• 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!

Herman Cain for president?

Would you vote for Herman Cain for president?


  • Total voters
    88
Job outsourcing is when a U.S. company decides to leave and pursue production where it is cheaper to hire workers. I will retract my statement about penalites, however incentives need to be given to companies that choose to hire American workers.

Hmm. I pushed the reply with quote button, and a different post came up. This one does make sense. What sorts of incentives would you suggest?

Outsourcing may not be free trade, but if you oppose outsourcing, you'll be painted as anti free trade.
 
They are much lower now. There are also many less loopholes. Back then we didn't have the global market we had today, we were simply more advanced, not to mention much of the world had to recover from WW2 while we came out pretty much on top.

You are using the wrong business model comparison. Lower taxes allow businesses to grow and compete in a global market. As business grows, more jobs are provided, and more stock values rise. Obviously you can't eliminate taxes, but everyone is better off if you are getting revenue from quantity, not rates.

Take Ireland for example, they lowered taxes and had so much economic growth some EU officials asked them to raise the rates so they wouldn't get too far ahead of the neighboring countries.

Optimal rates change, and right now it would be better if that unknown rate was lowered.

Last I heard about Ireland, their economy was in the dumpster along with Greece and Spain.
 
:) and what was revenue when Kennedy made that speech? Revenue is what we are after, after all.



hauser.gif





Revenues aren't a function of Rates. They are a function of GDP. You want to increase revenue, you gotta increase GDP.

They are a function of both. If you have the highest GDP imaginable, but your top bracket tax rates are very low, you'll still have a very low intake of revenue.
 
They are a function of both. If you have the highest GDP imaginable, but your top bracket tax rates are very low, you'll still have a very low intake of revenue.

that is partially true; if you slashed all tax rates in extreme ways, it would be possible to aim for below-the-18.5%-historical-average.

but so far, we haven't come close at all to reaching that tipping point. quite the opposite:

Federal-Personal-Income-Tax-Collections.JPG
 
Job outsourcing is when a U.S. company decides to leave and pursue production where it is cheaper to hire workers. I will retract my statement about penalites, however incentives need to be given to companies that choose to hire American workers.

Job outsourcing is the attempt to boost profits by hiring cheap, foreign labor.

It has 2 types :

1. International outsourcing as you describe, and

2. Domestic Outsourcing - hiring the cheap foreign labor INSIDE the US, entailing that part of the workforce whose jobs can only be done INSIDE the US (landscaping, construction, janitorial, hotels, etc).

As for incentives, how about jail time for those who hire illegal aliens ? (enforce IRCA), and fines for those who engage in international outsourcing (making it not economical for them to do so).
 
that is partially true; if you slashed all tax rates in extreme ways, it would be possible to aim for below-the-18.5%-historical-average.

but so far, we haven't come close at all to reaching that tipping point. quite the opposite:

Federal-Personal-Income-Tax-Collections.JPG

Personal income tax revenues are also a function of how much personal income people have. When you outsource jobs to other countries, it really doesn't matter what the tax rates may be, all of that income is lost. When jobs go to illegals who will work for low wages, that money doesn't generate revenues either. When any market forces keep incomes low, that also keeps revenues low. The long term solution is for the average citizen to make more money.

Right now, the trend in wages is downward.
 
Job outsourcing is when a U.S. company decides to leave and pursue production where it is cheaper to hire workers. I will retract my statement about penalites, however incentives need to be given to companies that choose to hire American workers.

Why punish companies whos job is to make money? If you really want to get to the root of the outsourcing problem, look at corporate taxes and how minimum wage disallows individual workers to bargain with a prospective employer for a wage. Protectionism is a fools errand.
 
Why punish companies whos job is to make money? If you really want to get to the root of the outsourcing problem, look at corporate taxes and how minimum wage disallows individual workers to bargain with a prospective employer for a wage. Protectionism is a fools errand.

That's just it....give tax incentives so that they will save the money.
 
Why punish companies whos job is to make money? If you really want to get to the root of the outsourcing problem, look at corporate taxes and how minimum wage disallows individual workers to bargain with a prospective employer for a wage. Protectionism is a fools errand.

This sounds nuts. "how minimum wage disallows individual workers to bargain with a prospective employer for a wage"
???????. Please explain what you are talking about.
 
We should eliminate the minimum wage in my opinion.
 
Raising taxes on the top brackets brings lots of money into the federal government to reduce the deficit. In the past, taxes were much higher than they've been over the past 30 years. In fact, for most of the past 94 years to bracket taxes were 70-94 % (and from 1936 to 1963 they were never less than 79%). So, revenues weren't high ? Loopholes existed.

Well, if loopholes exist, then you close those loopholes. That's what we're paying our Congressmen to do. So they do their jobs or we let them know, after the next election, they won't be around any more.
 
We should eliminate the minimum wage in my opinion.

While a business owner, with branch offices in 3 counties, I fought against my state legislators who refused to RAISE the minimum wage. At the time, (1980's) the California minimum wage was around $4.00/hour, only slightly higher than the federal minimum. This was my business' biggest problem.
I would have loved to have had a minimum wage of $20/hour. Then, the callers to my business would have had the money to buy the stuff I was trying to sell.

It was very discouraging, when asking the callers how much they could give me for a down payment for a membership in my club (a video dating service), only to hear them say "Uh, ten bucks". Or "Uh, fifty bucks" (the minimum down was $250). And why was that ? Because somebody out there is paying them minimum wage, that's why.

Problem with low minimum wages is that is keeps the disposeable income in the community around you, to a level where you can't sell anything. RAISE the minimum wage ! I said it then. I say it now.

PS - let's not forget that many businesses pay their help on a commission only basis (car sales, furniture, etc). For these businesses the low minimum wage is total lost income.
 
Last edited:
Personal income tax revenues are also a function of how much personal income people have. When you outsource jobs to other countries, it really doesn't matter what the tax rates may be, all of that income is lost.

yes, and then when the freed up capital creates other jobs, you get the revenue from there. conversely, when you put into place protectionism and destroy American jobs, you reduce revenue.

When jobs go to illegals who will work for low wages, that money doesn't generate revenues either

one of the reasons I'm in favor of the Fair Tax.

When any market forces keep incomes low, that also keeps revenues low. The long term solution is for the average citizen to make more money.

which is why we should free up our market and reduce regulation.

Right now, the trend in wages is downward.

right now the trend in wages is effected by the fact that we have an idiotic fiscal policy, and the percent of GDP that we see in revenues is the same way.
 
While a business owner, with branch offices in 3 counties, I fought against my state legislators who refused to RAISE the minimum wage. At the time, (1980's) the California minimum wage was around $4.00/hour, only slightly higher than the federal minimum. This was my business' biggest problem.
I would have loved to have had a minimum wage of $20/hour. Then, the callers to my business would have had the money to buy the stuff I was trying to sell.

no, because they would have been unemployed.
 
While a business owner, with branch offices in 3 counties, I fought against my state legislators who refused to RAISE the minimum wage. At the time, (1980's) the California minimum wage was around $4.00/hour, only slightly higher than the federal minimum. This was my business' biggest problem.
I would have loved to have had a minimum wage of $20/hour. Then, the callers to my business would have had the money to buy the stuff I was trying to sell.

It was very discouraging, when asking the callers how much they could give me for a down payment for a membership in my club (a video dating service), only to hear them say "Uh, ten bucks". Or "Uh, fifty bucks" (the minimum down was $250). And why was that ? Because somebody out there is paying them minimum wage, that's why.

Problem with low minimum wages is that is keeps the disposeable income in the community around you, to a level where you can't sell anything. RAISE the minimum wage ! I said it then. I say it now.

PS - let's not forget that many businesses pay their help on a commission only basis (car sales, furniture, etc). For these businesses the low minimum wage is total lost income.

And when those employees made 20 bucks an hour, their employer's business would fail and you wouldn't have any customers.
 
hey bigfoot! let's just raise the minimum wage to $100,000,000 an hour and we can ALL BE RICH!!!

:mrgreen:
 
hey bigfoot! let's just raise the minimum wage to $100,000,000 an hour and we can ALL BE RICH!!!

:mrgreen:

I agree

After all, it would help business
 
gosh, yeah. imagine how much stuff we could buy if we all made 100 mil an hour.

good thing that labor costs aren't part of the price of production, eh? whew, our brilliant plan could really go down the tubes, then.
 
gosh, yeah. imagine how much stuff we could buy if we all made 100 mil an hour.

good thing that labor costs aren't part of the price of production, eh? whew, our brilliant plan could really go down the tubes, then.

when I was in Bolivia, the going wage for day labor was ten grand. That's right, ten thousand big ones!

