1.3 million more Americans slid under poverty line in 2003

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-27 11:26am

Iceberg wrote:The disappearance of entry-level jobs to overseas outsourcing is extremely worrisome: Many jobs are still safe, but there is now no longer a path for new entrants into the workforce to reach those jobs.

Believe me, I know this one. Looking at the classified, no one is looking for entry level applicants. They are all looking for people with a few years of experience in the industry.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-27 11:29am

It's been hard to find entry-level jobs in the newspaper classified ads for a very long time; that's not a new phenomenon. If you don't have any family or social connections who can get your foot in the door (which is always the best way), you're still better off cold-calling prospective employers, leaving your name with temp-work agencies and headhunters, etc. than scanning the classified ads.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-27 11:40am

Darth Wong wrote:It's been hard to find entry-level jobs in the newspaper classified ads for a very long time; that's not a new phenomenon. If you don't have any family or social connections who can get your foot in the door (which is always the best way), you're still better off cold-calling prospective employers, leaving your name with temp-work agencies and headhunters, etc. than scanning the classified ads.

At least in the Post Gazette (my local paper) there were a fair amount of entry-level positions in the classifieds, when I was first looking at the end of 2000. I concede that you're right that it isn't the best way (having connections is always the best way to get anything), but the difference between then and now is actually significant.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-27 12:41pm

Mr Bean wrote:Once more as I always ask whenever I hear
That phrase I hate Tax cuts for the Weathy

Define Weathy, When one says tax cuts for the weathy its impossible to put it first in contex unless you first define the term "weathy"

THE TOP 1%.

Talon Karrde wrote:Ok, but explain how a lack of trickle down effect actually would HURT more families or people to make them fall below the poverty line. I'm yet to see why that would cause people to fall beneath it. I can understand your points in it not working as planned, but how can it hurt exactly?

Because the federal government's budget is expanding faster than tax revenue can keep up.

Darth Wong wrote:Tax cuts to the wealthy are supposed to spur economic growth, but this presumes that the wealthy will give their money back to the economy in equal proportions to what the middle-class would do (the argument is that rich people tend to invest money while middle-class people tend to just buy stuff, and that investing money makes the economy grow more than increased consumer spending; I have never heard precisely how we know that last item to be true).

I believe the theory is that as the wealthy invest more money, corporations will be less likely to cut jobs and more likely to give their employees nice bonuses, raises, etc. These employees are generally part of the middle class. Hence the "trickle-down" effect. However (if I'm correct, someone please tell me if I'm not), this relies on corporations actually being generous to their workers rather than simply hoarding the money for the top brass. I'm personally of the opinion that a corporation will do whatever it can get away with to fuck its workers out of the money they deserve in the name of the Bottom Line.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-08-27 12:47pm

Iceberg wrote:The disappearance of entry-level jobs to overseas outsourcing is extremely worrisome: Many jobs are still safe, but there is now no longer a path for new entrants into the workforce to reach those jobs.

Just something for thought. China has at unofficial counts, 25 million unemployed people. A significant number of these are graduates. Indeed, many postgraduates have taken to studying overseas as their degrees in China are usually not as valued as overseas degrees.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-08-27 01:01pm

Durandal wrote: I believe the theory is that as the wealthy invest more money, corporations will be less likely to cut jobs and more likely to give their employees nice bonuses, raises, etc. These employees are generally part of the middle class. Hence the "trickle-down" effect. However (if I'm correct, someone please tell me if I'm not), this relies on corporations actually being generous to their workers rather than simply hoarding the money for the top brass. I'm personally of the opinion that a corporation will do whatever it can get away with to fuck its workers out of the money they deserve in the name of the Bottom Line.

AFAIU it is more along the line of making more money accessible to companies which then will use these money to buy new machines,computers and equipment, which will in turn mean that the companies producing this kind of stuff tool up their production lines and hire people. This people now buy consumer stuff, which means that everyone selling consumer stuff sells more, tooles up production and hires more people. Instant economics boom. More and more people are hired, as the labour pool starts to dry up wages and benefits raise. As raising wages means less expenditure and more taxes no programms have to be cut and debt can be paid back.
Problem is that if you cut taxes and expand programms at the same time quite a chunk of time is soaked up by the state, also if the problem is not the supply of money but rather consumption (which to my knowledge is the problem right now in the USA), then this policy does nothing to alleviate the problem.

