Income and Insight

[Polk]

He's a nothing, a shill, a tool for the progressives.

If he was such a tool for progressives, he'd be pushing for progressive policies. Instead, he has ramped up the war in Afghanistan, implemented a spending freeze, and passed a health care bill that was rewarmed Republican ideas from the 1990s.

 

[oreo]

Less than half of middle class Americans now believe that President Barack Obama is doing a good job, according to a new Gallup Poll.

Among those earning from $24,000 to $59,988 a year, just 46 percent say they approve of the job Obama is doing, down from 51 percent in May and 66 percent in the week of his inauguration.

Among Americans earning $60,000 to $89,988 a year, 44 percent approve of his job performance, down from 51 percent in May and 69 percent during inauguration week.

The only income bracket in which a majority still approves of Obama’s job performance is those earning less than $24,000 a year — and only 52 percent of them approve.

Overall, 46 percent of Americans told Gallup they approve of Obama’s job performance during the week of June 7-13, tying for the worst week of his presidency.

CNSNews.com - Middle Class Is Abandoning Obama: He Gets Majority Approval Rating Only From Americans Making Less Than $24,000 Per Year

They call it "Obama's flood the basement economics" for a reason--- Someone making 24K per year is probably not paying a single penny in federal income tax--but is more than likely reaping the rewards of this administration--through all the subsidies for cars, homes, save your homes, etc. etc. etc.

Funny how hand-outs do that--LOL

 

[Care4all]

if they have kids, someone making 50k is probably paying no income tax....

a couple making 20k without kids, pays a little bit in income tax...at 19k they pay nothing.

most people not paying income tax have kids....and all the deductions and credits for them keep them from having to pay any....

i don't believe for one nano second that the 46% not paying income tax in this country are poor or even close to poverty level....they just have children.

 

[EriktheRed]

That's because Obama is PINO (President In Name Only).

Your pathetic wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

 

[Bfgrn]

Just keep telling yourself that Bfgrn. So far you have not refuted Brooks or anybody else. If you want a battle of quotations, I can go toe to toe with you on quotations. If you want a battle of long, tedious posts, I can match you tit for tat there. And if you want to keep repeating the same tired old partisan rhetoric with nothing but anecdotal evidence to support it, I can do that with the best of you.

But again, I prefer not to bore other members to death with such circular arguments that bore me silly as well.

So unless you have something of substance and can articulate a decent argument that isn't totally absurd, unsupportable, and ad hominem in your own words, I'll wish you a really good day and move on. Thank you so much for understanding.

Let's take a few of your points and shine some light of reality on them...

I'll admit that I frankly don't understand how somebody can live almost 60 years and think like you do. How you can get to be almost 60 years old and completely blow off a study such as Arthur Brooks completed and that has been supported by numerous other similar studies. I can assure you that I am no anomaly but am very typical among conservatives.

I don't understand how anybody can look objectively at the US welfare system--'welfare' in this case meaning ALL benefices, charity, help programs, etc. run by the Federal government--and not see the waste, the graft, the lack of results, the unintended bad consequences, and/or the inevitable corruption among both those dispensing the charity and those receiving it.

Handouts don't create dependency unless they are made entitlements in one size fits all government programs. Such programs, however, invariably create dependencies.

Charity is the hallmark of a moral society and Americans are the most charitable and generous of all people. And that is why it is mostly conservatives who are on the front lines running and manning the orphanages, leper colonies, soup kitchens, food pantries, thrift shops, homeless shelters, treatment centers, halfway houses, mission programs to some of the world's most desperate people, etc.

Please provide the 'numerous other similar studies', because when I 'google' that study, ALL that comes up is page after page of the right wing echo chamber citing THAT study.

You claim: 'it is mostly conservatives who are on the front lines running and manning the orphanages, leper colonies, soup kitchens, food pantries, thrift shops, homeless shelters, treatment centers, halfway houses, mission programs to some of the world's most desperate people, etc.'

Please provide the evidence to support that claim. Because if you read THE Arthur Brooks study, you will find the opposite is true.

