• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest

rhinefire said:
Power and wealth among nations is cyclical. No doubt America is on its way out and China will rule the roost in the future. We lag behind many countries in education and still have wretched poverty and hunger.
Click to expand...

We may luck out in that China has a wealth of problems, not the least of which is rising inflation and social unrest. Japan and all of Europe is aging too rapidly; Russia is a basket case, and Africa...well, let's put it this way, the US is in a solid position to maintain its inherent advantages. We are relatively stable, we have solid rule of law and live in a homogeneous society which pretty much reads from the same book, consumer capitalism, although we are not necessarily all on the same page.

Remember too...no one has a military like ours.
 
polgara said:
Ocean, if we end up paying $8 a gallon for fuel for cars, people will pay it! Oh, we'll all be totally PO'd about it, and we'll scream and holler, but we will pay it, because we love the mobility that cars give us. As more energy efficient cars come to market, like the electric cars did, and if longer distances between recharges become a reality, and if they don't look totally dorky, and are reasonably priced, people will buy them. It seems to me that a lot of jobs could be created just at the recharging stations alone. I think it will happen soon, too, because riding a bike just isn't for everyone. If you have a 40 mile commute from home to your job, and since snow-covered roads are a hazard in the Northern part of the Country, you aren't going to think about riding a bike for six months out of the year.

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Hi Polgara - If gas gets to $8 people will be forced to pay it. And it will get to $8. Right behind those increases will be the EPA mandated increases in MPG. To offset the lower gas taxes collected, the feds will likely raise the taxes on gas.

Of course, at the bottom of the pile will be people who can't afford the new cars with the improved fuel mileage and can't afford $8/gal gas. It will interesting to see how these people are used by the left for political gain.
 
What if...? said:
Stockholder dividends.

It is often overlooked that ita not just the money the wealthy own but also that which they CONTROL that is an issue.

Everybody's retirement money is the money used to make much of the uber rich's money.

They have all our eggs in their basket. Their own eggs are kept in different baskets, so when the basket falls ots only OTHER people's money that is lost.
Click to expand...

The middle class in not growing smaller because of stock holder dividends, or executive pay, or the Koch Brothers...
 
ocean515 said:
Hi Polgara - If gas gets to $8 people will be forced to pay it. And it will get to $8. Right behind those increases will be the EPA mandated increases in MPG. To offset the lower gas taxes collected, the feds will likely raise the taxes on gas.

Of course, at the bottom of the pile will be people who can't afford the new cars with the improved fuel mileage and can't afford $8/gal gas. It will interesting to see how these people are used by the left for political gain.
Click to expand...

Cash for Clunkers, part deux. Only this time, those poor people will be forced to BUY the clunkers.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That makes no sense.

How is a middle class considered the most affluent class? I assume they're talking about 'among all middle classes' which in itself is silly. We're all still middle class, are we not?
Click to expand...

I guess everyone expect the American middle class to be the best and richest.
 
calamity said:
It's a problem moving forward. I work with both America and Foreign automotive manufacturing companies. It's obvious which ones reinvest for the future and which ones pull maximum possible money out of the business to pay bonuses for executives and dividends for investors.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. Imagine the cost of meeting all the regulations the government places on automobile manufacturers. It's a miracle they can produce the quality of vehicle they do, for the prices they charge. Is there any wonder why so many domestic manufacturers have moved production to places like Mexico?

The government can't demand a car transport 4 people in relative comfort in what amounts to as a safety cushion comprised of high tech alloys and air bags while emitting little but water and a wisp of pollutants, while returning something like 50mpg, with a 100k mile guarantee, at under $20k, and expect it to be built by people making $50/hr.

We are regulating our economic health right into to the toilet, and aren't willing to listen to those who are warning people about it.
 
ocean515 said:
There are many reasons products are procured from overseas. The ex-governor had nothing to do with that. He also had nothing to with trying to turn California's fortunes around. When business in penalized, as it has been by Progressives who run California, they leave the state. There is no other reason to explain how a state with so much going for it has seen such a tremendous loss of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades.
Click to expand...

CA had an opportunity to use federal funds to rebuild infrastructure and help the US economy at the same time. They blew it. Instead of investing US money into the US economy, they opted (with Schwarzenegger as Governor) to use state money instead to outsource the work of the Bay Bridge to China.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
CA had an opportunity to use federal funds to rebuild infrastructure and help the US economy at the same time. They blew it. Instead of investing US money into the US economy, they opted (with Schwarzenegger as Governor) to use state money instead to outsource the work of the Bay Bridge to China.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting bit of information.

How do you explain this?

Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco

Although it was somewhat controversial, authorities decided to allow bids to include major components and materials not made in the United States.[24] This was partly due to the cost of materials, and especially due to the lack of suitable fabrication facilities within the United States, or even within the western hemisphere. In contrast, China, where the SAS deck components were built, has low cost materials producers. Other major components were produced in Japan, owing to the availability of large steel casting, welding, and machining capabilities. Suspender saddles were made in England. As Federal highway funds generally come with "Made in America" restrictions, the bridge was built without such funds, for which it would otherwise qualify owing to its carriage of Interstate 80.[25]​

When the government, along with added costs of union labor, regulates industries out of existence, what do you expect?

If you want the real story, rather than try to point to the Republican, go here: Unparalleled bridge, unprecedented cost | San Francisco Public Press
 
ocean515 said:
That's an interesting bit of information.

How do you explain this?

Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco

Although it was somewhat controversial, authorities decided to allow bids to include major components and materials not made in the United States.[24] This was partly due to the cost of materials, and especially due to the lack of suitable fabrication facilities within the United States, or even within the western hemisphere. In contrast, China, where the SAS deck components were built, has low cost materials producers. Other major components were produced in Japan, owing to the availability of large steel casting, welding, and machining capabilities. Suspender saddles were made in England. As Federal highway funds generally come with "Made in America" restrictions, the bridge was built without such funds, for which it would otherwise qualify owing to its carriage of Interstate 80.[25]​

When the government, along with added costs of union labor, regulates industries out of existence, what do you expect?

If you want the real story, rather than try to point to the Republican, go here: Unparalleled bridge, unprecedented cost | San Francisco Public Press
Click to expand...

As I stated in my prior post, even if the labor and materials are more expensive in the US, it would have went right back into the US economy so no savings was made paying for cheap Chinese labor and materials. That money was just sent overseas.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
As I stated in my prior post, even if the labor and materials are more expensive in the US, it would have went right back into the US economy so no savings was made paying for cheap Chinese labor and materials. That money was just sent overseas.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just the labor, or the materials, it was the actual ability to make the components. The US, which at one time was the shipbuilding capital of the world, doesn't have the west coast capability to make the parts needed. Building a whole new facility to build one bridge would have been ridiculous.

The fact is, we've legislated away our economic stability. That must, and will change.
 
ocean515 said:
It wasn't just the labor, or the materials, it was the actual ability to make the components. The US, which at one time was the shipbuilding capital of the world, doesn't have the west coast capability to make the parts needed. Building a whole new facility to build one bridge would have been ridiculous.

The fact is, we've legislated away our economic stability. That must, and will change.
Click to expand...


No, it was costs.

The decision to outsource the fabrication of key sections of the Bay Bridge was made about five years ago, when a contractor offered alternate bids on the project, says Tony Anziano, a manager at the California Department of Transportation.

"One proposing to do work domestically, one proposing to do the work internationally: There was a $400 million differential in that bid, and in that case it would have required the work to go international," he says. California Turns To China For New Bay Bridge : NPR
 
ocean515 said:
The fact is, we've legislated away our economic stability. That must, and will change.
Click to expand...

The fact is this isn't just happening in CA. We are outsourcing our work to foreign countries thinking it will save a dime in taxes while it depletes us way more in jobs and money that can be put back into our own economy instead of going overseas.
 
American said:
Thanks to govt debt and tax laws as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
I don't think so.

It's mainly because of anti-union propaganda, horrendous international trade policies and massive immigration.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
No, it was costs.

The decision to outsource the fabrication of key sections of the Bay Bridge was made about five years ago, when a contractor offered alternate bids on the project, says Tony Anziano, a manager at the California Department of Transportation.

"One proposing to do work domestically, one proposing to do the work internationally: There was a $400 million differential in that bid, and in that case it would have required the work to go international," he says. California Turns To China For New Bay Bridge : NPR
Click to expand...

Well, my information doesn't agree that is was just costs.
 
ocean515 said:
Well, my information doesn't agree that is was just costs.
Click to expand...

This source explains that that wasn't the reason:

In the June 26 New York Times article that first broke the story, the claim was made that a major reason for having the fabrication of the bridge's major sections done in China was that American fabricators didn't have the capacity or capability to perform the work on such giant structures. Because of their supposed superior capabilities and lower labor costs, the Chinese were said to be providing the $7.2 billion bridge for $400 million less than U.S. fabricators who probably couldn't have done the work in any case.
But it turns out that the issue wasn't one of capability but of scheduling. U.S. fabricators had the capacity and the capability to do the work but argued that the project would take more time than the Chinese were proposing in their bid. Well, in the event, the Chinese have not been able to meet their own timetable, and the bridge is actually being built on the schedule originally proposed by the American fabricators. The first delivery of Chinese steel was more than a year late and the whole project is three years behind schedule and $5.2 billion over budget according to information provided by the National Steel Bridge Alliance. Bay Bridge redux
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
This source explains that that wasn't the reason:

In the June 26 New York Times article that first broke the story, the claim was made that a major reason for having the fabrication of the bridge's major sections done in China was that American fabricators didn't have the capacity or capability to perform the work on such giant structures. Because of their supposed superior capabilities and lower labor costs, the Chinese were said to be providing the $7.2 billion bridge for $400 million less than U.S. fabricators who probably couldn't have done the work in any case.
But it turns out that the issue wasn't one of capability but of scheduling. U.S. fabricators had the capacity and the capability to do the work but argued that the project would take more time than the Chinese were proposing in their bid. Well, in the event, the Chinese have not been able to meet their own timetable, and the bridge is actually being built on the schedule originally proposed by the American fabricators. The first delivery of Chinese steel was more than a year late and the whole project is three years behind schedule and $5.2 billion over budget according to information provided by the National Steel Bridge Alliance. Bay Bridge redux
Click to expand...

Less agenda driven sources have described a different scenario. One this is for sure, the Bay Bridge replacement became as big a political construction job as it was an actual construction job.
 
ocean515 said:
Less agenda driven sources have described a different scenario. One this is for sure, the Bay Bridge replacement became as big a political construction job as it was an actual construction job.
Click to expand...

The point is there was an American bid but it was turned down and given to China because it was cheaper and faster but the irony is this didn't save us one single penny or time but will end up costing us more than just money in our economy. Until people start to be angry about this kind of stuff, it will be the same old thing happening in other places. It already is happening. It's very bad for our economy.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The point is there was an American bid but it was turned down and given to China because it was cheaper and faster but the irony is this didn't save us one single penny or time but will end up costing us more than just money in our economy. Until people start to be angry about this kind of stuff, it will be the same old thing happening in other places. It already is happening. It's very bad for our economy.
Click to expand...

I think the Bay Bridge is an example of many things that are going on, but is not the example that proves the point.

Until we address the basics behind the loss of high paying jobs in the US, we will be bound to repairing other countries goods, and spitting up the dollars per hour that are charged to do so.
 
polgara said:
Ocean, if we end up paying $8 a gallon for fuel for cars, people will pay it! Oh, we'll all be totally PO'd about it, and we'll scream and holler, but we will pay it, because we love the mobility that cars give us. As more energy efficient cars come to market, like the electric cars did, and if longer distances between recharges become a reality, and if they don't look totally dorky, and are reasonably priced, people will buy them. It seems to me that a lot of jobs could be created just at the recharging stations alone. I think it will happen soon, too, because riding a bike just isn't for everyone. If you have a 40 mile commute from home to your job, and since snow-covered roads are a hazard in the Northern part of the Country, you aren't going to think about riding a bike for six months out of the year.

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:
Click to expand...



$8 per gallon SHOULD be the target price, provided taxation is still 70% or better of that price.

As gas prices have edged upward in the US, they have been about half what they are here for many years. Right now the winter in-city price, with a special transit levee is $6.90 a gallon. The summer price has hit $7.20 a gallon; the resulting higher transportation costs are not great. The long term effect has been that old beaters have disappeared. Because this is likely the wealthiest city in North America, we have many big urban assault vehicles.

However, as the price has climbed, the economy has not suffered and the resulting tax revenues are paying for our medical, education, and infrastructure, with a modest personal tax rate as we see here.

Resources are usually non-renewable, just because we have lots of it doesn't mean we give it away, charge full market price through staged taxation, from exploration to transportation, refining and at the pump.

But then you have to have politicians with some backbone and the ability to explain **** to the low information voter....and of course be believed. To do that they have to stop lying and your guys haven't matured to that level or something...
 
Fearandloathing said:
$8 per gallon SHOULD be the target price, provided taxation is still 70% or better of that price.

As gas prices have edged upward in the US, they have been about half what they are here for many years. Right now the winter in-city price, with a special transit levee is $6.90 a gallon. The summer price has hit $7.20 a gallon; the resulting higher transportation costs are not great. The long term effect has been that old beaters have disappeared. Because this is likely the wealthiest city in North America, we have many big urban assault vehicles.

However, as the price has climbed, the economy has not suffered and the resulting tax revenues are paying for our medical, education, and infrastructure, with a modest personal tax rate as we see here.

Resources are usually non-renewable, just because we have lots of it doesn't mean we give it away, charge full market price through staged taxation, from exploration to transportation, refining and at the pump.

But then you have to have politicians with some backbone and the ability to explain **** to the low information voter....and of course be believed. To do that they have to stop lying and your guys haven't matured to that level or something...
Click to expand...

Where does one find a "politician with some backbone who also has the ability to explain **** to the low information voter?" :mrgreen:

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:
 
Fearandloathing said:
$8 per gallon SHOULD be the target price, provided taxation is still 70% or better of that price.
Click to expand...
That's about the most scumbaggiest thing I've ever read in this forum.
 
Fearandloathing said:
$8 per gallon SHOULD be the target price, provided taxation is still 70% or better of that price.
Click to expand...

If it was up to me I would just remove the subsidies and all taxation towards gas. Of course, that might be too much of a shock to the system since I'm pretty sure gasoline is not actually marketable at it's unsubsidized rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom