Let's Redistribute Some Wealth [W:131]

[betuadollar]

Methinks you're suffering from a bit of projection there, guy, because I am not at all frustrated with the current economic climate - we ARE still in the middle of the longest sustained period of private-sector job growth in our nations history. Your boys would LOVE to be able to have a bragging point like that...but they don't.

And since we lefties "don't know how things work", when was it we had our last budget surplus, hm? And the one before that? It's been shown that yes, our economy DOES do generally better under Democrats than under Republicans. I remember how the GOPers were so doggone sure that Clinton was going to ruin the economy...but the opposite happened. The GOPers said the same thing about Obama, and made him face the greatest level of obstruction of ANY president since the Civil War...and he STILL mostly got our economy back on track.

And y'all? Y'all got nothing. Nothing but rhetoric, that is.

The left has been treating people like they're idiots since forever. And I don't know who's the more foolish. Are conservatives more foolish for allowing the left to write the history? Or is the left more foolish for believing people believe them?

Everybody knows that Clinton's surplus was creative accounting, an attack on social security; there have been numerous articles written on this. We also remember those long months as congress debated what to do with that surplus. The conservatives were sitting their saying, "Put it on the debt, put it on the debt." After-all wasn't that the original intent? The raison d'etre? Ultimately Congress put some twenty percent on the debt and spent the rest.

Everybody knows the bankers engineered the recent save here. And as dire as it may have appeared the public never faced the recessions of the 70s or the inflation and stagflation that was to follow. We also know the save was not complete; some have recouped their Wall St earnings but most are still far short on market value. What they've done is smoothed the machine; how long it will stay in tune nobody really knows.

And now we have Bernie. Really? Are you kidding me? I hate to say this but we'd be better off leaving Obama right where he is.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I'd like to see it.

Okay...but I'd really like to hear your comments on (and perhaps discuss for a bit) what I've already said in that last post, specifically:

I hope I can interest you in giving consideration to some of the more controversial aspects of what I am suggesting.

Lemme put something out that is striking in that respect:

We should not be aiming at creating more jobs...we should be aiming at changing the dynamic of "one should earn one's living." I suggest that "one should have to earn one's living" is a primary inhibitor to maximum productivity.

I suggest that a nation peopled with individuals who do not have to work in order to live reasonably...will be infinitely more productive than one in which "the need to work" is paramount.

I can flesh that out...but consider it in its skeleton form...and see if you see the value and logic in what essentially is a significant tangent from the norm throughout history.

Is this something in which you see merit...something that makes sense? Or do you see it in some other way?

I'd like to discuss it, because it may provide an avenue to a solution for what seems an unsolvable problem.

 

[US Conservative]

I like Milton. I've actually watched that series.

Its stood up to the test of time so well. I think thats evidence of its merit.

 

[US Conservative]

Okay...but I'd really like to hear your comments on (and perhaps discuss for a bit) what I've already said in that last post, specifically:




Is this something in which you see merit...something that makes sense? Or do you see it in some other way?

I'd like to discuss it, because it may provide an avenue to a solution for what seems an unsolvable problem.

I dont see merit in that view-again-people work hardest when its for themselves.

Giving someone a govt check once a month isn't going to help with that-in fact its a disincentive to work, and work is what creates a booming economy.

But lets test it-by your logic shouldn't those receiving a guaranteed income (welfare, pensions) be highly productive? For various reasons they are not.

That said-this is my initial impression-if you have evidence that people will be more productive getting other peoples money in the mail each month-kindly post evidence of this.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I dont see merit in that view-again-people work hardest when its for themselves.

Giving someone a govt check once a month isn't going to help with that-in fact its a disincentive to work, and work is what creates a booming economy.

But lets test it-by your logic shouldn't those receiving a guaranteed income (welfare, pensions) be highly productive? For various reasons they are not.

That said-this is my initial impression-if you have evidence that people will be more productive getting other peoples money in the mail each month-kindly post evidence of this.

I'm not sure you actually read what I wrote...and asked you to comment on, US.

Your answer does not even touch on what I said.