I have to read more economic textbooks *sigh*

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-27 01:06pm

Durandal wrote:<snip> (T)his relies on corporations actually being generous to their workers rather than simply hoarding the money for the top brass. I'm personally of the opinion that a corporation will do whatever it can get away with to fuck its workers out of the money they deserve in the name of the Bottom Line.

Almost correct. Not for the top brass but rather for the shareholders.

Who much of the time are the same group, but the distinction must be made.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-08-27 01:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:It's been hard to find entry-level jobs in the newspaper classified ads for a very long time; that's not a new phenomenon. If you don't have any family or social connections who can get your foot in the door (which is always the best way), you're still better off cold-calling prospective employers, leaving your name with temp-work agencies and headhunters, etc. than scanning the classified ads.

We've got the same problem over here. Practically the only way to get any entry level position is through a temp agency or if you know someone. And even for entry level stuff they usually want experience (how, if one may ask?). And trying to get helpdesk jobs is an absolute bitch, the idiots all stress that you need to have oodles of customer service experience, never mind your technical skills, as if being polite was somehow difficult. The job market is in many ways fucked up by internal incestuous practices as well, and the temp agencies constantly need to be reminded that you exist even if you've signed up with them and been interviewed.

Or I'm just having a shitty run of luck, my brother got an IT support job right off the bat through one, and he's got no more experience or skills than I do.

The only plentiful jobs here are cleaning jobs with crap wages and 10+ hour days.

Edi

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-08-27 01:30pm

Iceberg wrote:
Durandal wrote:<snip> (T)his relies on corporations actually being generous to their workers rather than simply hoarding the money for the top brass. I'm personally of the opinion that a corporation will do whatever it can get away with to fuck its workers out of the money they deserve in the name of the Bottom Line.
Almost correct. Not for the top brass but rather for the shareholders.

Who much of the time are the same group, but the distinction must be made.

In theory, management is supposed to look out for the shareholders.

In reality, a lot of managers will screw over the shareholders in a heartbeat if the top brass sees a way to make a lot of money. Look at the LBO of RJ Reynolds back in the 80's for an example.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-08-27 01:52pm

To answer the question of who's wealthy, it definitly isn't the "vast majority" of Americans. It's over 85% who isn't, especially anywhere from 35--70k income. ANd wealthy surely can't be below that, unless you aren't working and your money is all capital gains or inheretence.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-27 02:42pm

Thinkmarble wrote:
Durandal wrote:I believe the theory is that as the wealthy invest more money, corporations will be less likely to cut jobs and more likely to give their employees nice bonuses, raises, etc. These employees are generally part of the middle class. Hence the "trickle-down" effect. However (if I'm correct, someone please tell me if I'm not), this relies on corporations actually being generous to their workers rather than simply hoarding the money for the top brass. I'm personally of the opinion that a corporation will do whatever it can get away with to fuck its workers out of the money they deserve in the name of the Bottom Line.
AFAIU it is more along the line of making more money accessible to companies which then will use these money to buy new machines,computers and equipment, which will in turn mean that the companies producing this kind of stuff tool up their production lines and hire people. This people now buy consumer stuff, which means that everyone selling consumer stuff sells more, tooles up production and hires more people. Instant economics boom. More and more people are hired, as the labour pool starts to dry up wages and benefits raise. As raising wages means less expenditure and more taxes no programms have to be cut and debt can be paid back.
Problem is that if you cut taxes and expand programms at the same time quite a chunk of time is soaked up by the state, also if the problem is not the supply of money but rather consumption (which to my knowledge is the problem right now in the USA), then this policy does nothing to alleviate the problem.

I have to read more economic textbooks *sigh*

The basic problem is that the budget is expanding faster than tax revenue is coming in. One can sing the praises of trickle-down economics all day, but if the resulting tax revenue from sales tax on consumer goods and income tax from jobs created can't pay off the budget, they can't pay off the budget. What's happening now is that jobs are being created, but those jobs have lower mean salaries than the jobs lost, which means less tax revenue and less sales tax revenue, since those people won't be buying as much with less money.