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

You couldn't win a battle of 'quotations'. The attitudes of loathing, dehumanizing and degrading the poor and minorities IS what defines the right, conservatives and today's Republican party. You don't need to look any farther than the posts seen every day on this board. Please find me ONE post on this board where a liberal dehumanizes or degrades the poor or minorities. You certainly will find PLENTY of dehumanizing and degrading talk about the poor and minorities from the right here. THAT is NOT how compassion manifests in human beings. You can't call loathing compassion! I'd love to have a nickle for every time I am called a 'bleeding heart' liberal. The TRUTH is we are called that by people with no compassion for others. But they are unable to internalize their lack of compassion, so they externalize it by accusing liberals of either being disingenuous, weak or both.

So Foxfyre, what next? Are you going to forward that argument that the Nazi's were humanitarians?


"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

"Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?"
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

Luke 16:13-15…

[13] No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money)

[14] The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

[15] He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.

 

[Bfgrn]

bfg
First of all, I would appreciate it if you would stop cutting up my posts. Second, I surmise you didn't check out my link and listen to the interview.

You clearly have some warped view of regulation. 'Government out of business' is the END of ANY regulation. You have some disconnect going on in your thinking. And you are dead wrong about insurance being sold across state lines not being a race to the bottom. It is not only a race to the bottom, it is mass deregulation.

No, if I have a comment that specifically relates to a piece of your post, I am going to quote just that piece. Your arguments are based on a supposition of my stance THAT DOES NOT EXIST. If you feel I have taken something out of context, then by all means place it here.

I am pulling this statement out for the reasons that I pulled the last one out. I have repeatedly stated that I am NOT for the elimination of all regulation and you CONTINUALLY paint that stance on me and then proceeded to attack it. Take your partisan straw men elsewhere, I am n to going debate this while you misrepresent what I am putting fourth.

WHAT I am saying is pretty simple. You call yourself a conservative on the issues of regulation and consumer protection AND that the GOP's approach is closer to YOUR stance.

What I am saying is you are wrong...'Conservatives' and the current Republican party has become THE party of regulatory capture and DE-regulation. IF you expect that somehow consumer protection will be spawned by that approach, then I have a bridge you might want to buy. 'Conservatives' and the current Republican party believe in business and corporation protection...and consumers best BEWARE.

I just showed you

 

[editec]

why is it the conservatives post at nausium on stopping welfare but not the trillions on wars??? Is taxation really the issue?

welfare costs a lot more.

Nonsense.

neoconservatism is big on international interventionism and preemptive war. they feel that american tax dollars should be spent in other countries with social returns on investment preferred to economic returns. the movement has changed and gained momentum from its position within the left-center to now dominating right-wing foreign and economic policy.

Both parties are internationalist interventionists.

And pox on both their houses,

with regard to economics, the movement is clueless about the idea of domestic investment and fiscal discipline. because they've simplified the dynamic economy of the united states to the rate of income taxation, the effects of the rate of tax on the deficit is an issue, indeed.

They pander to their corporate masters...both of them.

Worthless sods.

 

[Care4all]

We are our brother's keeper.....(that's called ''socialism'' by rightwingers)
According to the Bible, and Christianity.

It is not we are our brother's keeper EXCEPT.....FILL IN THE BLANK

Of course one can continue to be the goats instead of the sheep, but Christ is on to you!

Matthew 25:31-46 (New International Version)

The Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

James 2
Favoritism Forbidden
1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"[a] you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder."[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion, 'Am I my brother's keeper?' puts a negative connotation on 'keeper'. Cain of course was not wanting to admit that he murdered his brother, but he did that by emphasizing that his brother was not a sheep or goat to be owned or kept and therefore he had no authority over his brother's whereabouts.

The subtle teaching is what I have been saying. We are not to treat people as sheep or cattle and take authority over them. And too often government programs tend to put whole 'herds' of people into dependency and therefore at the mercy of government.

It is my faith that God expects us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit those in prison. I think that is the driving force behind a great deal of charitable giving and a lot of that is based on religious convictions. Arthur Brooks has another excellent detailed commentary on that very thing here:
Hoover Institution

But the Biblical lesson is quite clear at least to me. Compassion can involve enlisting the help of others, as the Samaritan enlisted the help of the Inn keeper to help the injured traveler. But the Samaritan did not expect the Inn keeper to also sustain the cost, but left him with the funds to do it.

