Spending up 9%

Cordelier said:

I disagree... I think the problem isn't so much that decent paying jobs are becoming fewer so much as that the labor force - especially blue collar labor - hasn't been equipped with the flexibility to adjust to shifting market conditions. Take the Transportation sector, for instance - the shift to online shopping has caused a loss of service retail jobs, but those workers haven't been adequately equipped to shift to the newly-created jobs in logistics, maintenance, driving, cargo handling, dispatching, etc. Not only that, but there's also the ongoing to need to update physical infrastructure. If we start focusing on job training programs - with an emphasis on giving low-income workers the skills they need to take advantage of changing conditions, then it can pay dividends in the flexibility and efficiency of our workforce.

Bloomberg - Blue Collar Worker Shortage Turns US Labor Market on It's Head

Click to expand...

Are they jobs people are willing to perform? Are there enough of them to employ ALL the unemployed that exist today, tomorrow, and even later in time.

Cordelier said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

Click to expand...

What I mean is that each individual who these numbers are comprised of can vary quite greatly in cause. And as such solutions too, might need to differ greatly.

Individual said:

Are they jobs people are willing to perform? Are there enough of them to employ ALL the unemployed that exist today, tomorrow, and even later in time.

Click to expand...

Since the economy is constantly changing, I'm going to say "no"... but that's why we need to do more to improve the flexibility and ability of workers to move from one job to another. I think going forward, the word "adaptability" needs to be the keystone for our economy. The way we keep our competitive edge is by maintaining our ability to constantly and rapidly adapt to changing conditions.

Individual said:

What I mean is that each individual who these numbers are comprised of can vary quite greatly in cause. And as such solutions too, might need to differ greatly.

Click to expand...

This is true... and it goes back to the point I just made about stressing adaptability.

Cordelier said:

Since the economy is constantly changing, I'm going to say "no"... but that's why we need to do more to improve the flexibility and ability of workers to move from one job to another. I think going forward, the word "adaptability" needs to be the keystone for our economy. The way we keep our competitive edge is by maintaining our ability to constantly and rapidly adapt to changing conditions.



This is true... and it goes back to the point I just made about stressing adaptability.

Click to expand...

Are people willing to adapt to living with lower incomes and fewer wants?

Cordelier said:

I'm sorry... I thought we were being realistic here.

Median Outlays for the 1962-2018 period were 20.2% of GDP, with a standard deviation of 1.6. I think hitting 19.5% would be a pretty fiscally prudent target to hit.

Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about how we spend too much. 19.5% would be above average revenue. 18% would be the maximum we should spend, and thats only if we tolerate all the waste even at that level. Outlays were 17.7% of GDP in 2000. What have we added since then that we cant live without?

Cordelier said:

I don't see the logic there... it's like the balanced budget amendment. It's puts you in the position of having to cut spending at the exact same time you ought to be increasing it.

Click to expand...

Just the opposite. It raises the payroll tax when there are more outlays expected for SS. If people want that benefit they should pay for it.

Waddy said:

Where did I say I was against tax cuts? I merely pointed out that the usual justification for them doesn't work any longer, mainly for demographic reasons. As far as government getting out of the economy business.., that ship has sailed, a long time ago. We now have the FED, and government taxes, and government regulation. Those won't be going away. So the only argument left is how much and who to tax, how much and who to regulate, and how much money should the FED print, and at what interest rate. Well, everybody has a dog in that fight.

Click to expand...

Thats the implication in your statement which you just made again. "the usual justification for them doesn't work any longer"

As for the govt getting out of economics. That ship is still negotiating the channel. Here we are debating it.

jonny5 said:

Thats the implication in your statement which you just made again. "the usual justification for them doesn't work any longer"

As for the govt getting out of economics. That ship is still negotiating the channel. Here we are debating it.

Click to expand...

I am really having a problem with the statement, "justification" for tax cuts? What exactly does that mean? Why do so many people have a problem with people keeping more OF WHAT THEY EARN? Seems like too many have been indoctrinated into buying the Gov't opinion that we need a 4.7 trillion dollar federal gov't and thus they need the money more than the taxpayers?

There also seems to be a disconnect between the right and the left as to the proper role of the federal gov't and a lack of understanding on the part of the left as to what taxes they pay and their purpose? SS and Medicare are funded by FICA not FIT but FIT is being used to replace the funds borrowed from the SS fund over decades. Now the deficit continues to rise mostly due to SS and Medicare costs so the left wants higher FIT to fund that shortfall. Doesn't make sense to thinking people

What also doesn't make a lot of sense is 44% of income earners paying ZERO in Federal Income taxes due to tax laws while the top 1% pays 40%. There is no justification for an income earning American not to pay SOMETHING in FIT to fund the operating expenses of the Federal gov't that provides them with the security necessary to live in a free country!

