Answer me this: if productivity in the private sector has only been sky-rocketing...

[Amelia]

Answer me this: if productivity in the private sector has only been sky-rocketing...

... in the last 40 years (yes even now it is at its highest rate), then where are the jobs? If corporations are such sacred job creators, why is unemployment this high?

It really doesn't make any sense.

Super simple productivity example:


Say you need 10 people to plow a field with horses.

You buy a tractor. Then you only need one person to plow the field. The productivity of that one person went up.

9 people lose their jobs.

 

[Avatar4321]

Infrastructure? High speed rail? Hybrid cars? These are not good ideas? Forget it that means we have to tax fairly and only 76% of Americans think things are unfair.

We cant even get the President to authorize infrastructure that doesn't cost us a dime, namely the oil Pipeline.

A pipe is going to save US jobs and the economy? Did buying oil from the Middle East save the US economy? Buying from foreign countries only sends US capital overseas and you guys are laughing at the OP? Seriously? Hilarious!

Save? No. Help? Yes.

I thought you were in favor of building infrastructure. Yet, you oppose this. Odd. Very odd.

 

[editec]

Answer me this: if productivity in the private sector has only been sky-rocketing... ... in the last 40 years (yes even now it is at its highest rate), then where are the jobs? If corporations are such sacred job creators, why is unemployment this high?

It really doesn't make any sense.

It makes PERFECT sense.

Increases in productivity have been replacing human labor.

What they have NOT done has been to increase overall wealth of the working class.

Too bad, too because if they had?

We would NOT be in this economic strait we're in right now.

 

[Billy000]

Forgive my vagueness in the OP. I Was in a rush. These graphs illustrate my point:

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

My point is, if these wealthy CEO's have only gotten richer and richer over the years, then why can't they use this extra income instead to hire more lower-level workers? From I can tell, some coroprations are laying people off unnecessarily.

 

[Mr.Nick]

... in the last 40 years (yes even now it is at its highest rate), then where are the jobs? If corporations are such sacred job creators, why is unemployment this high?

It really doesn't make any sense.

It hasn't been sky-rocketing.

That is one of the problems I have with the stimulus - it went all into the public sector unions pockets and unions in general.

Union wages are economically retarded (by definition)....

 

[Big Fitz]

Forgive my vagueness in the OP. I Was in a rush. These graphs illustrate my point:

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

My point is, if these wealthy CEO's have only gotten richer and richer over the years, then why can't they use this extra income instead to hire more lower-level workers? From I can tell, some coroprations are laying people off unnecessarily.

ahhh yes... back to the old lie that wealth 'equality' means something positive.

Let's see, if you take all the wealth from the top 1% of families (or was it 5%), you only gain 1.3 trillion once. Now to distribute equally that among the remaining 150 million households and give them a check... that means everyone gets a single check for: approximately 9,000 dollars.

But then you better make that last because you know... you won't have a job, or if you do, it's because a foreign company bought your employer out as his assets were seized.

So make it last, and congratulations! We've achieved equal poverty in the entire nation!!!

 

[8537]

Long run increases in productivity create economic growth, higher wages and higher standards of living. Indeed, it's about the only thing that creates those.

In the short run, it can lead to job losses and increased structural unemployment.

 

[uscitizen]

... in the last 40 years (yes even now it is at its highest rate), then where are the jobs? If corporations are such sacred job creators, why is unemployment this high?

It really doesn't make any sense.

One way to increase productivity is to either reduce labor force headcount or benefits/wages.
That has been the most method for the last 30 years.
the other main way in todays world is to offshore.

If a US based corporation offshores and reduces the cost of manufacturing product then that is a productivity increase.

Productivity increase beyond a certain point is damagaing to the USA.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Answer me this: if productivity in the private sector has only been sky-rocketing... ... in the last 40 years (yes even now it is at its highest rate), then where are the jobs? If corporations are such sacred job creators, why is unemployment this high?

It really doesn't make any sense.

It makes PERFECT sense.

Increases in productivity have been replacing human labor.

What they have NOT done has been to increase overall wealth of the working class.

Too bad, too because if they had?

We would NOT be in this economic strait we're in right now.

Bullshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Forgive my vagueness in the OP. I Was in a rush. These graphs illustrate my point:

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

My point is, if these wealthy CEO's have only gotten richer and richer over the years, then why can't they use this extra income instead to hire more lower-level workers? From I can tell, some coroprations are laying people off unnecessarily.

They do not hire extra workers because they are not in the business of paying people to stand around and not work, that is what the government is for.

 

[Dragon]

Billy is absolutely right. Productivity increases, when matched by wage increases, mean that more wealth can be produced and consumed. There is no loss of employment. Anyone who is laid off due to more efficient production will quickly be rehired by a business taking advantage of the expanded consumer market that higher wages generates.

But when productivity increases and wages don't, all that happens is more of the wealth produced goes to the owners, and you end up with a net loss of jobs. More wealth can be produced -- but because more wealth can't be consumed, it's NOT produced. There's no market for it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Infrastructure? High speed rail? Hybrid cars? These are not good ideas? Forget it that means we have to tax fairly and only 76% of Americans think things are unfair.

Hybrid cars? Sure they have their uses. Railroads have been using Electro-Motive Diesels for decades. They make up 85% of all locomotives if not more in this nation.

High Speed Rail? Compared to the same functionality as an extra 2 lanes of highway, they're a boondoggle of the worst sort. 19th century tech moving at 21st century speed with little to no added benefit as compared to cheaper air travel.

These are not examples of productivity, as infrastructure only increases efficiency IF you choose the most efficient method. Why did Highways and Air travel replace rail? Simple. Long distance high speed travel is best achieved through air. Local travel is best done through roads and on a person's OWN schedule. This is why buses are generally a failure too. All current light rail and bus projects are profit sinks. They require 8 to 10 times the funding they get by fares needed to survive.

So your argument is a non-sequiter because it does not related to productivity in this context.

Also, a FAIR tax is to tax 100% of the population the same percentage regardless of circumstances and without deductions. Ten percent of a buck is still 10 cents, while 10 percent of a million is 100,000.

If we built high speed rail for freight it might actually pay for itself.

RO/RO Intermodal freight is currently the ONLY legitimate and profitable use of rail. It should replace 80% of long haul trucking and ignore passengers.

And yes, I am very much a rail fan and disappointed to realize these economic realities but I wouldn't take rail either because it's too expensive and limited to use. The Auto Train (if prices were MUCH better) would have been the only thing I'd have used.

 

[Big Fitz]

Billy is absolutely right. Productivity increases, when matched by wage increases, mean that more wealth can be produced and consumed. There is no loss of employment. Anyone who is laid off due to more efficient production will quickly be rehired by a business taking advantage of the expanded consumer market that higher wages generates.

But when productivity increases and wages don't, all that happens is more of the wealth produced goes to the owners, and you end up with a net loss of jobs. More wealth can be produced -- but because more wealth can't be consumed, it's NOT produced. There's no market for it.

Ah yes, the 'horse and buggy should be preserved for the sake of jobs', argument combined with the 'money and profit come out of thin air' fantasy

Dragon proves his foolishness again.

 

[Billy000]

Forgive my vagueness in the OP. I Was in a rush. These graphs illustrate my point:

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

My point is, if these wealthy CEO's have only gotten richer and richer over the years, then why can't they use this extra income instead to hire more lower-level workers? From I can tell, some coroprations are laying people off unnecessarily.

ahhh yes... back to the old lie that wealth 'equality' means something positive.

Let's see, if you take all the wealth from the top 1% of families (or was it 5%), you only gain 1.3 trillion once. Now to distribute equally that among the remaining 150 million households and give them a check... that means everyone gets a single check for: approximately 9,000 dollars.

But then you better make that last because you know... you won't have a job, or if you do, it's because a foreign company bought your employer out as his assets were seized.

So make it last, and congratulations! We've achieved equal poverty in the entire nation!!!

Again, I am not talking about making the wealthy poor. A compromise that would make everyone happy (well at least it should) is that the wealthy be taxed at a fair rate. You then take that revenue and put it into important social programs with budget deficits that improve the quality of life of working families.

 

[JoeB131]

... in the last 40 years (yes even now it is at its highest rate), then where are the jobs? If corporations are such sacred job creators, why is unemployment this high?

It really doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. There's no reason to invest in people when you liberals have made hiring them such a liability.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Forgive my vagueness in the OP. I Was in a rush. These graphs illustrate my point:

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

My point is, if these wealthy CEO's have only gotten richer and richer over the years, then why can't they use this extra income instead to hire more lower-level workers? From I can tell, some coroprations are laying people off unnecessarily.

ahhh yes... back to the old lie that wealth 'equality' means something positive.

Let's see, if you take all the wealth from the top 1% of families (or was it 5%), you only gain 1.3 trillion once. Now to distribute equally that among the remaining 150 million households and give them a check... that means everyone gets a single check for: approximately 9,000 dollars.

But then you better make that last because you know... you won't have a job, or if you do, it's because a foreign company bought your employer out as his assets were seized.

So make it last, and congratulations! We've achieved equal poverty in the entire nation!!!

Again, I am not talking about making the wealthy poor. A compromise that would make everyone happy (well at least it should) is that the wealthy be taxed at a fair rate. You then take that revenue and put it into important social programs with budget deficits that improve the quality of life of working families.

It's not the governments responsibility to ensure poor have money. As a matter of fact IMO its the government that creates the poor and exploits them. You're a perfect example of that...

Maybe capitalism, freedom and individualism are too difficult for some to handle...

I don't see why others should be hindered because some find it too difficult to get ahead or they're too lazy to take the risk...

 

[Big Fitz]

Forgive my vagueness in the OP. I Was in a rush. These graphs illustrate my point:

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth And Inequality In America

My point is, if these wealthy CEO's have only gotten richer and richer over the years, then why can't they use this extra income instead to hire more lower-level workers? From I can tell, some coroprations are laying people off unnecessarily.

ahhh yes... back to the old lie that wealth 'equality' means something positive.

Let's see, if you take all the wealth from the top 1% of families (or was it 5%), you only gain 1.3 trillion once. Now to distribute equally that among the remaining 150 million households and give them a check... that means everyone gets a single check for: approximately 9,000 dollars.

But then you better make that last because you know... you won't have a job, or if you do, it's because a foreign company bought your employer out as his assets were seized.

So make it last, and congratulations! We've achieved equal poverty in the entire nation!!!

Again, I am not talking about making the wealthy poor. A compromise that would make everyone happy (well at least it should) is that the wealthy be taxed at a fair rate. You then take that revenue and put it into important social programs with budget deficits that improve the quality of life of working families.

The bottom 47% pay zero taxes and most of them after that actually EARN money through wealth redistribution programs by 'paying' their taxes.

I would like to hear how this is fair in a manner that doesn't make me laugh in your face.

Wealth is NOT distributed. It is earned. No authority says, "I think you should get rich while the rest of you get screwed." No, it happens through a variety of methods, the most common of which is working hard and making good choices in a merit based system. Most millionaires in this nation are self made ones. That you can go look up by finding bios over most of them. Now some were handed old money from their family. Others got lucky. This is true, but they are not the norm. Even athletes and actors work their asses off to hit the million dollar mark, and less than 1% of them ever do that because, let's face it, those are very poor methods of becoming rich unless you've been blessed with gifts in which to do that.

But, to further exemplify the issue, let me use the NFL to illustrate. Rodger Goodall and the Owners did not decide this year to distribute wins this year so that the Colts would go 0-13 while the Packers would then be given the excess wins to be undefeated going into week 14. Should the Packers somehow GIVE the Colts some wins because they have so many and have all but secured Home field advantage in the playoffs? What you demand of 'fairness' is just as ludicrous.

Nobody's distributing anything, and wealth 'distributed fairly' is unfair to those who deserve it most.

BTW, if you're not talking about making the wealthy poor, but just taxing them into 'less wealthy', you will make even LESS impact on the poor than you seem to think with even less moral authority and fairness. No one is guaranteed an outcome in life. It's time for you to grow up and accept you are RESPONSIBLE for that outcome by your actions... not owed it because of your existence.