It is not charity when we hand people off to the government to take care of and expect others to do and pay for the job we ourselves are commanded to do. It is not charity to force others to provide the time, energy, resources, funds, etc. so that we are absolved of that responsibility. One is not compassionate to demand that another do what he or she should himself do.

And as I have previously stated, in my opinion, the negative consequences of government doing it offsets much if not most of the good. All those folks stocking and manning the food pantries, thrift shops, volunteering at the Salvation Army, etc. are accomplishing real good and utilizing resources much more efficiently and effectively than any one-sized-fits-all government program can possibly do.

 

[FA_Q2]

bfg
First of all, I would appreciate it if you would stop cutting up my posts. Second, I surmise you didn't check out my link and listen to the interview.

You clearly have some warped view of regulation. 'Government out of business' is the END of ANY regulation. You have some disconnect going on in your thinking. And you are dead wrong about insurance being sold across state lines not being a race to the bottom. It is not only a race to the bottom, it is mass deregulation.

No, if I have a comment that specifically relates to a piece of your post, I am going to quote just that piece. Your arguments are based on a supposition of my stance THAT DOES NOT EXIST. If you feel I have taken something out of context, then by all means place it here.

I am pulling this statement out for the reasons that I pulled the last one out. I have repeatedly stated that I am NOT for the elimination of all regulation and you CONTINUALLY paint that stance on me and then proceeded to attack it. Take your partisan straw men elsewhere, I am n to going debate this while you misrepresent what I am putting fourth.

WHAT I am saying is pretty simple. You call yourself a conservative on the issues of regulation and consumer protection AND that the GOP's approach is closer to YOUR stance.

What I am saying is you are wrong...'Conservatives' and the current Republican party has become THE party of regulatory capture and DE-regulation. IF you expect that somehow consumer protection will be spawned by that approach, then I have a bridge you might want to buy. 'Conservatives' and the current Republican party believe in business and corporation protection...and consumers best BEWARE.

I just showed you

And you continually put forth that the democrats are different. I did say the GOP has lost its way and no longer has any real conservative in it anymore. The Democrats are actually worse here though. Not only do the champion bad regulation but they do so blatantly. If you can't see that then you are just seeing what they want you too.

You just showed me what?

 

[Bfgrn]

No, if I have a comment that specifically relates to a piece of your post, I am going to quote just that piece. Your arguments are based on a supposition of my stance THAT DOES NOT EXIST. If you feel I have taken something out of context, then by all means place it here.

I am pulling this statement out for the reasons that I pulled the last one out. I have repeatedly stated that I am NOT for the elimination of all regulation and you CONTINUALLY paint that stance on me and then proceeded to attack it. Take your partisan straw men elsewhere, I am n to going debate this while you misrepresent what I am putting fourth.

WHAT I am saying is pretty simple. You call yourself a conservative on the issues of regulation and consumer protection AND that the GOP's approach is closer to YOUR stance.

What I am saying is you are wrong...'Conservatives' and the current Republican party has become THE party of regulatory capture and DE-regulation. IF you expect that somehow consumer protection will be spawned by that approach, then I have a bridge you might want to buy. 'Conservatives' and the current Republican party believe in business and corporation protection...and consumers best BEWARE.

I just showed you

And you continually put forth that the democrats are different. I did say the GOP has lost its way and no longer has any real conservative in it anymore. The Democrats are actually worse here though. Not only do the champion bad regulation but they do so blatantly. If you can't see that then you are just seeing what they want you too.

You just showed me what?

I just showed you that the Republican's health care plan was based on consumer ingestion.

Take you pick of Republican 'causes'...'tort' reform; a corporate funded propaganda to campaign to protect corporations, business and the elite, and screw the consumer and victims of incompetence or neglect. Medicare D - a handout to big pharma and insurance cartels.

If you really want consumer protection and holding corporation's accountable, you will find it the farther left you go in the Democratic party...people like Dennis Kucinich, George Miller and Bernie Sanders.

