Tax cuts- A simple lesson in economics

by **JimmyTango** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:25 am

Originally posted by PudriK

It appears to be a supply problem, although there is a demand for jobs, they are all low-paying (which is why so many Americans "can't find a job" - it's just not one that pays them what they want).

Our brilliant president is all for letting jobs go over seas, and has opened the flood gate and we have watched the jobs pour out of this country. It is not that they 'can't find a job,' it is the jobs they have skills for are no longer in the US. Meanwhile, as huge layoffs happen for plants to be moved over seas, corporate big wigs get hard ons over their great job of saving a buck, and give each other a huge raise.

by **Jim0322** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:54 am

Originally posted by SavageParrot
I like this idea more than your system in the US where you pay out 3 times more in corporate aid (to companies who yearly post billion dollar profits while downsizing thir workforce) than you do in welfare to people who are dying in their droves due to inadequate healthcare. I say fuck the tenth man, he wouldn't have so much money anyway if he hadn't laid off the other 9 men and moved their jobs to a sweat shop in Indonesia where the employes get paid a dollar a day to work 14 hours a day seven days a week in shit conditions, to make crappy shoes/cars/clothing. Hell I'm not even sure he qualifies as a man!

Good point.

by **Murgatroyd** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:10 am

Here's an interesting piece of information.

My employer is going to be having layoffs in the near future. Why? Here's an exerpt from a company memo.

After the first four months of our budget year (our fiscal year began last October 1), we see that we are $6 million behind where we planned to be. The math is simple - if we continue through the remaining two-thirds of the year without making changes, we will end the year being $18 million behind our plan.

In fact, one of the largest factors contributing to our budget issues is that of providing care for patients without insurance - something that is causing financial challenges for hospitals throughout Massachusetts. While we are reimbursed for some of this care through the state’s “Uncompensated Care Pool,” the cost to provide this care is far greater than the payment we receive.

Providing care to the uninsured is part of our mission. When we budgeted for 2004, we recognized that the number of uninsured patients is growing so we built 25 percent more “free” care into this year’s budget over what we spent last year. However, we now think the increase will be closer to 56 percent - costing the Medical Center about $13 million more in free care than we planned.

"Well, if you had national healthcare..."

Well, if we had national healthcare, I wouldn't be working here right now. Nor would the other 750 employees in this building.

Might I also add that welfare pays .03 on the dollar of the cost of the care provided? That means that we're eating 97% of the cost of the care provided. If someone on welfare needs an allogenic bone marrow transplant, which cost around $750,000, we are required by law to provide it, and we get compensated a whopping $5,314.

So don't tell me that the lower class aren't riding everyone else's coattails. I might lose my job because some schlum is too lazy to get one.

Is socialism/communism the answer? No way. Capitalism provides opportunities for the poor to become rich. It happens all the time. The poor aren't "stuck" like some people claim. There are libraries where the books are free! Our public schools are free! If you TRULY want to be wealthy, America is the place to do it. Look at Schwartzenegger - a penniless immigrant from Austria - didn't even speak english. Look at him now! Could he have done that in the USSR? Don't think so.

by **SavageParrot** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:57 am

You notice they don't say they are going to lose money just that thery are behind with their 'plan'. Could it be that the plan was unrealistic?

by **Murgatroyd** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:04 am

Originally posted by SavageParrot
You notice they don't say they are going to lose money just that thery are behind with their 'plan'. Could it be that the plan was unrealistic?

No. I've followed the budgets closely here and I have to say that their numbers are very realistic for a facility of this size. In fact, the two other major healthcare providers in this part of the state have both gone belly-up, we're the only one that has managed to keep our head above water.

by **JimmyTango** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:27 pm

The question is, while under their 'plan,' are they still pulling a profit?

by **Colonel Ingus** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:25 pm

Our brilliant president is all for letting jobs go over seas, and has opened the flood gate and we have watched the jobs pour out of this country. It is not that they 'can't find a job,' it is the jobs they have skills for are no longer in the US. Meanwhile, as huge layoffs happen for plants to be moved over seas, corporate big wigs get hard ons over their great job of saving a buck, and give each other a huge raise.

Its not just this president. The visa's that started allowing IT jobs to go overseas were started in 1997. Roughly 220,000 jobs were lost between 1997 and 2001. This was not on George's watch. Am I defending George? No. There are rich republicans and rich democrats and they all profit from this behavior.

by **PudriK** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:10 pm

Check out the CIA World Factbook for the United States...