Here is what I wrote:

We should not be aiming at creating more jobs...we should be aiming at changing the dynamic of "one should earn one's living." I suggest that "one should have to earn one's living" is a primary inhibitor to maximum productivity.

I suggest that a nation peopled with individuals who do not have to work in order to live reasonably...will be infinitely more productive than one in which "the need to work" is paramount.

"People", US, are never going to be as productive as machines. There are some jobs that only humans can do...but for any job for which a machine exists or can be devised...the machine will win out in a productivity contest EVERY TIME.

Getting as many people out of the production effort...IS the way to increase productivity.

And "increasing productivity" and stopping "inhibitors to productivity" was what I was discussing.

That is why I wrote, "We should not be aiming at creating more jobs... ."

The "outside the box" thinking should be, "We should be creating DISINCENTIVES for people to work."

People take jobs away from more productive machines.

And the best way to get people out of the way is to furnish them with what they need to live a decent life...which can be done easily if we increase productivity.

It's complicated.

But the explanation has to start somewhere.

So let me simplify my earlier question:

IF we stopped using humans to do work that can be done my machines (simply because the humans need jobs in order to "earn a living")...and replaced as many humans as possible with machines...

...would we increase productivity?

 

[US Conservative]

I'm not sure you actually read what I wrote...and asked you to comment on, US.

Your answer does not even touch on what I said.

Here is what I wrote:





"People", US, are never going to be as productive as machines. There are some jobs that only humans can do...but for any job for which a machine exists or can be devised...the machine will win out in a productivity contest EVERY TIME.

Getting as many people out of the production effort...IS the way to increase productivity.

And "increasing productivity" and stopping "inhibitors to productivity" was what I was discussing.

That is why I wrote, "We should not be aiming at creating more jobs... ."

The "outside the box" thinking should be, "We should be creating DISINCENTIVES for people to work."

People take jobs away from more productive machines.

And the best way to get people out of the way is to furnish them with what they need to live a decent life...which can be done easily if we increase productivity.

It's complicated.

But the explanation has to start somewhere.

So let me simplify my earlier question:

IF we stopped using humans to do work that can be done my machines (simply because the humans need jobs in order to "earn a living")...and replaced as many humans as possible with machines...

...would we increase productivity?

Where did I bring up machines? I have, in my adult life only worked jobs machines cant do. If they could I would not.

I was expecting a masterful post on your part, still am.

Why are your sights set so low, that its only with some help that they can be replaced by machines?

Have some faith man!

 

[Frank Apisa]

Where did I bring up machines? I have, in my adult life only worked jobs machines cant do. If they could I would not.

I didn't say you brought up machines. I did bring them up!

I was expecting a masterful post on your part, still am.

I'll see what I can do. But you have to do your part.

A question was asked. Would you mind answering it.

Why are your sights set so low, that its only with some help that they can be replaced by machines?

My sights are NEVER set low. They are set high as the sky.

Not sure what you mean by "...that its only with some help that they can be replaced by machines...but I cannot tie it into anything I wrote.

Have some faith man!

I do not count on faith, US. I deal with actions.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The left has been treating people like they're idiots since forever. And I don't know who's the more foolish. Are conservatives more foolish for allowing the left to write the history? Or is the left more foolish for believing people believe them?

Everybody knows that Clinton's surplus was creative accounting, an attack on social security; there have been numerous articles written on this. We also remember those long months as congress debated what to do with that surplus. The conservatives were sitting their saying, "Put it on the debt, put it on the debt." After-all wasn't that the original intent? The raison d'etre? Ultimately Congress put some twenty percent on the debt and spent the rest.

Everybody knows the bankers engineered the recent save here. And as dire as it may have appeared the public never faced the recessions of the 70s or the inflation and stagflation that was to follow. We also know the save was not complete; some have recouped their Wall St earnings but most are still far short on market value. What they've done is smoothed the machine; how long it will stay in tune nobody really knows.

And now we have Bernie. Really? Are you kidding me? I hate to say this but we'd be better off leaving Obama right where he is.

