• 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!

Why the unemployment? A poll

Unemployment....why???


  • Total voters
    59
  • Poll closed .
Unemployment has many reasons, both conservative and left wing reasons and natural reasons. But I see as usual these boards blame the left.

Like it or not, much of the unemployment in the US is due to the last decade of CONSERVATIVE rule that cause a massive bubble based on greed and deregulation in key areas. But let me guess, it was also the lefts fault because the last decade of conservative rule in the US was in reality massive liberal conspiracy! :roll:

It is exporting jobs abroad and technology.. yes the free world market and globalisation, a very conservative ideal, that has cost the industrial base and hence jobs in the US.

It is also the fact that the American consumer demanding cheap goods, cheap goods that can only be produced outside the US because the standard of living in the US means that you cant make 1 dollar t-shirts without a huge loss. It is the same principle that is making millions of illegals pour over the border.. American consumers demands cheap food and to get that the farmers need to pay next to nothing to its work force and only the illegals are willing to do the job.

Now there are also labour laws and regulation in general.. Some are not needed others are, but in general, the US regulates in strange places, often to protect companies instead of the consumer.. that is if they at all regulate. But as long as you have a weak regulatory system in place, then you have use the legal system to sue for compensation when you are wronged. And that is a sad fact... they fuel each other.

Cheap goods and forced expensive labor (due to social security, payroll taxes, minimum wage, etc.). You do the math.
 
Cheap goods and forced expensive labor (due to social security, payroll taxes, minimum wage, etc.). You do the math.

Expensive labor correlates nicely with that of highly productive labor. :prof
 
Expensive labor correlates nicely with that of highly productive labor. :prof

Does it?
Oddly enough - the highest pay brackets contain the least laborous of the people: actors, musicians, sports figures.

None are 'productive labor' - all are 'supurfluous labor' so when the hard working citizens come home from their **** jobs they can 'relax' while being 'entertained' by these people.
 
Productivity has been going up for years but not pay..


42041256-wages-prod-416gr.gif
 
Last edited:
And how do you measure the value of production?
 
Does it?
Oddly enough - the highest pay brackets contain the least laborous of the people: actors, musicians, sports figures.

None are 'productive labor' - all are 'supurfluous labor' so when the hard working citizens come home from their **** jobs they can 'relax' while being 'entertained' by these people.

Viewing production in dollar terms they are or can be very productive

A top sports star might cause the team he is on to bring in tens of millions of dollars in extra revenue. An actor might be the reason a movie made $100 million instead of $60 million. In pure dollar terms they were very productive
 
Cheap goods and forced expensive labor (due to social security, payroll taxes, minimum wage, etc.). You do the math.

What math?

American's want the cheapest good possible, but are not willing to work for said cheap goods because the wages required to make such goods in America, would set the US back 60+ years in progress. That is the reality of the math and it has very little to do with social security, payroll taxes and minimum wage.
 
What math?

American's want the cheapest good possible, but are not willing to work for said cheap goods because the wages required to make such goods in America, would set the US back 60+ years in progress. That is the reality of the math and it has very little to do with social security, payroll taxes and minimum wage.

It has everything to do with that. All of those taxes means about 50% of our income goes to the government, that's why we demand a high income. Minimum wage means even those with low skill sets have to demand a relatively high wage. Of course we want cheap goods, that's human nature, but we can't produce those goods here because we need a higher income to deal with the taxes. Plus welfare and other social spending make people less willing to work.
 
It has everything to do with that. All of those taxes means about 50% of our income goes to the government, that's why we demand a high income. Minimum wage means even those with low skill sets have to demand a relatively high wage. Of course we want cheap goods, that's human nature, but we can't produce those goods here because we need a higher income to deal with the taxes. Plus welfare and other social spending make people less willing to work.