Then all you've done is lower taxes on the people who bring in the most tax revenue and placed the tax burden on the lower and middle class, who can't shoulder it, either through income tax or through buying consumer goods. That's exactly what's going on right now, and it's a failure. Reagan got lucky; Bush did not.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-08-27 02:59pm

Of course, you also have to factor cost of living. Perhaps it may be better to have state/locals decide the amount of federal tax, and constrain the federal gov to the amount of revenue produced (which would have the benefit of forcing lowered spending), or possibly have the Feds be able to mandate the minimum amount of revenue that has to come out of a state, and have the state decide who pays how much. Unfortunately, this will never happen.

*Note- I am not in favor of trickle down economics.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-27 03:54pm

Let's also not forget how popular outsourcing has become. Sure, corporations may create jobs as a result of the increased investing from the rich, but who's to say that those jobs are going to Americans?

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-08-27 05:04pm

Iceberg wrote:The disappearance of entry-level jobs to overseas outsourcing is extremely worrisome: Many jobs are still safe, but there is now no longer a path for new entrants into the workforce to reach those jobs.

Too fucking right.

You have to know someone just to get a resume read these days, and everyone who's been out there longer has more contacts. It's really fucking discouraging that my degree has turned out to be totally worthless. In fact, I would have a better time getting a job if I hadn't gone to college in the first place, since I am now considered "overqualified" or companies seem to think I'm not blue-collar enough to work the only jobs that are hiring. Really fucking discouraging.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-27 06:29pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:Once more as I always ask whenever I hear
That phrase I hate Tax cuts for the Weathy

Define Weathy, When one says tax cuts for the weathy its impossible to put it first in contex unless you first define the term "weathy"

At one point does one become rich? One doller amount? Not what standing amount or one's ability

What salrey range does one become weathy at? 40K? 60k? 90k? 140k?
Right. Keep pretending that the Bush tax cuts weren't overwhelmingly slanted toward advantage for the top 1% bracket and those deriving the bulk of their income from compound interest and investment dividends and that they clearly have not produced the effects advertised. This has been analysed and written about for four years now in minute detail and the arguments of the naysayers have clearly been borne out by experience.

But by all means, keep pretending that this isn't what's happening.

Regardless of your political leanings, you still have to acknowledge the fact that the top 1% of the tax bracket pays 20% of the taxes (IIRC). I know this sounds just like an old tagline, but if you pay more, sorry, you do deserve more back. Who is the government to decide who gets to make more or less money, and who gets the bigger tax break? The answer to me is short, they can't. Thus, they give back proportionally what the taxpayers pays in. Like it or not, in the U.S., we live in a capitalistic society, not a socialistic one where redistribution of wealth is a viable option.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-27 06:31pm

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:
Iceberg wrote:The disappearance of entry-level jobs to overseas outsourcing is extremely worrisome: Many jobs are still safe, but there is now no longer a path for new entrants into the workforce to reach those jobs.
Too fucking right.

You have to know someone just to get a resume read these days, and everyone who's been out there longer has more contacts. It's really fucking discouraging that my degree has turned out to be totally worthless. In fact, I would have a better time getting a job if I hadn't gone to college in the first place, since I am now considered "overqualified" or companies seem to think I'm not blue-collar enough to work the only jobs that are hiring. Really fucking discouraging.

While I sympathize with you, I don't really agree with you. I'm entering college this year as well, and my intended major and field of study is VERY, VERY hard to enter into once I graduate. I realize this. I also want to give it a shot. If I can't get a job when I leave college, I'll have to settle for something much less, but that's just the way it works. That IS the price of capitalism. But to have it any other way limits a free enterprise system.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-27 06:47pm

Talon Karrde wrote:... we live in a capitalistic society, not a socialistic one where redistribution of wealth is a viable option.

Ah yes, a black/white fallacy in which it is impossible to have a mixture of socialism and capitalism. You aren't getting any smarter, are you?

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-27 06:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:... we live in a capitalistic society, not a socialistic one where redistribution of wealth is a viable option.
Ah yes, a black/white fallacy in which it is impossible to have a mixture of socialism and capitalism. You aren't getting any smarter, are you?

Well, no, not to your enlightened liberal standards.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-27 06:50pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:... we live in a capitalistic society, not a socialistic one where redistribution of wealth is a viable option.
Ah yes, a black/white fallacy in which it is impossible to have a mixture of socialism and capitalism. You aren't getting any smarter, are you?
Well, no, not to your enlightened liberal standards.

There you go again, not even attempting to refute the logic of the argument but rather, simply dismissing it because it's "liberal".

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-27 07:01pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Ah yes, a black/white fallacy in which it is impossible to have a mixture of socialism and capitalism. You aren't getting any smarter, are you?
Well, no, not to your enlightened liberal standards.
There you go again, not even attempting to refute the logic of the argument but rather, simply dismissing it because it's "liberal".

wtf, what argument are you looking for in deliberately bashing my intelligence? What, am I suppose to give you my IQ score?

And since I have little time, I'll reply briefly to your comment about socialism and capitalism coexisting. I won't be back until later tonight, but can you name me a government that actually works very effectively in which freedom and control can somehow coexist? I don't mean this sarcastically either, I'm honestly curious for an example.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-08-27 07:21pm

Talon Karrde wrote:And since I have little time, I'll reply briefly to your comment about socialism and capitalism coexisting. I won't be back until later tonight, but can you name me a government that actually works very effectively in which freedom and control can somehow coexist? I don't mean this sarcastically either, I'm honestly curious for an example.

Canada. Sweden. France. Germany. Even our own US of A. That's five examples of countries with mixtures of capitalism and socialism to varying degrees.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-27 07:36pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Regardless of your political leanings, you still have to acknowledge the fact that the top 1% of the tax bracket pays 20% of the taxes (IIRC). I know this sounds just like an old tagline, but if you pay more, sorry, you do deserve more back. Who is the government to decide who gets to make more or less money, and who gets the bigger tax break?

They're the government. They have to think about the good of society. Are the rich starving from the taxes they have to pay? Could Johnny Millionaire not afford the $50 million home of his dreams because Mean Ole Uncle Sam is taxing him so much? Awww, poor baby.

The answer to me is short, they can't. Thus, they give back proportionally what the taxpayers pays in. Like it or not, in the U.S., we live in a capitalistic society, not a socialistic one where redistribution of wealth is a viable option.

So upholding your libertarian ideals of pure capitalism is worth throwing millions of people into debt, so long as old rich guys can live lives of ultimate luxury as opposed to a life of just plain luxury?

And since I have little time, I'll reply briefly to your comment about socialism and capitalism coexisting. I won't be back until later tonight, but can you name me a government that actually works very effectively in which freedom and control can somehow coexist? I don't mean this sarcastically either, I'm honestly curious for an example.

You live in one.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-27 07:44pm

Talon Karrde wrote:wtf, what argument are you looking for in deliberately bashing my intelligence? What, am I suppose to give you my IQ score?

No, you're suposed to prove that you're not a moron by answering the argument rather than dishonestly pretending that the gratuitous insult at the end was the argument.

And since I have little time, I'll reply briefly to your comment about socialism and capitalism coexisting. I won't be back until later tonight, but can you name me a government that actually works very effectively in which freedom and control can somehow coexist? I don't mean this sarcastically either, I'm honestly curious for an example.

Yet again, you demonstrate that you have the intelligence of a drugged rodent. You previously complained that the rich pay higher taxes in the USA than the poor, and then you act as though you've never heard of capitalism coexisting with socialism?

Name me a major first-world industrialized nation in which capitalism exists without any socialist welfare and wealth redistribution programs, moron.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-08-27 07:53pm

wtf, what argument are you looking for in deliberately bashing my intelligence? What, am I suppose to give you my IQ score?

And since I have little time, I'll reply briefly to your comment about socialism and capitalism coexisting. I won't be back until later tonight, but can you name me a government that actually works very effectively in which freedom and control can somehow coexist? I don't mean this sarcastically either, I'm honestly curious for an example.

That is horribly vague, you do know that right Kard? What government works really reallly really REAAAAAAAALY effectively. That's NO government. NO government has excellent, perfect, or super duper good efficiency, unless your living IN brave new world, where everyone works, everyone gets what he wants, and no one complains....cause they are all drugged up.

ANd I don't know how you can even ASK what governents combine Socialism and Capitalism. They teach you that in Western Civ.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-08-27 07:55pm

Just imagine for one second Talon what the world would be like without socialist elements in it. Then come back and tell me it's not better.