Hey - we agree on something! Your last sentence was RIGHT ON THE MONEY! Why? From the Wall Street Journal in July:

U.S. Jobless Claims Fall To Lowest Level Since 1973

An important measure of layoffs hit its lowest mark since the Nixon administration, a sign of increasing momentum in the labor market and a possible hint at the extent of job growth for the full month of July.

The number of U.S. workers filing initial applications for jobless benefits fell by 26,000 to a seasonally adjusted 255,000 in the week ended July 18, the Labor Department said Thursday, a 41-year low. The week coincides with the period the Labor Department conducts surveys to assess the strength of the labor market for the month of July.

The most recent jobless-claims report shows how the job market has healed from the fragility of six years ago, when nearly 600,000 Americans a week were seeking such assistance. The low number of layoff has some economists optimistic that hiring strengthened further this summer.

“This week’s claims reading may have been exaggerated on the low side but there is certainly no sign of the labor market losing momentum,” said Jim O’Sullivan, economist with High Frequency Economics. “The message: Employment growth remains more than strong enough to keep the unemployment rate declining.”

And THEN from yesterday's USA Today:

Applications for unemployment aid plunge to 42-year low

The number of Americans filing initial applications for unemployment benefits fell to a 42-year low last week in the latest sign the labor market is poised for further gains.

First-time claims for the week ending July 18 dropped by 26,000 to 255,000, the lowest level since 1973, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expected a dip of just 3,000.

The four-week average, which smooths out volatility, declined by 4,000 to 282,500.

Last week’s decline was likely accentuated by two big summer auto plant shutdowns. Yet the total was a record low after adjusting for population gains since 1973.

Initial jobless claims are a reliable gauge of layoffs. And with the unemployment rate at a seven-year low of 5.3% and a growing number of workers feeling confident enough to switch jobs, many employers are holding on to staffers.

So...yeah, just like you said, we'd be better off leaving Obama right where he is!

 

[US Conservative]

I didn't say you brought up machines. I did bring them up!



I'll see what I can do. But you have to do your part.

A question was asked. Would you mind answering it.



My sights are NEVER set low. They are set high as the sky.

Not sure what you mean by "...that its only with some help that they can be replaced by machines...but I cannot tie it into anything I wrote.



I do not count on faith, US. I deal with actions.

If we replaced people with machines, would that increase productivity?

It depends on both the job, and the machine.

In some situations machines certainly are more productive, in others not so much.

Machines are simply job killers, they benefit people in many ways, safety, lower consumer costs, etc.

You have to realize that we are talking about businesses here-they are not there as job hosts, they are there to for business.

If people aren't bringing a valuable skill, or they cost more-people will go to machines, as they always have and always will.

Is there a way around this? There always has been-encourage people to learn the skills and get the education that others will pay them for.

I think most people can easily do that. I dont want to make people more comfortable in ignorance and poverty, I want to encourage them to improve themselves.

 

[Frank Apisa]

If we replaced people with machines, would that increase productivity?

It depends on both the job, and the machine.

In some situations machines certainly are more productive, in others not so much.

Machines are simply job killers, they benefit people in many ways, safety, lower consumer costs, etc.

You have to realize that we are talking about businesses here-they are not there as job hosts, they are there to for business.

The comment that started this, US, was me writing:

"People", US, are never going to be as productive as machines. There are some jobs that only humans can do...but for any job for which a machine exists or can be devised...the machine will win out in a productivity contest EVERY TIME.

Do you disagree with that statement?

If so, tell me why. I may have overstated my case. I've done that before...and I will discuss your opinion on that.

If people aren't bringing a valuable skill, or they cost more-people will go to machines, as they always have and always will.

Yup...and since I am an advocate for maximum productivity...I encourage the replacement of humans with machines in every situation where a machine can do a better job.

ASIDE: Which is, as I said, in almost every case where a machine can be devised. But some places machines cannot be used. You cannot use a machine to make a hand-made silk tie or hand-rolled cigar. I acknowledge that. And in some cases, a human seems to do a better job...even if a machine can be devised for the job. For instance, a human nurse can deliver TLC better than any machine nurse...a human bartender can deliver up chat and a shoulder to cry on better than a machine bartender.