From the economics section:
"The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 saw the end of boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. Moderate recovery took place in 2002, with the GDP growth rate rising to 2.45%. A major short-term problem in first half 2002 was a sharp decline in the stock market, fueled in part by the exposure of dubious accounting practices in some major corporations. The war in March/April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq shifted resources to military industries and introduced uncertainties about investment and employment in other sectors of the economy. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups."

So at least the CIA confirms my my instincts about poor education.

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Feb 2004 Situation Report, "The number of unemployed persons was 8.2 million in February, and the unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent, seasonally adjusted."

So, Ingus, the offshoring of 220K jobs explains only a small fraction of the unemployment. 220,000 may sound like a lot, until you realize the US labor force is 141.8 million (in 2001)! I'm afraid the attention being paid to the offshoring of service jobs is out of proportion to its effect. The increase in unployment rate, to a still very healthy 5.6% (which is NOT high), can be explained a lot more by being in a recession.

by **RCglider** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:45 pm

One factor not counted are those going into business for themselves.

I'm curious. If things are SO bad, who's buying all the new cars and houses? People aren't buying $10,000 Suzukis. More like $30,000 vehicles average sticker price. Motorhomes, snowmobiles, Harley Davidsons (those cheapy things....record sales too).

You guys have no idea what a poor economy is. During the Carter years, the misery index wasn't coined for fun. From 1978-1983....now that was a rough time, and there wasn't any 9-11 to make things worse. Jobs? Ha! McDonald's wasn't even an option. Not until Reagan's tax cuts kicked in did things turn around. Tax cuts for everyone. Yep, even the evil "rich"; you know, the capital venturists, the ones who create jobs. Government doesn't create wealth.

These days, it's hard enough for an employer to even find someone that even wants to work and show up everyday. If you don't believe it's true, then you don't know many business owners.

Sorry guys, we have no idea what it's like to have it rough. Stop bitching and moaning and improve your lot.

by **PudriK** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:00 am

RC, perhaps that is explained because they are all luxury goods, so if the top 3-40% of the population is doing well, then we would expect luxury consumer goods to be in demand.

The problem right now is, people can't find jobs that pay what they want to earn. But there are jobs out there, or we wouldn't have such a problem with immigration.

But you gotta laugh when Democrats say we've lost more jobs than during the Great Dperession!!! Yeah, straight numbers, maybe, but there's no way you can compare 5.6% uneployment to 25% unemplyment.

by **RCglider** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:15 am

cars and houses are luxury goods?

A $30,000 car is not considerered luxury vehicles these days. A Chevy Trail Blazer pushes 30k; hardly a luxury vehicle. 4x4 anything is well over 20k.

The days of walking into GM, Ford and Chrysler off the street has been gone for over 30 years.

People will point to all the personal bankruptcies as a sign of how rotten the economy is too. That's pure rubbish. The reason for so many bankruptcies is people bury themselves in debt. I work with a guy whose family income is over 100k. His wife ran up a 50k credit card bill. Solution? Chapter 7.

Democrats are masters of demagoguery. In 1992 they said we had "the worst economy in 50 years". Of course, they skipped right over the Carter years. Let's not even start a thread on Democrat lies and distortions.....there's not enough space to list them all.

by **Doug the Unforgiven** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:32 am

I must say, I'm impressed that this discussion has yet to go the way of so many political threads here - I've yet to see any blatant personal attacks.

The only thing I can really add to this subject is that it seems one factor hasn't been mentioned here in terms of overseas job losses, and that's draconian government (over)regulation. Don't get me wrong, I do believe there are reasonable regs. But when you have politicians in the back pocket of unions, environuts (not reasonable nature lovers - there is a difference), or other lobbying groups, business costs go way up. Unfortunately a lot of those extra costs may include 'protection money' paid to help insure that one's franchise isn't targeted (why else would corporations make big donations to BOTH major political parties?).

Anyway, I find it amusing that the politicians who complain the most about the outsourcing of American jobs are usually the same ones that made it difficult for the work to stay home in the first place.

Oh well, that's my 2 cents....and a very tired 2 cents. Sorry if any of this is incoherent.

by **JimmyTango** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:18 pm

Rcglider,

Your last two posts have been full of half truthes.

Originally posted by RCglider

These days, it's hard enough for an employer to even find someone that even wants to work and show up everyday. If you don't believe it's true, then you don't know many business owners.