Media_Truth said:

The BOLDED above has always been the case. We should look at the past successes. Clinton/Gore balanced the budget by working in non-partisan way, with a Republican Congress. They raised the upper-tier tax rate, while cutting spending. That's the model of success.

Click to expand...

That's also ancient history. Today we have 10,000+ seniors retiring EVERY DAY. The deficit $1,000,000,000,000,000 per year. That deficit is simply going up, straight up. We are past the point where a few tax increases and a few spending cuts will reverse the course. This should have been dealt with years ago. Even at low interest rates, just servicing that debt is going to skyrocket. Do the math.

jonny5 said:

Thats the implication in your statement which you just made again. "the usual justification for them doesn't work any longer"

As for the govt getting out of economics. That ship is still negotiating the channel. Here we are debating it.

Click to expand...

Show me where I'm wrong. Tax cuts only work short term in an economy with lots of old people who don't spend and lots of young people who can't or won't spend. So the usual justification for tax cuts no longer works. Just a fact; you can't ignore demographics. Debate getting government out of the economy all you want, but realize it's merely an academic exercise.

Waddy said:

Show me where I'm wrong. Tax cuts only work short term in an economy with lots of old people who don't spend and lots of young people who can't or won't spend. So the usual justification for tax cuts no longer works. Just a fact; you can't ignore demographics. Debate getting government out of the economy all you want, but realize it's merely an academic exercise.

Click to expand...

I dont think we can connect one thing to the other thing directly as the economy is influenced by many factors. PCE however, is up up up. So logically the more money in personal hands, the more PCE.

Individual said:

Are people willing to adapt to living with lower incomes and fewer wants?

Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about getting people off of welfare and getting people who are unemployed the training they need to get better jobs?

jonny5 said:

I thought we were talking about how we spend too much. 19.5% would be above average revenue. 18% would be the maximum we should spend, and thats only if we tolerate all the waste even at that level. Outlays were 17.7% of GDP in 2000. What have we added since then that we cant live without?

Click to expand...

Let's take a look at that:


Seems pretty obvious to me that the biggest differences have been the post 9/11 extra national security-related expenses and the out-of-control increases in healthcare costs. To get a grasp at how much healthcare costs have been escalating - just look at the Social Security/Medicare ratio between the two periods. Social Security outlays increased by 21.5% - that's fair... demographics are demographics. But over the same period, Medicare outlays increased by almost 57%! That's over twice as fast. If we want to get a handle on outlays, we need to start tackling healthcare costs in a meaningful and effective way.

Waddy said:

That's also ancient history. Today we have 10,000+ seniors retiring EVERY DAY. The deficit $1,000,000,000,000,000 per year. That deficit is simply going up, straight up. We are past the point where a few tax increases and a few spending cuts will reverse the course. This should have been dealt with years ago. Even at low interest rates, just servicing that debt is going to skyrocket. Do the math.

Click to expand...

You are correct. The upper tier tax rate will have to be raised higher than the Clinton years. Probably to 35-40%.

Media_Truth said:

You are correct. The upper tier tax rate will have to be raised higher than the Clinton years. Probably to 35-40%.

Click to expand...

The highest rate is currently 37%. How much higher you gonna raise it? Even 100% won't cure a trillion dollar deficit. Do the math. But I get it; tax the rich, make somebody else pay. How about cutting your benefits? You didn't pay much into SS or Medicare; not considering what you will get out of those programs. So how about you pay your fair share? Or are you special and should get things for free?

Cordelier said:

I thought we were talking about getting people off of welfare and getting people who are unemployed the training they need to get better jobs?

Click to expand...

I think we've lost any competitive edge, and as a result of inflation jobs which pay higher wages are, and have been, moving to where they can be performed at a much lower cost. Perhaps over time this will result in their economies growing and inflation bringing their costs of living more equal to ours, but that may never happen if we keep inflation rising as the result of accumulated government debt.

A friend showed me his new iPhone, and I noticed it said "designed in the U.S.A., manufactured in China". Most all my other friends, family, and self own another brand of mobile phone which we find as good as, if not better than the iPhone, which is both designed and manufactured in China. Nearly everything I own today was built in China, although the technology may have originated in the U.S.
I recently went to the city and in a large supermarket saw a can of Campbells Tomato soup, priced at a little more than $1 per can. All American branded products here, even those manufactured here, are priced as if they were imported from the U.S. A Garmin GPS runs 2 to 3 times what it costs in the U.S. That's why we went with the Chinese phone which has a very good GPS and cost much less than a quarter of the Garmin price.