And even if 50% did not go to the government the wages STILL would not be low enough to compete with the Indians and Chinese because the over all cost of living and standard of living is so much lower there compared to the west. There having indoor plumbing in many places is still a luxury, let alone having 2 tvs, 3 computers and 2 cars, not to mention 100kgs extra on the body in fat. And without the taxes there would be no military, no police and basically no society, then what the hell is the point? Without taxes, most of the US would not have power let alone telecommunications... much like rural China and India. Blame taxes and other conservative pet peves, but the fact is that even without that, the US or the west would not be able to compete with near slave labour practices of India and China. We have gotten too comfortable with our air-conditioned houses eating our fatty foods watching American Idol and surfing the net for porn while complaining that the politician's are corrupt.

What it all comes down to is the society we have built over the last 100 years, that the standard of living demanded by our citizens is high and I dare you start claiming that people should lower their wage demands to that of the Chinese and Indians... while living in New York or Arkansas. That wage could not even feed a pig, let alone a family. It would require that house prices would need to fall by at least 75% in many areas, plus all prices in general. There would be a need for a huge deflation to even come close to your utopia.

That is why the free market principles have failed yet again because it is exporting jobs overseas without replacing them in the domestic markets. Sure the US and Europe have gone from a manufacturing (minus Germany) society to a consumer lead service industry and onward to an information lead industry. Problem is that the cheap places can easily replace the information industry as well (as we see with call centres and considering most information technology is built in China any ways), and that leads us with the service industry... so everyone should be McD people now? This WILL lead to unemployment because people can not adapt fast enough or even want to adapt, especially the older generation... like a 50 year old car worker that is now forced to work in a supermarket at 1/10 of the wage.

Point is that our own policies of globalisation, liberalisation, a need for 3+% growth and lets not forget the urge for cheap goods, has driven work out of the countries in question into the hands of the cheapest stable countries the world .. and that means we get unemployed in the short and medium turn.

Now in theory globalisation is a great thing.. but we are not one world, and the income differences and standards of living are so hugely different, that in fact globalisation will ultimately lead to the downfall of many former industrial powerhouses like the UK, France, US and so on.. unless they start to protect themselves from price dumping practice of China and India, who are very good at protecting their own markets to keep the edge over everyone else.
 
Point is that our own policies of globalisation, liberalisation, a need for 3+% growth and lets not forget the urge for cheap goods, has driven work out of the countries in question into the hands of the cheapest stable countries the world .. and that means we get unemployed in the short and medium turn.
What's your solution, ace?
 
What's your solution, ace?

Good question, I have no easy answer because it is such a massive problem, since the world is so much smaller than it was 50 years ago.

The easiest would to put in place taxes to even out the wage difference and hence reduce the incentive to take jobs overseas. Remember we are not taking about slight differences, but huge massive differences. For example if an American weaver gets say 6 dollars an hour, the Chinese gets say 2 dollars.. or even less. You can expect the American weaver to live off 2 or less dollars an hour, so you have to do something to prevent the job going overseas.
 
The easiest would to put in place taxes to even out the wage difference and hence reduce the incentive to take jobs overseas.
Who is to place these taxes on whom?
 
Who is to place these taxes on whom?

Government on companies that import goods from overseas, from areas that have much lower wages. Yes the companies can push on the cost to the consumer if not done right. Point is, much like the your illegal immigrant problem, you need to make sure the cost for the company for doing what it is doing, is so high that they stop doing it.

As I said, it aint perfect, but as it stands now there are no other solutions that are remotely realistic (and even this one is hard to do). Pushing all the blame on government and the worker while letting the companies yet again get away scot free is just pathetic. Like it or not the chances of the average American accepting a reduction in their living standard by 80+% is just unrealistic, plus it would ruin the US economy.
 
Government on companies that import goods from overseas, from areas that have much lower wages.
How does this even out the wage differences? Aren't the people over there still making the same?
And, doesn't this simply incent the companies to do business somewhere that the taxes arent so high?

As I said, it aint perfect, but as it stands now there are no other solutions that are remotely realistic
Of course there aren't.
'Cause, you know, its the proper role of government to protect artificially inflated wages that do not reflect the market value of the labor put into them.
 