 

[antagon]

communism predates capitalism which predates socialism, to clarify my contention. early communes like the smaller north american native tribes had plenty of ways to accommodate ambition. your presumptions on human nature seem based on an idea that we are all ambitious, and that is just as errant as a systemic failure to reward our effort. there is a reason mixed economies work, and that dogmatic economies of any persuasion will fail.

i agree that capitalism should be the basis of our society, but i'd say innovation in public policy would better ensure that, rather than unilateral opposition.

my assertion that socialistic components in our society are expanding more aggressively than private/capitalist ones is just an observation. it stems from efficiency in capitalism. bunch specific of reasons within that, but plainly, fewer folks are involved in every dollar made now than in 1980. this trend is building with exponential character as technology and globalization make capitalism more and more efficient, concentrating its proceeds to fewer, but wealthier among us.

you say you're ok with a safety net. where will all those whose jobs fall victim to this trend fall?

the challenge is to revolutionize the safety net, rather than to deny its role, unilaterally. the economy/society which pulls this off will lead the way through the 21st century like the US led through the 20th.

Again, I am not advocating unilateral opposition to socialistic programs and I do not think anyone else here is either. What you are referring to is a completely separate problem from what we were talking about. We were debating the effects of some of the social programs have had on the lower class and how fox and I believe that some if these programs are helping to create the problem instead of relieving it. Globalization and automation are a different problem that need to be attacked in different ways.

i wont say that globalization and automation are problems, per sa. these are tactics which some of our larger, multinational businesses use to affect the creation of wealth that capitalism is all about. as to whether it is related to the topic at hand, i contend that functions of capitalism, including these, bank on the government's continued investment. much of that investment comes by way of social policies - especially in a contraction/recovery.

i acknowledge the side-effects and externalities to social policies, and contended earlier that these should be reigned in. i contend, again, that a discussion of these externalities alone is just as pointless as a discussion of capitalism which only focuses on the greed at play in the system. the fact of the matter is that capitalism is a big part of what makes life great in the developed world, and that social policy is a big part of what makes capitalism work in the first place.

First off, I reject the notion that automation is removing jobs from the economy. Robotics and computers are not new and have been put to use for many years making people more productive. This does cause job losses within a specific and narrow scope but those jobs do not disappear as most people seem to think but, instead, move to other fields as needed. If automation and computers were killing jobs where is the evedense in the unemployment rate?
Where can I find the unemployment rate for previous years?
There has been no drastic drop in unemployment from jobs moving overseas or from increasing productivity at all. There are wide swings that accompany recessions and booms but that is it. If those were killing our jobs then we should see it right there. Truth is, jobs are tied directly to the economy. If there is loose money floating around, someone will take that cash and use people to make more. That is the basis of our economy.

i only contend that this basis is changing from using people to make more money toward more efficient, less labor-dependent processes to achieve the same.

the unemployment rates all show the portion of the labor market which is not used or under-utilized. the labor market is characterized by non-institutional persons over a certain age who are able to work. in this way, you couldn't gain any insight into which people are on welfare or SS, in prison, or working in non-civilian government employment - all communal functions. some, like entitlements and prison, are decidedly socialist.

with the incarceration rate better than doubling in fewer than 10 years, welfare roles at the highest point in history, a boom of civilian public employment, and a bubble of non-civilian cold-war workers, can the 5% reagan/h.w.bush 'full-employment' state of the late 80s really indicate the same as clinton's 5% or dubya's 5%? we attain +/- 5% employment every ten years or so. we have to look at the labor market within the economy in order to scrutinize my claim, and the unemployment rate does not do that at all.

where you argue that a drop-off in one economic activity gives rise to another, moving jobs with it, i dont disagree. but there are more ways which the economy accommodates the invariable inflexibility in the job market, and which account for more individuals than the job market does in the short term. take a look at detroit, MI. this is a city directly hit by globalization, modernization and industrial management technologies. while each of these developments may have bode well for automakers, the economy there has been devastated. the job-loss has not been temporary as you prescribe. the exodus from the city has been a drag on neighboring economies. persons over a certain age found it harder to retrain to new-sector jobs. people found it hard to move from their homes to entirely new cities. the role which prison, welfare, UI and SSI play in these circumstances is massive.

so far, you and fox have approached entitlements as if lazy people are turning down piles of jobs. my counter-proposal reminds that the amount of labor involved in every dollar made is reducing at an increasing rate year on year. hours are decreasing (11% since 1964 per bls establishment survey), OECD's employed to population ratio is declining (though slightly, to the tune of 1% per decade (+/-3,000,000 americans/decade) ). this means that entitlements are increasing as a shrinking job market turns down piles of job-seekers.

the reason why i think all of this applies to the convo at hand, is when y'all come around to actual solutions, basing them on flooding the labor market with former state dependents wouldn't solve an issue in the wider economy. rather, it will create a liability. welfare and prison need to be fixed, among other programs, but ultimately, there is a lot of work to do in the wider economy to keep the job growth we have on target.

 

[antagon]

antagon

i'm strongly against campaign finance reform. look what it's done to the GOP, and by extension, the balance of policy in the country

I am surprised to hear you say this! Even as a conservative I fully back campaign finance reform. I care little about what it does to the GOP. They will need to adapt. The fact is, money is what is killing the system and until that money is tempered there will be no end to this problem. Unfortunately, I have yet to see true campaign finance reform as it is usually steeped in special interest crap. "let's limit the money that we can get except for MY constituents."

this is not a conservative/liberal issue. i dont have an affiliation with either of those labels, to add.

this is a business advocacy issue. 'reforms' have boxed the GOP out of this role, and i think the social conservative populist base that has replaced the wall-street republicans of the seventies and eighties are clueless garbage.

where businesses used to act above the board for campaign finance, now, lobbies are the only basis. this excludes real politics from elections, leaving the sort of pandering we'd seen in the last election. it has helped to bring the democrats to the center such that their agenda is more plausible to business/economic interests, but it has pushed the GOP to a right-finge which i dont think knows squat about politics, economics or government.

hundreds of millions of americans wont buy it with a vote.

 

[topspin]

there are lots of dumb mutha fuckers in New Orleans, just look at soggy

 

[antagon]

It is not charity when we hand people off to the government to take care of and expect others to do and pay for the job we ourselves are commanded to do. It is not charity to force others to provide the time, energy, resources, funds, etc. so that we are absolved of that responsibility. One is not compassionate to demand that another do what he or she should himself do.

this is what i've been trying to get across. welfare is not charity. these are not the intentions of policies like these, particularly in the US. the positive and negative social implications of entitlement policies are externalities to the economic aims which have revolutionized the societies which have put them to use for a few decades. these economic aims far and vastly outshine the social side-effects, furthermore.

i think that it is out of touch to even argue that the social pitfalls out-weigh the benefits once you look at a bit of US history and do some social comparisons to today's non-entitled citizens of the world.

 

[Greenbeard]

Seems like as good a place as any to bring up a recent post on Free Exchange

How to explain the differences? Stronger automatic stabilisers and labour market protections helped insulate workers from the effect of the downturn in some places. Italy and Germany have well-known labour sharing programmes in place; where American employers might meet slackening demand by trimming workforces, German employers are encouraged to hoard labour and reduce hours worked. Meanwhile, America faces structural adjustments that other countries, like Canada, have largely come through already. It's interesting to think about how leaders from different countries might place different emphasis on demand-side versus structural measures to boost the economy, based on these performances.

Smart social policies do have certain advantages.

 

[antagon]

Seems like as good a place as any to bring up a recent post on Free Exchange

How to explain the differences? Stronger automatic stabilisers and labour market protections helped insulate workers from the effect of the downturn in some places. Italy and Germany have well-known labour sharing programmes in place; where American employers might meet slackening demand by trimming workforces, German employers are encouraged to hoard labour and reduce hours worked. Meanwhile, America faces structural adjustments that other countries, like Canada, have largely come through already. It's interesting to think about how leaders from different countries might place different emphasis on demand-side versus structural measures to boost the economy, based on these performances.

Smart social policies do have certain advantages.

there's a lot more to this than public policy, but it is worthy to consider some connection there. most crucially is our being the epicenter of the crisis which just briefly tugged rather than dragged on foreign economies. the asset loss simply doesnt compare in these nations.

next, the small business basis of US employment is adversely affected by credit stagflation and low demand. because small business investment is not very sophisticated, and owners are heavily invested in their enterprises, the option to sustain big-biz losses supported by investors, assets, bridge loans, bail-outs and retained earnings is not feasible. the axe simply comes out faster.

lopping 33% of your staff could come as easy as laying of 2 or 10 employees for the businesses which aggregate 90-some percent of american employment. relative to the US, i'm sure none of these nations are biased so heavily to small business employment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most of the small businesses around here however do the labor sharing thing as long as they can though. If it comes down to keep a valued employee or not, of course a weaker employee is laid off, but I've run across several crews where everybody is simply working fewer hours so that all can keep working on the few jobs available.