But for MOST jobs for which a machine exists or can be devised...the machine will be much more productive than the human.

Is there a way around this? There always has been-encourage people to learn the skills and get the education that others will pay them for.

A HUGE segment of people simply will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete in the workplace. EVER! The notion of "learn a skill" is way, way, way overdone.

I think most people can easily do that.

I respect your right to do that, US...and I do not question your motives.

But just as respectfully...I disagree to the max! Many people cannot do it at all...and hardly any can do it easily.

It is a good motto...but that is all it is.

I dont want to make people more comfortable in ignorance and poverty, I want to encourage them to improve themselves.

I want everyone to have the basic essentials of life right up front. Then we can motivate them to improve. But no person should have need of food, shelter, clothes, healthcare, educational opportunities, transportation, communications, and a reasonable amount of leisure amenities.

We obviously have different priorities. If I can, I'd like to convince you to come closer to mine. In the meantime, I will consider yours.

 

[betuadollar]

Hey - we agree on something! Your last sentence was RIGHT ON THE MONEY! Why? From the Wall Street Journal in July:

U.S. Jobless Claims Fall To Lowest Level Since 1973

An important measure of layoffs hit its lowest mark since the Nixon administration, a sign of increasing momentum in the labor market and a possible hint at the extent of job growth for the full month of July.

The number of U.S. workers filing initial applications for jobless benefits fell by 26,000 to a seasonally adjusted 255,000 in the week ended July 18, the Labor Department said Thursday, a 41-year low. The week coincides with the period the Labor Department conducts surveys to assess the strength of the labor market for the month of July.

The most recent jobless-claims report shows how the job market has healed from the fragility of six years ago, when nearly 600,000 Americans a week were seeking such assistance. The low number of layoff has some economists optimistic that hiring strengthened further this summer.

“This week’s claims reading may have been exaggerated on the low side but there is certainly no sign of the labor market losing momentum,” said Jim O’Sullivan, economist with High Frequency Economics. “The message: Employment growth remains more than strong enough to keep the unemployment rate declining.”

And THEN from yesterday's USA Today:

Applications for unemployment aid plunge to 42-year low

The number of Americans filing initial applications for unemployment benefits fell to a 42-year low last week in the latest sign the labor market is poised for further gains.

First-time claims for the week ending July 18 dropped by 26,000 to 255,000, the lowest level since 1973, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expected a dip of just 3,000.

The four-week average, which smooths out volatility, declined by 4,000 to 282,500.

Last week’s decline was likely accentuated by two big summer auto plant shutdowns. Yet the total was a record low after adjusting for population gains since 1973.

Initial jobless claims are a reliable gauge of layoffs. And with the unemployment rate at a seven-year low of 5.3% and a growing number of workers feeling confident enough to switch jobs, many employers are holding on to staffers.

So...yeah, just like you said, we'd be better off leaving Obama right where he is!

Overall corporate earnings are up too.

 

[US Conservative]

The comment that started this, US, was me writing:



Do you disagree with that statement?

If so, tell me why. I may have overstated my case. I've done that before...and I will discuss your opinion on that.






Yup...and since I am an advocate for maximum productivity...I encourage the replacement of humans with machines in every situation where a machine can do a better job.

ASIDE: Which is, as I said, in almost every case where a machine can be devised. But some places machines cannot be used. You cannot use a machine to make a hand-made silk tie or hand-rolled cigar. I acknowledge that. And in some cases, a human seems to do a better job...even if a machine can be devised for the job. For instance, a human nurse can deliver TLC better than any machine nurse...a human bartender can deliver up chat and a shoulder to cry on better than a machine bartender.

But for MOST jobs for which a machine exists or can be devised...the machine will be much more productive than the human.





A HUGE segment of people simply will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete in the workplace. EVER! The notion of "learn a skill" is way, way, way overdone.




I respect your right to do that, US...and I do not question your motives.

But just as respectfully...I disagree to the max! Many people cannot do it at all...and hardly any can do it easily.

It is a good motto...but that is all it is.




I want everyone to have the basic essentials of life right up front. Then we can motivate them to improve. But no person should have need of food, shelter, clothes, healthcare, educational opportunities, transportation, communications, and a reasonable amount of leisure amenities.

We obviously have different priorities. If I can, I'd like to convince you to come closer to mine. In the meantime, I will consider yours.

Why do you think a huge segment of the population is unable to improve themselves?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Why do you think a huge segment of the population is unable to improve themselves?

I wrote:

A HUGE segment of people simply will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete in the workplace. EVER! The notion of "learn a skill" is way, way, way overdone.

And you ask me that question?

I thought you wanted a reasonable, intelligent discussion, US.

 

[US Conservative]

I wrote:

A HUGE segment of people simply will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete in the workplace. EVER! The notion of "learn a skill" is way, way, way overdone.

And you ask me that question?

I thought you wanted a reasonable, intelligent discussion, US.

I see it as close enough but very well-why do you think "A HUGE segment of people simply will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete in the workplace. EVER! The notion of "learn a skill" is way, way, way overdone."?

Seems like a pretty definitive statement.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I see it as close enough but very well-why do you think "A HUGE segment of people simply will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete in the workplace. EVER! The notion of "learn a skill" is way, way, way overdone."?

Seems like a pretty definitive statement.

Yeah...it certainly is a lot more definitive than I usually get. We agnostics tend to be more circumspect.

But it is definitive because I have my eyes open...and I see the people who exist.

But even forgetting about the judgmental aspects of the statement, the statement could be defended mathematically, US.

There are a limited number of jobs that humans can do for which it makes sense to pay big bucks. At some point, no matter how much "training" is done, the jobs will be filled.

IF everyone could be trained, for instance, to be a brain surgeon...at some point the pay for brain surgery would be about equal to what a hamburger flipper at MacDonalds would earn.

The moment rocket scientists become a dime a dozen...that is what they will be paid.

IF you disagree that a huge segment of the population will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete in the workplace...fine. That is your opinion...and you are entitled to it.

Mine is that a HUGE segment will NEVER be able to learn the skills needed to allow them to compete in the marketplace. I consider it to be obvious.

 

[US Conservative]

Yeah...it certainly is a lot more definitive than I usually get. We agnostics tend to be more circumspect.

But it is definitive because I have my eyes open...and I see the people who exist.

But even forgetting about the judgmental aspects of the statement, the statement could be defended mathematically, US.

There are a limited number of jobs that humans can do for which it makes sense to pay big bucks. At some point, no matter how much "training" is done, the jobs will be filled.

IF everyone could be trained, for instance, to be a brain surgeon...at some point the pay for brain surgery would be about equal to what a hamburger flipper at MacDonalds would earn.

The moment rocket scientists become a dime a dozen...that is what they will be paid.

IF you disagree that a huge segment of the population will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete in the workplace...fine. That is your opinion...and you are entitled to it.

Mine is that a HUGE segment will NEVER be able to learn the skills needed to allow them to compete in the marketplace. I consider it to be obvious.

What is stopping these people from learning these skills?

 

[Frank Apisa]

What is stopping these people from learning these skills?

US, let's start this up again when you want to be serious, okay?

 

[US Conservative]

US, let's start this up again when you want to be serious, okay?

I suspect its the heart of the argument, though.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I suspect its the heart of the argument, though.

If you are honestly wondering why a huge segment of people will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete in the workplace, US...you are NOT being serious.

You sounded like a reasonable, thoughtful person...willing to at least listen to arguments 180 degrees out of phase with your own. That kind of person is hard to find in these forums.

But if the logic of my comment above is not easily and instantly apparent to you...we are not going to get anywhere.

If things change...I will be here ready and willing to discuss.

 

[eohrnberger]

US, let's start this up again when you want to be serious, okay?

I suspect its the heart of the argument, though.

There in lies a really big disconnect between the two camps.