We have been in business for 26 years, family owned and operated. Yes, we have people walk into the store front and ask if we are hiring all the time. Same with the 26 other businesses in the plaza where our store front is. Not one of them is hiring. Sorry, but this is just not as you state it.

Originally posted by RCglider

A $30,000 car is not considerered luxury vehicles these days. A Chevy Trail Blazer pushes 30k; hardly a luxury vehicle. 4x4 anything is well over 20k.

The days of walking into GM, Ford and Chrysler off the street has been gone for over 30 years.

You completely dismiss the numerous cars, 'American' or imported, that cost under half of your price point, let alone a third of it.

The first definition of luxury:

1. Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.

I would say a 4 x 4 is not essential, and conductive to pleasure and comfort. Heck, I do nto understand why anyone living hwere it does not snow has a 4 x 4. What is the point? I live in north east ohio where half the year it is freezing and covered in snow. I have never owned a 4 x 4 and have never needed one. Why someone in Florida, Hawaii, Texas, Arizona, etc etc etc would need one is beyond me.

Unless they like to go mudding or off-roading, which i do not think is essential, either.

Originally posted by RCglider

Democrats are masters of demagoguery. In 1992 they said we had "the worst economy in 50 years". Of course, they skipped right over the Carter years. Let's not even start a thread on Democrat lies and distortions.....there's not enough space to list them all.

Again, a half truth. Both sides do it. Both sides lie, blur facts or even make them up to support theit view. Sadly, most Americans allow it to happen, and only blame the other side of the fence fo doing it.

The saddest thing is, we allow it to be a two party system, and the politicians have set it up so only the two parties are heard during presidential debates, when we are not supposed to be a two party system. I often find that 9 out of 10 times, neither side is right and the middle ground is. Instead of working towards that middle ground, each side finger points at the other side until their terms are up and have little to show for their time in office. Well, except for their great finger pointing skills, they can always use that on their next job app.

by **SavageParrot** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:36 am

Hey I need my Range Rover! There is a whole ten feet of gravel in my drive way that I have to cross. A normal car jsut couldn't take that kind of punishment!

by **RCglider** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:36 am

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Rcglider,

Your last two posts have been full of half truthes.

We have been in business for 26 years, family owned and operated. Yes, we have people walk into the store front and ask if we are hiring all the time. Same with the 26 other businesses in the plaza where our store front is. Not one of them is hiring. Sorry, but this is just not as you state it.

You completely dismiss the numerous cars, 'American' or imported, that cost under half of your price point, let alone a third of it.

The first definition of luxury:

1. Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.

I would say a 4 x 4 is not essential, and conductive to pleasure and comfort. Heck, I do nto understand why anyone living hwere it does not snow has a 4 x 4. What is the point? I live in north east ohio where half the year it is freezing and covered in snow. I have never owned a 4 x 4 and have never needed one. Why someone in Florida, Hawaii, Texas, Arizona, etc etc etc would need one is beyond me.

Unless they like to go mudding or off-roading, which i do not think is essential, either.

Again, a half truth. Both sides do it. Both sides lie, blur facts or even make them up to support theit view. Sadly, most Americans allow it to happen, and only blame the other side of the fence fo doing it.

The saddest thing is, we allow it to be a two party system, and the politicians have set it up so only the two parties are heard during presidential debates, when we are not supposed to be a two party system. I often find that 9 out of 10 times, neither side is right and the middle ground is. Instead of working towards that middle ground, each side finger points at the other side until their terms are up and have little to show for their time in office. Well, except for their great finger pointing skills, they can always use that on their next job app.

You can't honestly tell me the work ethic hasn't degraded over the past 30 years. Kids think they are owed something these days. There are a lot of entry level jobs out there. Problem is, people are conditioned to think they should be making $40k/year flipping hamburgers.

I didn't miss the point about costs of cars, you obviously misunderstood the topic. How about putting it this way: the average car purchased is $30,000. That means consumers are buying more higher end vehicles and don't want politically correct cars..

It's really nobody's business why someone buys a 4x4, is it? They buy them because they want to, and that's how the market works. If people didn't want them, they wouldn't sell. And there are jobs that require them, such as rural mail carriers. If they were the only ones buying them, the cost would be astronomical. If I want to buy a 4x4, getting permission from someone else is of no concern. Forcing consumers to buy what they don't want is not how our economy works.

How many examples do you want of Democrat Marxist demagoguery? It's not even debateable. So as to prevent wasting time, I am not a card carrying Republican.

People that walk down the middle get run over.

Tax cuts- A simple lesson in economics

Who is online