Having the ability for flexibility does save jobs.

The union shops are not able to do that though. It's all or nothing for those folks. The unions has to allow lay offs but it won't agree to across the board reduction in either wages or hours. So the layoffs are much higher there.

I wonder if unions in Europe are as inviolate as the government protected unions in the USA?

 

[antagon]

that's a good point about the small businesses, Foxfyre. in building, the hours-to-production thing is harder to manage. because projects require specialties, and are best conducted by the same crew, it is detrimental to try to spread the pain so much. it would be easier at a production or distribution warehouse.

construction was hit the hardest by this deal, i'd say. judging from the chamber and the ads running since late last year, about half of the little firms in my neck of the... desert... folded up altogether. that's all or nothing, too. i've always been a cash-based guy and run a cash-based biz. lots of the credit based businesses in small contracting with their fancy newer-than-the-nineties fleets were the ones which vanished. nobody is going to repo my '86 F600 dumper. lots of these guys were relying on revolvers and lines from their bank or credit cards to finance their work. some of that credit was liened on their homes!

now that i'm doing my rounds again trying to pick things back up myself, i'm finding a lot of contractors who stopped and vanished half-way through a job, and even more of the former employee types who did the same on small jobs. no shortage of work.

the long-term labor contracts with the unions are a joke. i'll be damned if i've got to predict how many hours i'll spend building corvettes in 2014, then sign a contract to guarantee them. not all unions have the nutsack that firmly gripped, and i really dont know how they get down in other countries. look at brit airways and their mess with the cabin-crew union, though. they should have tomatoes tossed at them for striking in a time when people are desperately trying to get jobs.

 

[Foxfyre]

that's a good point about the small businesses, Foxfyre. in building, the hours-to-production thing is harder to manage. because projects require specialties, and are best conducted by the same crew, it is detrimental to try to spread the pain so much. it would be easier at a production or distribution warehouse.

construction was hit the hardest by this deal, i'd say. judging from the chamber and the ads running since late last year, about half of the little firms in my neck of the... desert... folded up altogether. that's all or nothing, too. i've always been a cash-based guy and run a cash-based biz. lots of the credit based businesses in small contracting with their fancy newer-than-the-nineties fleets were the ones which vanished. nobody is going to repo my '86 F600 dumper. lots of these guys were relying on revolvers and lines from their bank or credit cards to finance their work. some of that credit was liened on their homes!

now that i'm doing my rounds again trying to pick things back up myself, i'm finding a lot of contractors who stopped and vanished half-way through a job, and even more of the former employee types who did the same on small jobs. no shortage of work.

the long-term labor contracts with the unions are a joke. i'll be damned if i've got to predict how many hours i'll spend building corvettes in 2014, then sign a contract to guarantee them. not all unions have the nutsack that firmly gripped, and i really dont know how they get down in other countries. look at brit airways and their mess with the cabin-crew union, though. they should have tomatoes tossed at them for striking in a time when people are desperately trying to get jobs.

Well it's only the ones who are managing to survive who are able to do any job sharing. But even on the more technical stuff where skilled labor comes in, some are managing to do it unless they're on a contract where they pay a penalty if they don't meet their target date or something. In that case, of course they have to work the full crew with overtime if necessasry to complete the task. But we're a pretty small state and folks know folks and there's some pretty amazing give and take to help each other out.

Still just like you're saying, so many of the little guys have just given up and a lot of the bigger guys are former shells of themselves. Or probably there are others like Hubby and myself who chose to shut down so that others could survive. We're staying sufficiently intact that if things improve later on, and we're inclined to do so, we can accept work again but for now we're retired.

All over town though we see construction projects that were started and then abandoned. Some are framed in, a few had even started the finish work, and then everything just stopped. Either they couldn't borrow the money to finish or the owners couldn't continue to pay them. Some of the landscaping and maintenance businesses are having a really lean summer and operating at half or quarter strength.

So now we have folks who used to be middle class that are feeling pretty low income.

I wonder if those demographics included in the OP will look a lot different if that poll is repeated this summer?