Top two percent keep on raking in profits while the rest of us lose money

[Capper Al]

I have a friend retiring whose job won't be replaced because of technology. More will be demanded out of the other employees. This is not an isolated story. I'm sure many of you have witnessed similar. The information age is a blessing but the question is should it benefit all or only those who own the means of production? Corporate wealth increases and the stocks move up as our middle-class shrinks.

[Valuist]

I have a friend retiring whose job won't be replaced because of technology. More will be demanded out of the other employees. This is not an isolated story. I'm sure many of you have witnessed similar. The information age is a blessing but the question is should it benefit all or only those who own the means of production? Corporate wealth increases and the stocks move up as our middle-class shrinks.

The endless money printing of QE is much more responsible for the stock market's rise over the past 4 years. The irony is that Obama wants wealth redistribution, yet the main beneficiaries of the money printing have been those involved in the equity markets.

[Capper Al]

The endless money printing of QE is much more responsible for the stock market's rise over the past 4 years. The irony is that Obama wants wealth redistribution, yet the main beneficiaries of the money printing have been those involved in the equity markets.

Solutions aren't easy. The advancement of technology should have made all our lives better. The French tried the 36 hour work week, but couldn't compete when the rest of the world refused to join in. This might of been the solution that would have allowed technology to advance and better everyone, besides creating more jobs instead of eliminating jobs.

[Clocker]

The endless money printing of QE is much more responsible for the stock market's rise over the past 4 years. The irony is that Obama wants wealth redistribution, yet the main beneficiaries of the money printing have been those involved in the equity markets.

Yep, those unintended consequences will bite you in the butt every time. While Obama does not have direct control over the Fed and its QE policy, Obama and Bernanke are pursuing the same goals with the same failed Keynesian policies. Obama believes that government "investment", i.e., deficit stimulus spending, can create jobs. He also believes that the more money businesses make, the more they can be taxed, i.e., pay their fair share, and that money can be redistributed in the form of government "investment" and increased minimum wages.

Obama and Bernanke believe the Keynesian model that says that interest rates are the prime driver of business investment spending, and that the lower the rates, the higher the level of investment and therefore the greater the level of aggregate demand. And therefore the more money to redistribute.

The failure of Obama's stimulus spending to create jobs or promote economic growth is one proof that Keynesian economics does not work. The failure of low interest rates to increase business investment spending is the other. The evidence is obvious to most, but apparently not to the Keynesians, that interest rates are not the primary driver of investment. The impact of low interest rates has been canceled out by investor uncertainty about fed policy, government regulation (ObamaCare, EPA, etc.), and international instability.

The other problem is the usurpation of power by the Federal Reserve. The Fed was created by Congress to provide a stable monetary environment for business, with focus on inflation and unemployment. Greenspan took it upon himself to expand the Fed's responsibilities to include stimulating the economy and propping up asset prices, i.e., stocks, mortgages, etc. Bernanke has continued to follow Greenspan's lead. With low interest rates and very low business investment, there is no other place to put money than in the stock market. QE has created a market bubble that starts to deflate anytime Bernanke even thinks about backing off on QE.

[Clocker]

The French tried the 36 hour work week, but couldn't compete when the rest of the world refused to join in.

And now we have gone one step further as ObamaCare moves us toward a 30 hour work week as the new normal. Pretty soon we will be outsourcing jobs to France.

[Capper Al]

Just a quick point, Keynesian policy gets kicked around as if supply side is the proper way. Both the great depression and the great recession were outcomes of supply side reasoning. I am not saying that there is never a time to consider supply side reasoning. There is a time when inflation needs to checked for eaxample, and an good ecomony could use a boast. Otherwise, Keynesian works just fine.

[Capper Al]

And now we have gone one step further as ObamaCare moves us toward a 30 hour work week as the new normal. Pretty soon we will be outsourcing jobs to France.

Would you reiterated my point? We had advances in technology, and who is raking in the Benefit? Your post argues no point. It's just saber rattling.

[Capper Al]

Clocker,

What about our unskilled jobs going overseas as well as our private money to escape taxes? Doesn't this play into the picture? And shouldn't we all benefit from technology?

[Clocker]

Your post argues no point. It's just saber rattling.

No, it is just political satire.

[mostpost]

And now we have gone one step further as ObamaCare moves us toward a 30 hour work week as the new normal. Pretty soon we will be outsourcing jobs to France.
We have a few high profile companies who say they are going to a 30 hour work week, but they are far from a majority. Has any of them done any more than blow smoke thus far? I think I will wait until Obama care has been fully implemented before I evaluate its success or failure.

I mean we heard a lot of opinions on how insurance rates were going to soar, but when the actual rates came out from the new exchanges they were down substantially.

[Clocker]

Just a quick point, Keynesian policy gets kicked around as if supply side is the proper way.

Keynesian economics is a misnomer used to justify large government and ever increasing deficits. Keynes would never recognize nor condone what gets done in his name today. What Keynes said was that if you had a small government sector, a balanced budget, and a balance of trade surplus, you could stimulate your way out of a down-turn in aggregate demand with a relatively short period of deficit spending.

What Americans call Keynesian economics today is what we used to call Democratic Socialism. And we have seen what that leads to. Increased unemployment, low economic growth, growing income inequality, and the disappearance of the middle class.

[Clocker]

I mean we heard a lot of opinions on how insurance rates were going to soar, but when the actual rates came out from the new exchanges they were down substantially.

They did not go down. They went up less than had been forecast, and advocates trumpeted that as a major victory.

[Capper Al]

Keynesian economics is a misnomer used to justify large government and ever increasing deficits. Keynes would never recognize nor condone what gets done in his name today. What Keynes said was that if you had a small government sector, a balanced budget, and a balance of trade surplus, you could stimulate your way out of a down-turn in aggregate demand with a relatively short period of deficit spending.

What Americans call Keynesian economics today is what we used to call Democratic Socialism. And we have seen what that leads to. Increased unemployment, low economic growth, growing income inequality, and the disappearance of the middle class.

Size of government is only relevant to Kenyes in the amount of money of being spent, not in the ideological point of view that you are implying. Keynes believed that when the private sector slowed down their spending that the government was needed to spend or loosen money up so that spending/investing would pickup again. What America calls conservatives is more incorrect than their label implies. True conservatives would not want radical change and push for an America that concedes our power of self governance to corporate America.

[offtrack]

The long term winners, in my experience, were the lotus-eaters. The government employee's who were left to maintain and administrate once the building and growth were attained.

[mostpost]

The failure of Obama's stimulus spending to create jobs or promote economic growth is one proof that Keynesian economics does not work.
What planet do you live on? Here is a listing of job gains or losses by year in descending order. I used the administrations of George HW Bush, George W. Bush and the last three years of the Obama administration. I did use the Clinton Administration because that would really embarrass the Republicans

Year.........................President............ .........Jobs created/lost
2005.......................GWB.................... ........2,484,000
2013.......................Obama.................. .......2,422,000*
2012.......................Obama.................. .......2,420,000
2011.......................Obama.................. ...... 2,103,000
2004.......................GWB.................... ........2,019,000
2006.......................GWB.................... ........2,071,000
1989.......................GHWB................... .......1,938,000
1992.......................GHWB................... .......1,168,000
2007.......................GWB.................... ........1,115,000
1990.......................GHWB................... .......300,000
2003.......................GWB.................... .........62,000
2002.......................GWB.................... ........minus 636,000
1991.......................GHWB................... .......minus 898,000
2001.......................GWB.................... ........minus 1,757,000
2008.......................GWB.................... ........minus 3,617,000

*estimated by doubling jobs gained in first six months of 2013.

Source: www.bls.gov Payroll employment click on the dinosaur.


What does all this show? It shows that the second, third and fourth best years of job growth in the sample were during the Barack Obama Presidency.
It shows that the Bush boys had eleven years in which job growth was worse than those "Awful" Obama years. It shows that supply side sucks and Keynes rules.

[mostpost]

They did not go down. They went up less than had been forecast, and advocates trumpeted that as a major victory.

I was not clear in what I said. Predictions from the right were that when the exchanges went into effect in 2014, cost would go up. In fact, all of the exchanges which have announced pricing thus far have announced costs well below what was predicted.

Yes, premiums for 2013 did go up less than predicted and that too is a plus for Obamacare. I can't wait to see what happens when it is fully implemented. :jump:

[TJDave]

Didn't it used to be the top 1%?

That's like a big increase, right? :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

What does all this show? It shows that the second, third and fourth best years of job growth in the sample were during the Barack Obama Presidency.


How many of those Obama jobs were low pay, part time jobs? The "hospitality" industry has been the leader in job creation for the last year or so. That means McJobs. There have been recent monthly job reports under Obama that showed a net loss in full time jobs, off-set by a large increase in part time jobs. All are counted the same by the government.

And Obama's numbers in a "recovery" should be miles ahead of Bush's numbers in a downturn. Those numbers are nothing to be proud of. GDP growth at this stage of a "recovery" should be at least twice the rate it has been.

[Dave Schwartz]

How many of those Obama jobs were low pay, part time jobs? The "hospitality" industry has been the leader in job creation for the last year or so. That means McJobs. There have been recent monthly job reports under Obama that showed a net loss in full time jobs, off-set by a large increase in part time jobs. All are counted the same by the government.

And Obama's numbers in a "recovery" should be miles ahead of Bush's numbers in a downturn. Those numbers are nothing to be proud of. GDP growth at this stage of a "recovery" should be at least twice the rate it has been.

I agree with this.

That is what I was saying earlier; to use your terminology, "McJobs" are not really jobs that should be counted as a plus.

[Tom]

For clarity, a "job" is $50,000 per year.
A job that pays $25,000 is 0.5 jobs.
A job that pays $100,000 is 2.0 jobs.

Recalculate..........

[lamboguy]

maybe its true that in this country 2% got it all, but when you look around the world, i doubt if that number is anymore than 1%.

[JustRalph]

I have a friend retiring whose job won't be replaced because of technology. More will be demanded out of the other employees. This is not an isolated story. I'm sure many of you have witnessed similar. The information age is a blessing but the question is should it benefit all or only those who own the means of production? Corporate wealth increases and the stocks move up as our middle-class shrinks.

Read it and weep


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323610704578626142861572144.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[mostpost]

And Obama's numbers in a "recovery" should be miles ahead of Bush's numbers in a downturn. Those numbers are nothing to be proud of. GDP growth at this stage of a "recovery" should be at least twice the rate it has been.
Whose policies brought about that downturn? And whose policies are inhibiting the recovery? The answer to both questions is the same. Republicans. The stimulus has created plenty of jobs. The reason it has not created more is that Republicans limited its scope and put too much into tax breaks.

[JustRalph]

We have a few high profile companies who say they are going to a 30 hour work week, but they are far from a majority. Has any of them done any more than blow smoke thus far? I think I will wait until Obama care has been fully implemented before I evaluate its success or failure.

I mean we heard a lot of opinions on how insurance rates were going to soar, but when the actual rates came out from the new exchanges they were down substantially.

Yeah, this is blowing smoke.......

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/29/179864601/as-health-law-changes-loom-a-shift-to-part-time-workers

Lots of companies doing it. A local bar chain here in Dallas just restructured their company into 3 different companies to avoid Obamacare. And they closed a location to make it work. Ask those employees of the closed location if it's "blowing smoke"

Btw, Darden is also cutting hours to avoid Obamacare. In spite of what you read......they are doing it......even as they deny it. They are actively doing "job swapping" with other companies to keep employees working. They deny it publicly, but it's happening

[mostpost]

How many of those Obama jobs were low pay, part time jobs? The "hospitality" industry has been the leader in job creation for the last year or so. That means McJobs. There have been recent monthly job reports under Obama that showed a net loss in full time jobs, off-set by a large increase in part time jobs. All are counted the same by the government.
If there are such job reports, why don't you post a link to them here?

[Clocker]

If there are such job reports, why don't you post a link to them here?

Okay, here is my exercise in futility. As reported in Forbes, the lying, greedy, capitalist pig smut mag on July 14, 2013:

The Untold Unemployment Story: A Loss Of 162,000 Full-Time Jobs In June


There were no net full time jobs created last month. The number of full time jobs actually declined by at least 162,000 on net last month.

All of the net new jobs created last month were part time jobs. The Labor Department reported, “The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons…increased by 322,000 to 8.2 million in June. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.” (emphasis added).

That is why the Labor Department also reported that the U-6 unemployment rate, which includes these involuntary part-time workers, soared from 13.8% in May to 14.3% in June. That soaring unemployment suggests not recovery but renewed recession.

These part-time jobs replacing full time jobs helps to explain why middle class incomes have continued to decline throughout Obama’s Presidency. The middle class has lost the equivalent of one month’s income a year under President Obama, and with these employment trends, those declining living standards will continue.

Moreover, even counting this explosion of part-time jobs, Obama’s supposed recovery is sorely lagging. As we pointed out last week, in the 11 previous recessions since the Great Depression, the economy gained back all of the jobs lost during the recession in an average of 25 months from when the recession started. But today, we are 67 months after the recession started, and 49 months after it officially ended, and under what passes for economic policy under the smartest President ever, we still have not gained back all of the jobs lost during the recession. And, again, that is counting the explosion of part time jobs replacing full time jobs.

President Obama told us in his State of the Union Address this year, “A growing economy that creates good, middle class jobs – this must be the North Star that guides our efforts.” But, once again, the President’s words have not matched his deeds.




Over/under on the time it takes for a lib to dismiss this as lies: 5 minutes.

[Clocker]

Here is BLS data that shows a net loss of full time jobs in July, 2012, and in February and June of this year.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/07/June%20Full%20vs%20Part%20Time%20Jobs%20historic_0 .jpg

[badcompany]

I have a friend retiring whose job won't be replaced because of technology. More will be demanded out of the other employees. This is not an isolated story. I'm sure many of you have witnessed similar. The information age is a blessing but the question is should it benefit all or only those who own the means of production? Corporate wealth increases and the stocks move up as our middle-class shrinks.

The fact that you're posting on this forum is evidence that you've benefited from the Information Age, and have access to technology that, just a short time ago, wasn't available even to those who control the "Means of Production."

[Mike at A+]

As I've said long ago and so many times since, the people benefiting from 0bama's presidency are those at the very top and those at the bottom. The middle class is getting a royal screwing. The rich thumb their noses at 0bama because those who contributed to him are getting preferential treatment and those who haven't are shielding their assets from his reach with financial skills he is incapable of overcoming. The food stamp crowd loves him because they are getting more free stuff than ever before. So who picks up the tab? Yep, the MIDDLE CLASS. The folks who have been downsized out of the good jobs where skills are required. The folks who played by the rules all of their lives and saved for a better than average retirement are being squeezed. The backbone of the American economy is getting f***ed.

[mostpost]

Okay, here is my exercise in futility. As reported in Forbes, the lying, greedy, capitalist pig smut mag on July 14, 2013:



Over/under on the time it takes for a lib to dismiss this as lies: 5 minutes.
I hope you took the over because it is now 4:40 PM local. And I am not going to dismiss it as lies since the figures are correct. I will dismiss it as selective statistics.
There was an increase in part time jobs from May to June, but there was a decrease from June 2012 to June 2013. I would also point out that the number of part time jobs has dropped from January to January in each of the last 3 years, and that large fluctuations are common within a calendar year and even from month to month.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet


Also, you have offered no proof that this was because of Obama policies. Neither did the author of the piece you posted, except for more of the same right wing "don't tax me bro" screed.

[mostpost]

Okay, here is my exercise in futility. As reported in Forbes, the lying, greedy, capitalist pig smut mag on July 14, 2013:



Over/under on the time it takes for a lib to dismiss this as lies: 5 minutes.
Mr. PA, time for you to repost the rules on copying and pasting an article or large part of an article without giving proper acknowledgement to the author. In other words the laws on plagiarism.

Am I wrong that we are required to post a link to an article such as the one above? Once we do that we can copy excerpts.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Mr. PA, time for you to repost the rules on copying and pasting an article or large part of an article without giving proper acknowledgement to the author. In other words the laws on plagiarism.

Am I wrong that we are required to post a link to an article such as the one above? Once we do that we can copy excerpts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/07/14/the-untold-unemployment-story-a-loss-of-162000-full-time-jobs-in-june/

There, that took five seconds. Especially since the publication and date of issue, not to mention the actual headline, were plainly posted.

It may not have been precisely by the book, but cut the guy a little slack. I know he's hurting your feelings, but that seems a little petty to come with the "plagiarism violation" alert instead of just letting the guy know standard protocol and actually being a help.

[JustRalph]

Mr. PA, time for you to repost the rules on copying and pasting an article or large part of an article without giving proper acknowledgement to the author. In other words the laws on plagiarism.

Am I wrong that we are required to post a link to an article such as the one above? Once we do that we can copy excerpts.

It's not "plagiarism" it's a copyright infraction.

[NJ Stinks]

It may not have been precisely by the book....

What? "Not precisely? :lol:

With all the pettiness abounding down here, you pick on Mostpost?

Incredible.

[johnhannibalsmith]

What? "Not precisely? :lol:

With all the pettiness abounding down here, you pick on Mostpost?

Incredible.

Are you serious?

The guy is a new poster.

We've all been here long enough to know better. Is it too much for one of us to point out the right way to handle it instead of crying like a little bitch for a moderator? He's gotta drag PaceAdvantage into it instead of just using his status as veteran contributor here to be an adult and let him know the appropriate way to handle it?

And then you're going to get on my case?

**** off. There's petty arguing and then there's petty bullshit and that's petty bullshit.


And just so you know that I still love you even after ranting on you: :kiss:

[NJ Stinks]

Are you serious?

The guy is a new poster.

We've all been here long enough to know better. Is it too much for one of us to point out the right way to handle it instead of crying like a little bitch for a moderator? He's gotta drag PaceAdvantage into it instead of just using his status as veteran contributor here to be an adult and let him know the appropriate way to handle it?

And then you're going to get on my case?

**** off. There's petty arguing and then there's petty bullshit and that's petty bullshit.


And just so you know that I still love you even after ranting on you: :kiss:

:lol: You have a funny way of showing it!

As for Clocker, he seems like a pretty smart guy who's read just about everything.

Except the TOS! :lol: (That's Terms Of Service, Clocker. :p )

[Clocker]

Are you serious?

The guy is a new poster.

Thanks. From a new guy who read the FAQ and TOS before ever posting and saw no mention of this issue. And who cited the source and posted an except of a dozen sentences from a 3 page article.

And who can recognize the old tactic that if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

[johnhannibalsmith]

:lol: You have a funny way of showing it!

...

Sorry.

It just cheesed me off. This is an otherwise good thread and I probably just helped to become part of the unneeded distraction. I think PaceAdvantage has enough to deal with that he shouldn't need to police stuff that we can easily police ourselves - especially when it is just a matter of common courtesy and not some actual ideological beef between parties that gets out of control.

You know you're one of my favorites and so is mosite. I will blow you another kiss and blow out of the debate, hoping it can resume on-topic. :kiss:

[Clocker]

Except the TOS! :lol: (That's Terms Of Service, Clocker. :p )

I read it. It says nothing about posting a link and posting excerpts. Copyright law allows limited use of excerpts for noncommercial purposes.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I read it. It says nothing about posting a link and posting excerpts. Copyright law allows limited use of excerpts for noncommercial purposes.

For your edification - the house rules in a nutshell:



So not only is fair use determined by how much you reproduce and for what purpose, but also WHAT you reproduce...do you reproduce the MEAT of the story, etc.

While fair use may or may not come into play on a website such as this, I like to error on the side of caution, which is why I limit people to a link and two to three paragraphs.

...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=679690&postcount=15

[mostpost]

There, that took five seconds. Especially since the publication and date of issue, not to mention the actual headline, were plainly posted.

It may not have been precisely by the book, but cut the guy a little slack. I know he's hurting your feelings, but that seems a little petty to come with the "plagiarism violation" alert instead of just letting the guy know standard protocol and actually being a help.

He's not hurting my feelings at all and I was not being petty. When I first came on this board, I was reminded that I was committing a "copyright violation-as it was correctly identified by JR-because I copied and pasted some articles. Others have gotten the same warning from time to time.
Why didn't I speak directly to clocker? Because I do not have the authority to do that. But I did feel he should follow the rules that the rest of us do. Now that he knows them I am sure he will.

BTW this is in the TOS; third paragraph, last sentence.
You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this forum.

[sammy the sage]

And who can recognize the old tactic that if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

Unfortunately that IS THE truth...here as well as anywhere else.

[mostpost]

Thanks. From a new guy who read the FAQ and TOS before ever posting and saw no mention of this issue. And who cited the source and posted an except of a dozen sentences from a 3 page article.
Apparently, you did not read it well enough.

And who can recognize the old tactic that if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
I am actually doing quite well at attacking the message. Too bad you can't see that.

[Clocker]

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080202231409/uncyclopedia/images/1/11/Beating-a-dead-horse.gif

.

[PaceAdvantage]

Mr. PA, time for you to repost the rules on copying and pasting an article or large part of an article without giving proper acknowledgement to the author. In other words the laws on plagiarism.

Am I wrong that we are required to post a link to an article such as the one above? Once we do that we can copy excerpts.You are correct, and as posted below, I request that people only reproduce a paragraph or two along with a link to the full text of the article being referenced...

[rastajenk]

Can't say I've ever read TOS's here or anywhere. Have never read any of those wordy user agreements that make you lie :liar: about having read it all and agree to them, before being able to continue on in a process. I just trust to luck that I won't end up in a blind switch and get hauled off to internet jail.

I guess I'm just a rebel that way. :cool:



:)

[Capper Al]

The fact that you're posting on this forum is evidence that you've benefited from the Information Age, and have access to technology that, just a short time ago, wasn't available even to those who control the "Means of Production."

I appreciate the information age as much as the next guy. The topic here is not about my after hours activity. It is about the benefits derived during our work time. The question in particular is should the population as whole benefit from the advancement?

[Capper Al]

I agree with this.

That is what I was saying earlier; to use your terminology, "McJobs" are not really jobs that should be counted as a plus.

The McJobs came in the eighties when unskilled workers lost their jobs to overseas labour. The unskilled American labourer has to redefine themselves from higher paying manufacturing jobs to lower paying service jobs. There's nowhere else for them to go.

[Capper Al]

Read it and weep


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323610704578626142861572144.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

What's your point? No-one denies the middle-class squeeze is happening. The coorelation between Obama being president and the squeeze is a false one. The best correlation is between the decline in unions and the chart presented in your link. It's almost one for one. But don't get me wrong, I am not saying bring back unions would correct the problem. What it indicates to me is the value of the American worker has dropped on the global market. Unions just happen to reflect that better.

[Capper Al]

For clarity, a "job" is $50,000 per year.
A job that pays $25,000 is 0.5 jobs.
A job that pays $100,000 is 2.0 jobs.

Recalculate..........

Agree.

[Capper Al]

As I've said long ago and so many times since, the people benefiting from 0bama's presidency are those at the very top and those at the bottom. The middle class is getting a royal screwing. The rich thumb their noses at 0bama because those who contributed to him are getting preferential treatment and those who haven't are shielding their assets from his reach with financial skills he is incapable of overcoming. The food stamp crowd loves him because they are getting more free stuff than ever before. So who picks up the tab? Yep, the MIDDLE CLASS. The folks who have been downsized out of the good jobs where skills are required. The folks who played by the rules all of their lives and saved for a better than average retirement are being squeezed. The backbone of the American economy is getting f***ed.

You are saber rattling. The American worker is getting squeezed, but I believe the better argument is made for the two percent than the bottom levels of our society. The question in the thread is who should share from the advancement in technology in the workplace? I believe the shortening of the work week would have been a win/win for both money and labour.

[badcompany]

I appreciate the information age as much as the next guy. The topic here is not about my after hours activity. It is about the benefits derived during our work time. The question in particular is should the population as whole benefit from the advancement?

If you would step out of the socialist, worker vs. management mentality for a minute, and think in terms of the consumer, you'd see that the entire population has benefited from the Information Age.

Can only the elites use ATMs? Are IPhones available only to the top 1%? Do you have to be a hedge fund manager to do a Google search or to order from Amazon?

Is hunger a problem in this country, or is it obesity?

You see, I'm one of those weirdos who actually appreciates what he has even if there are some evil one percenters who have more.

[Tom]

As long as some people are getting filthy rich, I have a shot at it, too.
Ball's in my court as to much I want it and how hard I am willing to work to get it.

Worst case, the more they have, the more and better crumbs I get thrown at me.

[Capper Al]

If you would step out of the socialist, worker vs. management mentality for a minute, and think in terms of the consumer, you'd see that the entire population has benefited from the Information Age.

Can only the elites use ATMs? Are IPhones available only to the top 1%? Do you have to be a hedge fund manager to do a Google search or to order from Amazon?

Is hunger a problem in this country, or is it obesity?

You see, I'm one of those weirdos who actually appreciates what he has even if there are some evil one percenters who have more.

Your point is appreciated, not your sabre rattling. True many more new things have improved our lives from the advancement in technology. Quality of our working life not so much for us. Had we had a shorter work week, we would have also had more jobs to go around. I am amazed that some that toil want to keep the yoke on.

[Mike at A+]

The coorelation between Obama being president and the squeeze is a false one.
I STRONGLY disagree with that. 0bama is a threat to businesses, especially small businesses looking to expand. These same businesses would be growing under a Romney presidency for several reasons. First and foremost is an intangible reason. Romney would not be badmouthing the profit motive like 0bama is. There was a time in this country when entrepreneurs believed that the sky is the limit. Under 0bama that belief has turned into one of caution. If you make what he considers "too much", you become the "enemy" and your wealth must be shared with people who screwed up in life (i.e. his base).

[JustRalph]

The McJobs came in the eighties when unskilled workers lost their jobs to overseas labour. The unskilled American labourer has to redefine themselves from higher paying manufacturing jobs to lower paying service jobs. There's nowhere else for them to go.

It ramped up in the mid to late 90's. remember Ross Perot warning about the "giant sucking sound" during the campaign that elected Clinton?

NAFTA went into force in 1994 and was just the beginning. 40k factories by some counts have left the US since NAFTA was enacted, depending who's numbers you believe.

[Capper Al]

I STRONGLY disagree with that. 0bama is a threat to businesses, especially small businesses looking to expand. These same businesses would be growing under a Romney presidency for several reasons. First and foremost is an intangible reason. Romney would not be badmouthing the profit motive like 0bama is. There was a time in this country when entrepreneurs believed that the sky is the limit. Under 0bama that belief has turned into one of caution. If you make what he considers "too much", you become the "enemy" and your wealth must be shared with people who screwed up in life (i.e. his base).

All that typing and all we know is that you are committed to not liking Obama. At best you got closer to the topic by bringing in the profit motive, but your assertions are made by name calling from a right wingers point of view about Obama and Romney. The topic here is could we have shared our advancement in technology better to benefit all in our working life?

[Capper Al]

It ramped up in the mid to late 90's. remember Ross Perot warning about the "giant sucking sound" during the campaign that elected Clinton?

NAFTA went into force in 1994 and was just the beginning. 40k factories by some counts have left the US since NAFTA was enacted, depending who's numbers you believe.

Globalization got us no doubt. NAFTA was part of it. Labour lost its protection as our markets were attainable from overseas competitors. Why didn't the G20 go along with the French model of the 36 hour work week? It would have taken concurrence from other nations to make it happen. Why didn't our leaders join in?

[Clocker]

Had we had a shorter work week, we would have also had more jobs to go around. I am amazed that some that toil want to keep the yoke on.

You seem to be implying that a worker putting in a shorter work week, say a reduction from 40 hours a week to 35, would still make the same weekly wage. If so, that would be a realized increase of about 15% in hourly wages. If I run a business and have to increase the number of jobs to maintain the same number of labor hours input, that means my labor costs just went up 15%. Probably significantly more when taxes and benefits are considered. Where does that money come from?

If I, and everyone else, have to raise prices to pay for the labor, eventually the real wage will decline because of inflation, and the workers will be back to their original real hourly wage, but at a lower real weekly income as a result of the reduced hours.

[Tom]

Where does that money come from?

Don't you know????
Ask any lib.

[Capper Al]

You seem to be implying that a worker putting in a shorter work week, say a reduction from 40 hours a week to 35, would still make the same weekly wage. If so, that would be a realized increase of about 15% in hourly wages. If I run a business and have to increase the number of jobs to maintain the same number of labor hours input, that means my labor costs just went up 15%. Probably significantly more when taxes and benefits are considered. Where does that money come from?

If I, and everyone else, have to raise prices to pay for the labor, eventually the real wage will decline because of inflation, and the workers will be back to their original real hourly wage, but at a lower real weekly income as a result of the reduced hours.

No, I'm not saying that. Would have you been against going down from the 44 work week after wwii to the present 40 hour week? Your same reasoning would apply? What I am saying is the benefit of improved technology should have helped us all. And, in the workplace, it appears that it hasn't.

[Tom]

What I am saying is the benefit of improved technology should have helped us all. And, in the workplace, it appears that it hasn't.

Of course it has. In the workplace, and everywhere else.
What is killing us is the ridiculous uncertainty that has business standing pat and not raising. Obama and his moronic polices will NEVER create real jobs. It is not wise to be expanding or hiring when you have no clue what the socialist pigs will do next.

[Capper Al]

Don't you know????
Ask any lib.

How does this help the discussion? From your postings, I doubt that you know where money comes from. Please enlighten us with regards to our discussion. Shouldn't better technology produced greater wealth? Or doesn't it work that way in your world?

[Capper Al]

Of course it has. In the workplace, and everywhere else.
What is killing us is the ridiculous uncertainty that has business standing pat and not raising. Obama and his moronic polices will NEVER create real jobs. It is not wise to be expanding or hiring when you have no clue what the socialist pigs will do next.

Adding nothing to the discussion. Name calling is not an argument.

[Tom]

Please enlighten us with regards to our discussion. Shouldn't better technology produced greater wealth? Or doesn't it work that way in your world?

It HAS. Look at life today and 25 years ago.
What world do YOU live in?
All those new jobs did not disappear, they LEFT to go to countries that deserve them.

[Capper Al]

It HAS. Look at life today and 25 years ago.
What world do YOU live in?
All those new jobs did not disappear, they LEFT to go to countries that deserve them.

Say what? Say something, please. We had discussed earlier that with globalization highly paid unskilled manufacturing jobs are gone. There's nothing or any political ideology that can bring them back, that would be living in the past. The situation has changed. The only merit that the countries receiving the jobs have is that their labor force is willing to work for $2.00 day.

Back to the discussion. With technology we in the workforce are now expected to do more with less. The benefit of technology during our working day isn't being shared with the work force. To me this is a problem. It creates unemployment. People work in fear of losing their job. etc.

[Tom]

The situation has changed. The only merit that the countries receiving the jobs have is that their labor force is willing to work for $2.00 day.

Thank Clinton for that.
In a global economy, this is what happens.
It is what YOU guys are clamoring for here at home - RE-DISTRIBUTION of wealth. Our wealth.

Aren't you happy about it?
Re-distribution on a global scale.

[Clocker]

No, I'm not saying that. Would have you been against going down from the 44 work week after wwii to the present 40 hour week? Your same reasoning would apply?

I'm not "reasoning" to any conclusion here, yet. I am asking. You are proposing a reduction in the standard work week. Are you proposing that someone making $10 an hour, which is $400 a week, would continue to make $400 a week with a 35 hour work week? Or would that person continue to make $10 an hour, and thus $350 a week?

If that person continues to make $400 a week, since that represents an increase in the cost of labor to businesses, where do you assume the money will come from to cover those costs?

[Capper Al]

You seem to be implying that a worker putting in a shorter work week, say a reduction from 40 hours a week to 35, would still make the same weekly wage. If so, that would be a realized increase of about 15% in hourly wages. If I run a business and have to increase the number of jobs to maintain the same number of labor hours input, that means my labor costs just went up 15%. Probably significantly more when taxes and benefits are considered. Where does that money come from?

If I, and everyone else, have to raise prices to pay for the labor, eventually the real wage will decline because of inflation, and the workers will be back to their original real hourly wage, but at a lower real weekly income as a result of the reduced hours.

Clocker,

It happened after wwii when we went from 44 to 40 hours. The world didn't end. One can't view this through a micro economics lense. On a macro economic scale, we would have more jobs and less welfare. Leisure demand would increase with more time off resulting in more purchasing. In the end using our seat of our pants logic, using the micro ecomomic view is like looking out our window and concluding the world is flat from our observation. The right wing plays on this.

[badcompany]

I'm not "reasoning" to any conclusion here, yet. I am asking. You are proposing a reduction in the standard work week. Are you proposing that someone making $10 an hour, which is $400 a week, would continue to make $400 a week with a 35 hour work week? Or would that person continue to make $10 an hour, and thus $350 a week?

If that person continues to make $400 a week, since that represents an increase in the cost of labor to businesses, where do you assume the money will come from to cover those costs?

Since he doesn't want to answer your obviously valid question, I will.

If you leave wages the same, that would have to be done via some kind "Living Wage" government mandate. The increased cost of labor would drive out marginally profitable businesses, and INCREASE unemployment.

On the other hand, the 35 hour work week at the same rate, would DECREASE the incomes of the working man about whom Al is so concerned and DECREASE their demand for goods and services. So, they'll have extra free time and no money to spend.

All else aside, it's a great plan.:lol:

[Clocker]

All else aside, it's a great plan.:lol:

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

[Capper Al]

Since he doesn't want to answer your obviously valid question, I will.

If you leave wages the same, that would have to be done via some kind "Living Wage" government mandate. The increased cost of labor would drive out marginally profitable businesses, and INCREASE unemployment.

On the other hand, the 35 hour work week at the same rate, would DECREASE the incomes of the working man about whom Al is so concerned and DECREASE their demand for goods and services. So, they'll have extra free time and no money to spend.

All else aside, it's a great plan.:lol:

I did answer it. It was done after wwii, so we could do it again. You are doing what I said- looking out your window and concluding the world is flat. Your reason is well applied towards running a small business, but not macro economics. If one is the average Joe, they don't have enough understanding of economics to figure it out.

[Tom]

If one is the average Joe, they don't have enough understanding of economics to figure it out.

Yes, and that explains how Obama got elected.

[Capper Al]

Yes, and that explains how Obama got elected.

Say what? Can't you give a reply with any substance? We know that you don't like Obama. That's well documented here.

[badcompany]

I did answer it. It was done after wwii, so we could do it again. You are doing what I said- looking out your window and concluding the world is flat. Your reason is well applied towards running a small business, but not macro economics. If one is the average Joe, they don't have enough understanding of economics to figure it out.

My window includes real world experience.

I've worked in places where people fought each other to get overtime hours and now you want to take food out of their mouths by telling them they can't even work 40. Good luck with that.

These people will end up having to get a second job. So, these new jobs you will allegedly create will just go to the same people whose hours were cut from their first job.

[Robert Fischer]

wealth distribution works on a power law

[Capper Al]

My window includes real world experience.

I've worked in places where people fought each other to get overtime hours and now you want to take food out of their mouths by telling them they can't even work 40. Good luck with that.

These people will end up having to get a second job. So, these new jobs you will allegedly create will just go to the same people whose hours were cut from their first job.

You're looking out your window and concluding the world is flat based off your experience.

[Tom]

My window includes real world experience.

I've worked in places where people fought each other to get overtime hours and now you want to take food out of their mouths by telling them they can't even work 40. Good luck with that.

These people will end up having to get a second job. So, these new jobs you will allegedly create will just go to the same people whose hours were cut from their first job.

Ding ding ding.......Winner winner, chicken dinner.

MANY people will fight for overtime....when I was younger and doing shift work, I was always grabbing as many hours as I could. Lots of hours = lots of $$$.
As we learned this week, 60% of the new "jobs" created the last year are low paying jobs. Obama serves this pablum about a good economy and lots of new jobs, when in reality, the glass is empty, and most are not bright enough to understand what is going on. As some posted here the other day, a lot of people have no clue about economics and do not understand what is happening. How true. Obama has based his entire presidency on ignorance....no wonder so many in foreign countries admire him! ;) :D

[badcompany]

You're looking out your window and concluding the world is flat based off your experience.

No, what you're doing is focusing on meaningless aggregates and ignoring how these ideas affect real people.

[mostpost]

My window includes real world experience.

I've worked in places where people fought each other to get overtime hours and now you want to take food out of their mouths by telling them they can't even work 40. Good luck with that.

These people will end up having to get a second job. So, these new jobs you will allegedly create will just go to the same people whose hours were cut from their first job.

A forty hour week doesn't mean someone can't work more than forty if the work is there and the company is willing to pay the overtime. And a thirty five hour week doesn't mean someone can't work more than thirty five hours. In that case, overtime would start after 35 hours.

A thirty five hour work week would increase the workforce by twelve and one half percent. If 12 1/2% more people were working, would that not increase the number of people who were able to buy things? Thereby increasing the potential profits of businesses.

[Tom]

A thirty five hour work week would increase the workforce by twelve and one half percent. If 12 1/2% more people were working, would that not increase the number of people who were able to buy things? Thereby increasing the potential profits of businesses.

A Dummy's Guide to Economics? :lol:
It would also reduce the buying power of the workforce. Duh.
And it would raise cost by starting OT at 35 hours.
Where do get this crap - what are you smoking, seriously?

[Robert Fischer]

Sometimes when Obama or other liberals use the term "middle class" it seems like they are using that term for "working class".

Obama seems to use the term "middle class" about 50x more than "working class"(I can't recall him ever saying "working class" but he probably has).

[newtothegame]

A Dummy's Guide to Economics? :lol:
It would also reduce the buying power of the workforce. Duh.
And it would raise cost by starting OT at 35 hours.
Where do get this crap - what are you smoking, seriously?
Ding ding ding...again mosty is lost.
He would like to point out more people working but he neglects the fact that ALL the people would be making less.
Lets see.......assume I make 15 and hour at 40 hours. Looks like 600 a week prior to taxes.
I take less hours to 35 hours at the same rate of 15 per hour.... I now only make 525 per week (again prior to taxes).
In order to hire another, 7 people need to take the hour cut....(7 workers x 5 hours cut per worker adds an additional 35 hours for new worker)
So 7 people make 75 less per week. WOW that's equivalent to 525.
The NEW worker makes 15 per hour x 35 hours and that equal 525...
OMG where is the new money coming from again mosty??????

[Robert Fischer]

In his recent NYTimes interview for example, Obama used the term "middle class" six times (and in addition, the Times used it once).
The term "working class" was not used at all.

[transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/interview-with-president-obama.html?pagewanted=all] (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/interview-with-president-obama.html])

[johnhannibalsmith]

Which economist wants to give me an opinion on how this alleged 12.5% increase in employment vs. probable 12.5% decrease in per-worker wages due to revised work-week standards would affect federal income tax revenue?

[newtothegame]

In his recent NYTimes interview for example, Obama used the term "middle class" six times (and the Times used it once).
The term "working class" was not used at all.

[transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/interview-with-president-obama.html]

Hmmmm maybe it goes along with the term "fair"......is it possible that it lacks true definition???

I mean is the "middle class" those that make less then the top 1% and more then the poverty line???
Just as mosty and the left has struggled with the definition of what is fair...maybe Obama struggles with working class and middle class because working class has a true definition by standards such as the BLS. And even the BLS numbers do not reflect accurate numbers depending on who and how it is counted.....:lol:

[newtothegame]

Which economist wants to give me an opinion on how this alleged 12.5% increase in employment vs. probable 12.5% decrease in per-worker wages due to revised work-week standards would affect federal income tax revenue?
I wouldn't even begin to want to decipher that one except to say I thought mosty was all about people making more??? Now the left is on the side of more people making less???? WTH????? :bang:
Not too mention that ever dangerous word of "disposable income"......geeze, more people making less would equate to less in the overall economy...especially in times of uncertainty.....
Then again, there are those who believe this is exactly what Obama wants...more people on the government dole....:cool:

[Clocker]

Which economist wants to give me an opinion on how this alleged 12.5% increase in employment vs. probable 12.5% decrease in per-worker wages due to revised work-week standards would affect federal income tax revenue?

Probably better asked of an accountant. A lot of it would depend on the wage levels to start with. If the income changes resulted in shifts in tax brackets, the tax revenue would go down. On the other hand, it could result in an increase in revenues from payroll taxes (FICA, etc.) In the latter case, the employer's payroll taxes would also go up.

And with the same total income spread over more workers, the costs of government programs (food stamps, tax credits, etc) could also go up.

[Robert Fischer]

Hmmmm maybe it goes along with the term "fair"......is it possible that it lacks true definition???

I mean is the "middle class" those that make less then the top 1% and more then the poverty line???
Just as mosty and the left has struggled with the definition of what is fair...maybe Obama struggles with working class and middle class because working class has a true definition by standards such as the BLS. And even the BLS numbers do not reflect accurate numbers depending on who and how it is counted.....:lol:

It seems that the liberal media and the gov't in general have been misrepresenting the class stratification in America.

The media and even the president (and even the official 'scientific' classification studies), seem to portray the general population as 'middle class'(upper-middle class in the case of many advertisements), while the majority of Americans are actually of the 'working class'.

[Clocker]

Sometimes when Obama or other liberals use the term "middle class" it seems like they are using that term for "working class".

Obama seems to use the term "middle class" about 50x more than "working class"(I can't recall him ever saying "working class" but he probably has).

"Work" is a four letter word on the left. They get confused about stuff like this. Like when Biden said that the key to the economic problem was a 3 letter word, J-O-B-S.

[mostpost]

Ding ding ding...again mosty is lost.
He would like to point out more people working but he neglects the fact that ALL the people would be making less.
Lets see.......assume I make 15 and hour at 40 hours. Looks like 600 a week prior to taxes.
I take less hours to 35 hours at the same rate of 15 per hour.... I now only make 525 per week (again prior to taxes).
In order to hire another, 7 people need to take the hour cut....(7 workers x 5 hours cut per worker adds an additional 35 hours for new worker)
So 7 people make 75 less per week. WOW that's equivalent to 525.
The NEW worker makes 15 per hour x 35 hours and that equal 525...
OMG where is the new money coming from again mosty??????

You're missing the point. It's not less hours at the same rate. It's less hours at a higher rate. So if you were making $15 an hour while working 40 hours a week you would now be making $17+ an hour while working 35 hours a week.

Now you are going to ask where this extra money is coming from-in fact you did ask that. It comes from the fact that you now have 112 people working where you previously had 100. It comes from the fact that when you add one dollar to the economy it does not remain one dollar. It multiplies. When you see studies of what an event like the Super Bowl adds to a city's economy the number is never just what people spend in that city during that time. It is a multiple of that number because each dollar spent produces other spending.

There is one other thing, and I don't want you to think that I am picking on you or criticizing you. That is the use of the word "and" where "an" should be used. You said, "Assume I make 15 and hour." My dictionary says that "and" means in addition to or plus. Nowhere does it say that it means "each or "per' or "every." That is what "an" means in this context.

You are far from the only one who does this and it drives me crazy every time. It makes me want to jump off a cliff. Er.....maybe I shouldn't have said that.

[badcompany]

If you went into a company and announced that the work week would be decreased, the first question from the employees would be the one that Clocker asked: "Will our pay be cut?"

If the answer is "yes," pretty much everyone will be pissed at the prospect of having to get by on less.

If the answer is "no," everyone will cheer except those are now jobless because of the staff cuts.

[newtothegame]

You're missing the point. It's not less hours at the same rate. It's less hours at a higher rate. So if you were making $15 an hour while working 40 hours a week you would now be making $17+ an hour while working 35 hours a week.

Now you are going to ask where this extra money is coming from-in fact you did ask that. It comes from the fact that you now have 112 people working where you previously had 100. It comes from the fact that when you add one dollar to the economy it does not remain one dollar. It multiplies. When you see studies of what an event like the Super Bowl adds to a city's economy the number is never just what people spend in that city during that time. It is a multiple of that number because each dollar spent produces other spending.

There is one other thing, and I don't want you to think that I am picking on you or criticizing you. That is the use of the word "and" where "an" should be used. You said, "Assume I make 15 and hour." My dictionary says that "and" means in addition to or plus. Nowhere does it say that it means "each or "per' or "every." That is what "an" means in this context.

You are far from the only one who does this and it drives me crazy every time. It makes me want to jump off a cliff. Er.....maybe I shouldn't have said that.

Ohh, and and and lol....But seriously it was just a typo on my part.
But, back to the topic at hand. Not only do you want to cut work hours, you want to increase pay??? And where would that money come from??? Have you ever heard of the term "diminishing returns" ??? You know it applies to labor as well right?
By adding workforce members, you do not necessarily increase production or efficiency. In your case, you are not even adding additional hours!!! You are only redistributing hours among a number of workers and on top of that, you are increasing the pay!!!! Now I know why you don't own a business!!!

So, no increased level of productivity, no increase in efficiency, and you want to raise pay ultimately.......you are so transparent that it has seriously become laughable!

Again, where does the increase in pay come from?? You do understand that under the guides YOU want above, the company (producer) has only one alternative. Increase the price of his goods to market, price himself out of the market, and go out of business...unless he is Solyndra and can get a few hundred million from Obama....:lol:

[incoming]

Originally Posted by mostpost
You're missing the point. It's not less hours at the same rate. It's less hours at a higher rate. So if you were making $15 an hour while working 40 hours a week you would now be making $17+ an hour while working 35 hours a week.

Now you are going to ask where this extra money is coming from-in fact you did ask that. It comes from the fact that you now have 112 people working where you previously had 100. It comes from the fact that when you add one dollar to the economy it does not remain one dollar. It multiplies. When you see studies of what an event like the Super Bowl adds to a city's economy the number is never just what people spend in that city during that time. It is a multiple of that number because each dollar spent produces other spending.

There is one other thing, and I don't want you to think that I am picking on you or criticizing you. That is the use of the word "and" where "an" should be used. You said, "Assume I make 15 and hour." My dictionary says that "and" means in addition to or plus. Nowhere does it say that it means "each or "per' or "every." That is what "an" means in this context.

You are far from the only one who does this and it drives me crazy every time. It makes me want to jump off a cliff. Er.....maybe I shouldn't have said that.




Great business model, I would suggest you take this plan to your local bank or the SBA and get your money. I'm sure they will welcome you with open arms.

[Clocker]

no increased level of productivity, no increase in efficiency,

You are going to loose efficiency if you take a number of existing jobs and spread the work over more people. You loose the advantages of specialization, and of having the best person for the job doing that job.

[Mike at A+]

The saddest part of all this is that the low information 0bama voters on welfare and food stamps don't even want to work when they can sit back and collect a check. The skilled middle class folks who lost jobs thanks to 0bama's rhetoric ("fat cats") are far overqualified for the crappy jobs being created and they would rather collect unemployment for as long as they can and/or live off savings and investments. Middle class skilled private sector jobs are not coming back until 0bama is out of office.

[Clocker]

the low information 0bama voters on welfare and food stamps don't even want to work when they can sit back and collect a check.

That certainly sounds like rational behavior to me.

It is the middle class tax-paying Kool-Aid drinkers who vote for the politicians who reward that behavior that are moonbat crazy.

[Mike at A+]

That certainly sounds like rational behavior to me.

It is the middle class tax-paying Kool-Aid drinkers who vote for the politicians who reward that behavior that are moonbat crazy.
Yes, I know many who fall into that demographic. They instinctively vote Democrat because they believe everything the mainstream media feeds them.

[newtothegame]

You are going to loose efficiency if you take a number of existing jobs and spread the work over more people. You loose the advantages of specialization, and of having the best person for the job doing that job.
Exactly, why I mentioned diminishing returns....

[Clocker]

Exactly, why I mentioned diminishing returns....

An inconceivable concept to a politician. That and unintended consequences.

Liberals have a very simple economic model: more spending equals economic growth and more jobs. So to grow the economy, you can increase government spending (welfare, unemployment benefits, etc.) and/or legislate higher wages. It all puts more money in the hands of the consumer, right? What could go wrong?

[Capper Al]

Hey Righties,

Understanding how it happens doesn't need to be explained since it happen before. It happened and it could happen again. What is necessary was an increase inproductivity. That was what our advancement in productivity should of made possible, but what are we getting instead? Employees have to give it up to corporations doing more with less.

[hcap]

Redistribution of wealth is bandied about here as a liberal boogyman and socialist evil plot. Meanwhile the redistribution has already taken place recently

/QPKKQnijnsM?

[Tom]

That is why the economy is stagnant and the country going down the tubes.
Here is the sum total of the stimulus sham and all of the democrat's programs....

[Clocker]

Redistribution of wealth is bandied about here as a liberal boogyman and socialist evil plot.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods.

[newtothegame]

Redistribution of wealth is bandied about here as a liberal boogyman and socialist evil plot. Meanwhile the redistribution has already taken place recently

/QPKKQnijnsM?
So, if it has "already" happened, you should have no need to want more....I mean after all, its ALREADY taken place! I will be expecting you to vote for no more tax raising Harry!

[fast4522]

And when the printing press slows down from printing money, however slight the slowdown of the printing is the fat lady will sing.