It has everything to do with that. All of those taxes means about 50% of our income goes to the government, that's why we demand a high income. Minimum wage means even those with low skill sets have to demand a relatively high wage. Of course we want cheap goods, that's human nature, but we can't produce those goods here because we need a higher income to deal with the taxes. Plus welfare and other social spending make people less willing to work.

Its commonly referred to "living outside ones productive capacity" which is a crux behind trade liberalization (along with comparative advantage).
 
How does this even out the wage differences? Aren't the people over there still making the same?
And, doesn't this simply incent the companies to do business somewhere that the taxes arent so high?

Of course there aren't.
'Cause, you know, its the proper role of government to protect artificially inflated wages that do not reflect the market value of the labor put into them.

Basically, he is calling for anti-trade liberalization policy. Protectionism is only necessary for infant industry (see Asian tigers).
 
Basically, he is calling for anti-trade liberalization policy. Protectionism is only necessary for infant industry (see Asian tigers).

Maybe only for war industries would this be true, but for everything else there really isn't a need. Why do it yourself if someone else can do it better? And if you can do it better, what's stopping you? The infant industry argument is the same as the monopoly argument and it simply doesn't hold water. Investment and loans means this "barrier to entry" phenomenon is largely overstated.
 
When this problem of cheap goods first began several hundred years ago, I quickly, and not very deeply thought that the solution was a tax on the goods to compensate for the difference in manufacturing or growing expense....In more direct terms - a tax on imports...
Whatever happened to this tax?
 
When this problem of cheap goods first began several hundred years ago, I quickly, and not very deeply thought that the solution was a tax on the goods to compensate for the difference in manufacturing or growing expense....In more direct terms - a tax on imports...
Whatever happened to this tax?

Just how old are you :shock:
 
When this problem of cheap goods first began several hundred years ago, I quickly, and not very deeply thought that the solution was a tax on the goods to compensate for the difference in manufacturing or growing expense....In more direct terms - a tax on imports...
Whatever happened to this tax?

Ask Herbert Hoover.
 
Maybe only for war industries would this be true, but for everything else there really isn't a need. Why do it yourself if someone else can do it better? And if you can do it better, what's stopping you? The infant industry argument is the same as the monopoly argument and it simply doesn't hold water. Investment and loans means this "barrier to entry" phenomenon is largely overstated.

What were the tariff policies of the Asian tigers ? The results?
 
How does this even out the wage differences? Aren't the people over there still making the same?
And, doesn't this simply incent the companies to do business somewhere that the taxes arent so high?

No, the US is the good position as being the biggest consumer market. Plus many of the companies in question on the US domestic market.. are American.

Of course there aren't.
'Cause, you know, its the proper role of government to protect artificially inflated wages that do not reflect the market value of the labor put into them.

You dont understand it the whole problem then. The government could take a hands off approach, remove all taxes, and the wage difference would still be huge, because the standard of living in the US is so much higher than the that of China and India. The only thing that could remotely help was going back to slavery.
 
Basically, he is calling for anti-trade liberalization policy. Protectionism is only necessary for infant industry (see Asian tigers).

Err not true. I am calling for some kind of protectionism that is true, but that is only because we are debating unemployment as the sole issue. Now if we did not focus so much on unemployment but the over all economy, then I would be against over all protectionism and would only be in favour in selected key industries (which is what the US does somewhat already). But what I dont like and never have liked, are our western countries allowing "up and comers" to abuse our hospitality and need for cheap goods, by exploiting their wage differential above and beyond the natural free market aspects. I am thinking of China giving massive tax incentives for companies to relocated to China, or India protecting its own market from outsiders and so on and so on.

As for protectionism being only necessary for infant industry... then why is it that countries like Japan, South Korea and now China and India have protectionist policies that protect their industries? Hell India still refuses outside companies in owning Indian companies and can only run companies in India if they are 51% Indian owned. China has a monetary policy and tax policy that helps its own industry while it is not exactly easy for outsiders to enter the Chinese market. South Korea still supports its massive industries that are world leaders by protecting the domestic market and investing massively in local infrastructure that benefits its own people and industry (done by local companies only of course).
 
Back
Top Bottom