene. Corn cobs sound pretty unpleasant, and would be impossible to clean and very difficult to flush. I agree the "flushable wipes" are a really bad idea. They are very bad for the city, and worse for your wallet. Should we ban the sale and distribution, or do you think users would just go underground? They might contain chemicals which make them addictive.
The squat toilets work OK, but they are not very pleasant for people who are more bulky than the average weight of a person who lives in areas where they are popular. While 20 years ago it was hard to find western toilets in most of Asia, today even public parks on the outskirts of Beijing (which are intended for the use of local people, not tourists) have western style toilets.
The use of urinals can dramatically lower the amount of water used (to zero with some models, or 1/2 liter for the lowest water use kind). This is no longer restricted to people with male equipment, though I have heard the ones for those with female equipment are not very popular.
The popularity of the American way of living is largely due to its convenience. Toilet paper and a flush toilet are easy. In fact, the man who invented the flush toilet was knighted by a grateful Queen Victoria. Sir Thomas Crapper, if I recall correctly. A bidet works OK, but you still need toilet paper to wipe when it is done. It also uses more water.
I take great comfort in the fact that I don't drive a hybrid, or worse, a plug in electric vehicle. Every gallon of gasoline my car guzzles creates approximately 1 gallon of water - not reclaiming existing water, but actually creating new water from the hydrogen in the fuel and the oxygen in the air. While it costs me extra, I have that good feeling knowing that every mile I drive, I create water (as vapor) which will fall as rain somewhere on this poor parched earth.
So the total amount of water is gradually increasing, and I am doing my part. It is like recycling, only better.
The American way of doing things is quite convenient, which is why it tends to catch on around the world. And the water shortages are local phenomena. Actual water available keeps increasing, though quite a bit of it is just sitting in Lake Superior, and won't be used to help our parched brethren in California any time soon.
The problem for California (for example) is that it is a desert, subject to severe or moderate drought, depending on the year. And while the current drought is of Biblical proportions (which would seem appropriate) it amazes me that people want to live in a desert or arid climate and expect to have all the water they want.
So there are many aspects to this, but it does not seem to me that the author has proposed anything which is as convenient and anonymous as the American system. Of course a lot of things are possible. It would be possible to put a really good RO filter on those obnoxious water bottles, so that they could recycle the water people drink from them directly. One could imagine a system where appropriate adapters and appliances were available so that they could be used without the trip to the bathroom. One container of water could last all day long!
While this would have its advantages, I doubt if it will catch on very soon. For the crowd at Mardi Gras, maybe, as finding appropriate facilities can be difficult, and relieving oneself in Pirates Alley carries a significant risk of a fine, not to mention the trip to the parish jail.
But they don't really drink water that much, so it might be impractical in that instance also.
The CEOs, the billionaires and the GOP don't care --- they want hedge fund mangers and private equity people to get their their slimy hands all over our $3 trillion trust fund. Even if they loose all our "investments", they'll still get paid their "fees" --- and that's why the GOP wants to privatize Social Security (to "fix" it.) And wIth a GOP Congress, the fix is in with a GOP president in 2016.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html
If Social Security had been 'invested' in 2008,99% of recipients would have starved,and become homeless.
Most squat toilets in Asia have a Hand Bidet Sprayer next to them which is much more hygienic than toilet paper. I use a small towel with mine at home and if out and about and nothing else is handy a sock works well.
Undocumented immigrants (aka illegal aliens) are intimidated from union organizing for fear of deportation, so employers benefit big time from wage theft violations. The Supreme Court has already ruled that an undocumented worker who is fired (because of his citizenship status) is not entitled to any back wages — but at the same time, it's also a “get out of jail free” card for the employers who abuse the law themselves by hiring them in the first place.
Insurance companies can also refuse to pay workers’ compensation benefits when they find out from their employer that there are not legal citizens, but yet, are also illegally employed. It's a win-win for the job creators.
That's just another reason why the job creator's political apparatus wants to defund and/or eliminate government agencies such as OSHA, the National Labor Relations Board, the EPA and the Department of Labor — so that the laws governing unsafe working conditions, the misclassification of independent contractors and the illegal use of illegal workers can't be enforced. The job creators (via their political apparatus) call this a "regulatory burden" to them — and is "government over-reach" — and is "big government" — and is an imposition on their "freedom".
But this is the same way job creators in the U.S. would treat legal workers with American citizenship, if they were ever given a chance by their political apparatus.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/201657/immigrant-workers-are-being-deporte...
Imagine a small box – let’s call it an “iEverything” – capable of producing everything you could possibly desire, a modern day Aladdin’s lamp. You simply tell it what you want, and – presto – the object of your desire arrives at your feet. The iEverything also does whatever you want. It gives you a massage, fetches you your slippers, does your laundry and folds and irons it. The iEverything will be the best machine ever invented. The only problem is, no one will be able to buy it. That’s because no one will have any means of earning money, since the iEverything will do it all.
It’s now possible to sell a new product to hundreds of millions of people without needing many, if any, workers to produce or distribute it ... The ratio of producers to customers continues to plummet ... New technologies aren’t just labor-replacing, they’re also knowledge-replacing ... When more and more can be done by fewer and fewer people, the profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and owner-investors ... That means most of us will have less and less money to buy the dazzling array of products and services spawned by blockbuster technologies – because those same technologies will be supplanting our jobs and driving down our pay ... A future of almost unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by whoever can afford it, is a recipe for economic and social collapse.
http://robertreich.org/post/113801138315
March 17, 2015 -- Economic Policy Institute:
“Right-to-work” laws deny unions the money they need to help employees bargain with their employers for better wages, benefits and working conditions. So it’s not surprising that research shows that workers in “right-to-work” states have lower wages and fewer benefits, on average, than workers in other states ... As compared with non-right-to-work states, wages in right-to-work states are 3.2 percent lower on average, or about $1,500 less a year. Workers in right-to-work states were less likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance and pension coverage ... Where unions are strong, compensation increases — even for workers not covered by any union contract, as nonunion employers face competitive pressure to match union standards. Likewise, when unions are weakened by right-to-work laws, all of a state’s workers feel the impact.
http://www.epi.org/blog/wages-are-lower-in-states-with-these-laws/
but it's going to ruin the business model of my buddy who is storing toilet paper, which he plans to sell after the apocalypse, when there aint no more being made..
Pages