One camp dismisses the possibility of the worker producing / providing greater value with their work to earn greater compensation, and the other camp which insists this is the most realistic way forward.

Until the two can find common ground on which to build a path forward, there isn't going to be much forward progress to addressing this disparity issue.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

great plan, one problem, what motivation does anyone have to work hard and make 75,000/year when the government is just going to rob them and equalize their income with a minimum wage jockey who farts for a living?

 

[CriticalThought]

i'd like to take a little bit of time to see how this wealth redistribution works So let's spread some around, shall we?

For our example let's take two people.

person 1 is making $75,000 a year, before redistribution.

Person 2 is making $25,000 a year.

So a fair wealth redistribution would be to take those salaries, and add them together, for a total of $100,000.

The government gets to take say ten percent of it. Which would be $10,000.

Distributing the money in a fair and equitable manner, each person will now get $45,000. It'ds adrop for the higher wage income earner, but a huge boost to the lower wage income earner, which increases the quality of his, or her, life.

It sounds really fair, doesn't it?

But here's the thing. The government gets a ten percent fee for running things, making sure that the people are treated in a fair manner, and get their fair and equal share.

And $10,000 doesn't sound too bad of a deal, right?

But, if you have a society with say, 100 people. Well, that is 100 x $10,000, which comes out to a grand total of $1,000,000. And that is while each person is making $45,000 a year.

And make no mistake, the government does need that money to make sure everyone has their fair and equal share. For without the government to enable this system, most people will just not willingly donate their salary to enable a fair and equal share.

And that's why you need the government. For you can not have fair and equal sharing of money without it.


So, this all sounds like it's a fair system to me.

Does this sound fair to you?

I think learning the difference between wealth and income would be a good start for you.

 

[Frank Apisa]

There in lies a really big disconnect between the two camps.

One camp dismisses the possibility of the worker producing / providing greater value with their work to earn greater compensation, and the other camp which insists this is the most realistic way forward.

I certainly do not do that.

Of course there are people who can improve their skills...and as a consequence, be more valuable...and (at times) actually be better compensated (although that is not a given in today's market.)

But...as I pointed out...there is a huge segment who will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete reasonably in the workplace. They simply are not bright enough.

And, although I have not put this out here yet, there is a significant segment of the public who will never be able to compete reasonably for high paying jobs, no matter the level of their skill sets, for a variety of other reasons...including health and appearance.

 

[US Conservative]

If you are honestly wondering why a huge segment of people will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete in the workplace, US...you are NOT being serious.

You sounded like a reasonable, thoughtful person...willing to at least listen to arguments 180 degrees out of phase with your own. That kind of person is hard to find in these forums.

But if the logic of my comment above is not easily and instantly apparent to you...we are not going to get anywhere.

If things change...I will be here ready and willing to discuss.

I dont understand this reply at all.

For the record, I do teach. Im aware that there is a spectrum of capabilities, and that a few really just can't do it. But thats not the majority, and never has been, in my experience.

Whats best for everyone long term? Self sufficient contributing citizens, or a dependent mass constantly being told they are when they aren't?

When people try, some may fail. But thats better than never trying.

Again, I highly recommend this...

 

[eohrnberger]

I certainly do not do that.

OK.

Of course there are people who can improve their skills...and as a consequence, be more valuable...and (at times) actually be better compensated (although that is not a given in today's market.)

I do believe that you are incorrect in this assertion. This is a fundamental of the job market and doesn't come and go. It's constantly present.

But...as I pointed out...there is a huge segment who will NEVER be able to learn skills that will allow them to compete reasonably in the workplace. They simply are not bright enough.

And, although I have not put this out here yet, there is a significant segment of the public who will never be able to compete reasonably for high paying jobs, no matter the level of their skill sets, for a variety of other reasons...including health and appearance.

The soft bigotry of low expectations. People will surprise you if given 1/2 the chance to do so.

Mentally Disabled Man Opens Thriving Restaurant

Here is but one example. Look around, there are many, many more.
This is within the capabilities of everyone.