Then thousand Bolivianos, that is, about 80 cents in our money.

Just increasing the numbers isn't going to help. We need to increase productivity, then pay workers accordingly.
 
no, because they would have been unemployed.

No, they would have been employed at higher wages, making it possible for them to go to the stores and buy things, stimulating the economy. Also, not only would they have been able to buy things, but so would the many more people who would have been employed, as a result of the added income to the businesses from increased sales, creating increased hiring, and more employment.
 
And when those employees made 20 bucks an hour, their employer's business would fail and you wouldn't have any customers.

The answer to that is in the post that you were responding to and also post # 695.
 
gosh, yeah. imagine how much stuff we could buy if we all made 100 mil an hour.

good thing that labor costs aren't part of the price of production, eh? whew, our brilliant plan could really go down the tubes, then.

Hiding behind humor. The first sign that your debate opponent is finding himself without an answer to counter what has just been said to him. Ho hum. OK funny boys. What do you have to say about the disposeable income point ? I notice you haven't addressed it. Humor doesn't count.
 
No, they would have been employed at higher wages, making it possible for them to go to the stores and buy things, stimulating the economy.

no, because if they weren't making $20 an hour, then their labor wasn't worth $20 an hour, which means anyone who hired them at that rate would be operating at a loss and would go out of business.


labor, like everything else, operates according to the laws of supply and demand. if you artificially hike up the price, you see a fall in demand.

Also, not only would they have been able to buy things, but so would the many more people who would have been employed, as a result of the added income to the businesses from increased sales, creating increased hiring, and more employment.

no, because prices would have gone up along with wages. Labor, you see, is part of the price of production. If I make tables, and the cost it takes me to have a worker make a table goes up by $400 because now his wage has been artificially raised, then all that has happened is that I now have to raise the price of my table by $400.


they tried what you are suggesting back in the 1930's. It Prolonged The Depression by Seven Years.
 
Hiding behind humor. The first sign that your debate opponent is finding himself without an answer to counter what has just been said to him. Ho hum. OK funny boys. What do you have to say about the disposeable income point ?

that people who have no jobs have no disposable income. and that when you increase the cost of labor, all that you do is lower the demand for labor, meaning that there are fewer jobs and more people get fired.

price floors always produce scarcity.
 
no, because if they weren't making $20 an hour, then their labor wasn't worth $20 an hour, which means anyone who hired them at that rate would be operating at a loss and would go out of business.


labor, like everything else, operates according to the laws of supply and demand. if you artificially hike up the price, you see a fall in demand.



no, because prices would have gone up along with wages. Labor, you see, is part of the price of production. If I make tables, and the cost it takes me to have a worker make a table goes up by $400 because now his wage has been artificially raised, then all that has happened is that I now have to raise the price of my table by $400.


they tried what you are suggesting back in the 1930's. It Prolonged The Depression by Seven Years.

1. But they wouldn't be operating at a loss, they would be making MORE money from the increase in DISPOSEABLE INCOME (and thereby sales increases), which you all seem to keep ignoring and not talking about.

2. Now (by saying "prices would have gone up along with wages") this shows you are not aware of one of the basics of Microeconomics 101 (a course I once taught in college). Business owners cannot raise the prices of products. We have little or no control over them (for almost all commodities). Prices are set by the market. It is a result of what buyers expect that something is supposed to cost. People have firm ideas about that. It is a very difficult thing to change.
Problem with raising prices (in response to minimum wage raises or whatever) is that when you do, sales drop off. That's because, in practice, all businesses have their price set at the market price. That is the price you see stuff selling for. It is the highest price they can have without sales dropping enough to cause a loss of business income.

Graphically this is drawn as a bell-shaped curve with income on the vertical Y axis, and prices on the horizontal X axis. As prices go up from zero, so does income until it reaches the market price (at the top of the bell). From that point on, you have the right side of the bell, where prices are going up (this is the price hike you mentioned), but now income is dropping (along with the drop in sales), and you have the right side of the bell.

3. Re: the UCLA study,There are too many things going on differently in 2011 than there were 80 years ago, to use whtever happened back then as some sort of a guideline to predict current economic activity. There are literally dozens of differences, each one geometrically expanding into spin-off differences. I'd say the study is flawed, and I'm not even sure if the writers are analyzing Roosevelt correctly. I noticed right in the beginning they said something like when price go down, demand for goods goes down. No, under that condition demand for the goods goes up and so does sales.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom