Question for Ryan and supporters of the Tax Bill

[Dragonlady]

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity increases are due to equipment provided and purchased by the employer for use by the employees.

The same was true in the Industrial Age and yet workers got to share in profits of increased productivity through their unions. The middle class was built by unions getting workers better wages.

Reagan told Americans that once the unions were gone, workers would get a raise. The opposite happened. Once the unions were gone, management got raises, the workers got nothing.

Walmart actually succeeded in lowering the wages of retail workers nation wide by destroying retail jobs across the country. Companies which failed to follow their model were driven out of business by their inability to compete. Once the competition was gone, Walmart was the only game in town and they paid minimum wage.

 

[martybegan]

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity increases are due to equipment provided and purchased by the employer for use by the employees.

The same was true in the Industrial Age and yet workers got to share in profits of increased productivity through their unions. The middle class was built by unions getting workers better wages.

Reagan told Americans that once the unions were gone, workers would get a raise. The opposite happened. Once the unions were gone, management got raises, the workers got nothing.

Walmart actually succeeded in lowering the wages of retail workers nation wide by destroying retail jobs across the country. Companies which failed to follow their model were driven out of business by their inability to compete. Once the competition was gone, Walmart was the only game in town and they paid minimum wage.

The industrial ages was a complete shift from agrarian to industrial means of output. Plus the original workers were getting far far less of a share of the value of their work from the get go. getting to "even" or "better" was an easier leap for the owners to handle, even if they did it grudgingly.

What we have now is increases in productivity via automation. A good example is drafting drawings. before you had a room full of draftsmen doing drawings, now you have 2-3 CAD technicians who probably make a bit more than the original draftsmen, but do the work of 5 of them each. PLUS you don't have to do as much work, because changing something in a computer doesn't mean you have to re-do every drawing.

Current automation has removed a lot of the "busy" work while still requiring the same skill set.

So everyone who works at Wal-mart makes the minimum?

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc Wages, Hourly Wage Rate | PayScale

 

[The Derp]

I didn't mandate the GSEs buy crappy subprimes....that was Clinton, Barney Frank and then Bush piled on.

First of all, you are arguing that position so it is your position.

Secondly, the mortgages that caused the crisis were the ones issued between 2004-7, according to Bush's Working Group. No Democrat was in control of anything at that time. You guys had full control of the House, Senate, White House, and SCOTUS. That simple and inconvenient fact invalidates your entire argument.

Moron.

Yes, you are a moron who only uses one single Op-Ed to make his entire case. An Op-Ed so easily debunked with data from the Federal Reserve and Mortgage Bankers' Association.

GSE's didn't cause the crisis, didn't magnify the crisis, and were the last mortgages to enter delinquency as a consequence of the crisis. Not once have you ever been able to tie GSE's loan performance to the growth of the privately-backed subprime mortgage market, of which GSE's weren't a part.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000Fucking moron.

Clinton's loans performed fine, and the loans from Clinton's Presidency weren't the ones that were issued from 2004-7, nor were they the ones that entered delinquency first.

 

[The Derp]

Loans bought in 2005, 2006, 2007 didn't fall under Clinton's 50% quota?That's funny.

Clinton wasn't president from 2005-7, your guy Bush was.

 

[The Derp]

I provided links to academic econ sources. So did the Toddster. You're just in deep denial.. And apparently completely unaware of how Congress writes legislation these days.

No, what you did was post links to Op-Eds, none of which could manage to find any language from any bill that forces banks to make loans to people who cannot pay them back. I asked you, very simply, to post the link to the bill and the text from that bill that does what your "sources" claim. You can't do that because no such text or bill exists. So you instead rely on bullshit. That's why you're done.

 

[The Derp]

Bush took Clinton's and Frank's bad idea and made it worse.

Loans seemed to perform just fine under Clinton, then suddenly stopped performing well around 2006-7. What does Clinton have to do with that? Clinton's "bad idea" seemed to grow the housing market safely and securely until a Conservative came along and fucked everything up. Clinton has nothing to do with the spike in delinquencies beginning in 2006 and you've never once been able to link him to that. Even Bush's own Working Group says the mortgages that caused the crisis were the ones issued between 2004-7. Even Bush's Treasury Secretary said there was no risk posed by housing in October 2003.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

What about employee compensation?

What about it?

Has it been flat for 40 years?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't mandate the GSEs buy crappy subprimes....that was Clinton, Barney Frank and then Bush piled on.

First of all, you are arguing that position so it is your position.

Secondly, the mortgages that caused the crisis were the ones issued between 2004-7, according to Bush's Working Group. No Democrat was in control of anything at that time. You guys had full control of the House, Senate, White House, and SCOTUS. That simple and inconvenient fact invalidates your entire argument.

Moron.

Yes, you are a moron who only uses one single Op-Ed to make his entire case. An Op-Ed so easily debunked with data from the Federal Reserve and Mortgage Bankers' Association.

GSE's didn't cause the crisis, didn't magnify the crisis, and were the last mortgages to enter delinquency as a consequence of the crisis. Not once have you ever been able to tie GSE's loan performance to the growth of the privately-backed subprime mortgage market, of which GSE's weren't a part.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000Fucking moron.

Clinton's loans performed fine, and the loans from Clinton's Presidency weren't the ones that were issued from 2004-7, nor were they the ones that entered delinquency first.

First of all, you are arguing that position so it is your position.

I'm arguing the subprime quota was a bad idea.
Do you agree? Should they have bought more? Fewer? None?

Secondly, the mortgages that caused the crisis were the ones issued between 2004-7,

You mean mortgages that Fannie and Freddie bought from 2004-2007, 50% of which had to be subprime, per Clinton's quota, helped cause the crisis?

No Democrat was in control of anything at that time. You guys had full control of the House, Senate, White House, and SCOTUS.

Absolutely, instead of expanding on Franks' and Clinton's bad idea, Bush, Congress and HUD should have ended it.

GSE's didn't cause the crisis, didn't magnify the crisis,

They didn't cause it, but their $1 trillion plus demand for crappy mortgages sure as shit magnified it.

Clinton's loans performed fine

All of Fannie and Freddie's issues were with the loans from 50%-55% that Bush mandated?
No mortgage from that first 50% were ever a problem? LOL!

the loans from Clinton's Presidency weren't the ones that were issued from 2004-7

You're just now discovering that buyers at the beginning of a bubble do better than buyers at the end?
You're an especially dim bulb, aren't you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity increases are due to equipment provided and purchased by the employer for use by the employees.

You don't think do you? Let's consider automation and how it has impacted jobs done by human beings, if that does not tax your head. Why would a company not replace jobs with computers and robots? People get vacations, get sick and get hurt on the job, they complain, slack off and sometimes disruptl

 

[martybegan]

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity increases are due to equipment provided and purchased by the employer for use by the employees.

You don't think do you? Let's consider automation and how it has impacted jobs done by human beings, if that does not tax your head. Why would a company not replace jobs with computers and robots? People get vacations, get sick and get hurt on the job, they complain, slack off and sometimes disruptl

I am not talking replacement, I am talking efficiency improvements. A drafter using CAD replaces 5 other drafters, and does the work with less waste of time and material (a re-draw takes minutes instead of hours). A computerized excavator takes some of the monitoring requirements away from the operator, allowing them to concentrate more on excavating.

Replacement is another issue.

 

[flacaltenn]

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity increases are due to equipment provided and purchased by the employer for use by the employees.

The same was true in the Industrial Age and yet workers got to share in profits of increased productivity through their unions. The middle class was built by unions getting workers better wages.

Reagan told Americans that once the unions were gone, workers would get a raise. The opposite happened. Once the unions were gone, management got raises, the workers got nothing.

Walmart actually succeeded in lowering the wages of retail workers nation wide by destroying retail jobs across the country. Companies which failed to follow their model were driven out of business by their inability to compete. Once the competition was gone, Walmart was the only game in town and they paid minimum wage.

Still harping on Walmart. The company that has solved more national problems than Congress. Implemented their OWN "pay day loan" service at usable costs. Brought prescription drugs for EVERYONE down by doing their OWN negotiations with the drug companies.

So how come you didn't mention Amazon? Much bigger threat to retail than conservatism. Fact is -- the NATURE of a job has radically changed. And the UNIONS are still in 19th Century mode about "what a job is".. CAREERS are not on their radar. Multi-skills are a bad thing. And that's WHY they are now irrelevant. I'm not anti-Union. I'm for blasting the message about how jobs have changed. And how to prepare for 21st Century jobs -- post Industrial Rev. Mainly it's preparation for CREATIVITY, Problem Solving, Entreprenurial skills, flexibility in talents and Self-guiding careers. Because, the only LABOR left to do (other than absolutely menial labor) will be to invent, create, and promote things that YOU believe in. And that are useful to others.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity increases are due to equipment provided and purchased by the employer for use by the employees.

You don't think do you? Let's consider automation and how it has impacted jobs done by human beings, if that does not tax your head. Why would a company not replace jobs with computers and robots? People get vacations, get sick and get hurt on the job, they complain, slack off and sometimes disruptl

I am not talking replacement, I am talking efficiency improvements. A drafter using CAD replaces 5 other drafters, and does the work with less waste of time and material (a re-draw takes minutes instead of hours). A computerized excavator takes some of the monitoring requirements away from the operator, allowing them to concentrate more on excavating.

Replacement is another issue.

HUH???? The claim is the money repatriated will provide jobs, and you seem to agree with my comment that automation, i.e. robots, computers, etc will replace human beings.

Sure, some jobs will be created to design, build and maintain robots, but that requires training; those who lose the jobs and are replaced is exactly what HRC offered in terms of coal miners and retraining.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

Making folks comfortable in these endangered menial jobs is cruel and stupid. Nobody should be there other than teenagers, recent immigrants, maybe some seniors. There are so many BAD EFFECTS of promoting the JOB -- rather than the PERSON -- that it would be a disaster for a "living wage"..

One effect that RARELY MAKES the political talking points is the embarrassing High School drop out rate. Offering a "living wage" is a NEGATIVE INCENTIVE on staying in school. And would certainly promote CHRONIC underachievement in lifetime earnings and careers..

 

[martybegan]

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity increases are due to equipment provided and purchased by the employer for use by the employees.

You don't think do you? Let's consider automation and how it has impacted jobs done by human beings, if that does not tax your head. Why would a company not replace jobs with computers and robots? People get vacations, get sick and get hurt on the job, they complain, slack off and sometimes disruptl

I am not talking replacement, I am talking efficiency improvements. A drafter using CAD replaces 5 other drafters, and does the work with less waste of time and material (a re-draw takes minutes instead of hours). A computerized excavator takes some of the monitoring requirements away from the operator, allowing them to concentrate more on excavating.

Replacement is another issue.

HUH???? The claim is the money repatriated will provide jobs, and you seem to agree with my comment that automation, i.e. robots, computers, etc will replace human beings.

Sure, some jobs will be created to design, build and maintain robots, but that requires training; those who lose the jobs and are replaced is exactly what HRC offered in terms of coal miners and retraining.

The discussion in this part of the thread was about the lack of wage increases over time. I was stating that wage stagnation may be caused by the fact that the increased productivity comes from employer supplied tools given to the workers, and not increases in their own output.

Try reading the discussion at hand.

 

[martybegan]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

Making folks comfortable in these endangered menial jobs is cruel and stupid. Nobody should be there other than teenagers, recent immigrants, maybe some seniors. There are so many BAD EFFECTS of promoting the JOB -- rather than the PERSON -- that it would be a disaster for a "living wage"..

One effect that RARELY MAKES the political talking points is the embarrassing High School drop out rate. Offering a "living wage" is a NEGATIVE INCENTIVE on staying in school. And would certainly promote CHRONIC underachievement in lifetime earnings and careers..

Yes, taking orders at Mcdonalds is a job that is a stepping stone to another, better job, not a career.

 

[flacaltenn]

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

Making folks comfortable in these endangered menial jobs is cruel and stupid. Nobody should be there other than teenagers, recent immigrants, maybe some seniors. There are so many BAD EFFECTS of promoting the JOB -- rather than the PERSON -- that it would be a disaster for a "living wage"..

One effect that RARELY MAKES the political talking points is the embarrassing High School drop out rate. Offering a "living wage" is a NEGATIVE INCENTIVE on staying in school. And would certainly promote CHRONIC underachievement in lifetime earnings and careers..

Yes, taking orders at Mcdonalds is a job that is a stepping stone to another, better job, not a career.

It's an even higher step if you drop out of High School to TAKE that job, just to get out of bad home situation.. Because the bleeding hearts gave you "a living wage" at 17..

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

Making folks comfortable in these endangered menial jobs is cruel and stupid. Nobody should be there other than teenagers, recent immigrants, maybe some seniors. There are so many BAD EFFECTS of promoting the JOB -- rather than the PERSON -- that it would be a disaster for a "living wage"..

One effect that RARELY MAKES the political talking points is the embarrassing High School drop out rate. Offering a "living wage" is a NEGATIVE INCENTIVE on staying in school. And would certainly promote CHRONIC underachievement in lifetime earnings and careers..

What is inherent in your response is the failure of secondary education, which begins in elementary schools. We need to rethink education in America, and not only education, but our continued failure on the War on Drugs, our reliance on punishment and not rehabilitation, and an arcane tax policy which seems to belie reform of all of the above and more.

We need to think panoptically, and in every way we seem to be led today by a Congress and a White house with a narrow lens and a contempt for sagacious thinking.

 

[flacaltenn]

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

Making folks comfortable in these endangered menial jobs is cruel and stupid. Nobody should be there other than teenagers, recent immigrants, maybe some seniors. There are so many BAD EFFECTS of promoting the JOB -- rather than the PERSON -- that it would be a disaster for a "living wage"..

One effect that RARELY MAKES the political talking points is the embarrassing High School drop out rate. Offering a "living wage" is a NEGATIVE INCENTIVE on staying in school. And would certainly promote CHRONIC underachievement in lifetime earnings and careers..

What is inherent in your response is the failure of secondary education, which begins in elementary schools. We need to rethink education in America, and not only education, but our continued failure on the War on Drugs, our reliance on punishment and not rehabilitation, and an arcane tax policy which seems to belie reform of all of the above and more.

We need to think panoptically, and in every way we seem to be led today by a Congress and a White house with a narrow lens and a contempt for sagacious thinking.

It's a matter of fucking survival not to make career prospects WORSE -- by making people comfortable in a "living wage" job that is dead-end and endangered. Don't blame it on the schools. The SCHOOLS don't want to compete with $15/hour enticements to drop-out..

 

[martybegan]

Corporations have already said that the windfall won’t be used for employee raises or job creation. It’ll be paid out to the shareholders.

And considering how many pensions, 401k's and other investment vehicles of all classes are shareholders, how is that such a bad thing?

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

Making folks comfortable in these endangered menial jobs is cruel and stupid. Nobody should be there other than teenagers, recent immigrants, maybe some seniors. There are so many BAD EFFECTS of promoting the JOB -- rather than the PERSON -- that it would be a disaster for a "living wage"..

One effect that RARELY MAKES the political talking points is the embarrassing High School drop out rate. Offering a "living wage" is a NEGATIVE INCENTIVE on staying in school. And would certainly promote CHRONIC underachievement in lifetime earnings and careers..

What is inherent in your response is the failure of secondary education, which begins in elementary schools. We need to rethink education in America, and not only education, but our continued failure on the War on Drugs, our reliance on punishment and not rehabilitation, and an arcane tax policy which seems to belie reform of all of the above and more.

We need to think panoptically, and in every way we seem to be led today by a Congress and a White house with a narrow lens and a contempt for sagacious thinking.

You can attempt to educate people as much as you want to, however if you fail to convince them to learn valuable skills, be them academic or trade, all you are doing is creating an over-credentialed class of whiners who bitch their lesbian interpretive dance degree can't get them a job.

As for the war on drugs, we may actually agree here. to me Drug laws should be like alcohol laws, let the States figure it out.

The problem with our tax policy is the expansion of government into things it was never designed to do, in particular at the federal level. Taxes would be lower if the feds would limit themselves to what they are mandated to do via the constitution, and leave the rest to the States as was designed.

 

[Dragonlady]

Worker wages, as a percentage of overall costs, are at levels not seen since the Guilded Age. Workers haven’t seen their wages increase in any real way since Reagan.

The working class no longer has savings and are dependent on earned income credits and other government assistance. That assistance is funded by middle class taxpayers.

Corporations and the wealthy don’t need more money, workers do. Trump sold the tax cuts to a skeptical public on the idea that companies would give their workers raises. Without raises, the Middle Class is paying for the food stamps and the EIC’s.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Working class jobs are being replaced with automation because it is cheaper to build and maintain a robot than to pay wages to workers that demand increasing pay for the same value of work.

Then you have sub-working class jobs, like fast food jobs, that were never meant to be careers being passed off a such because they were something that was not being automated until recently with the calls for the "livable wage", which again asks companies to pay above the value of work being added to the product and/or service.

It's not the same value of work. You're wrong. Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

Productivity has increased over the last 40 years but wages have gone flat.

What about employee compensation?

What about it?

Has it been flat for 40 years?

No it hasn’t been flat, it’s declined in terms of purchasing power. That’s why the working poor have lost their savings. They’ve had to spend their savings just to stay in the same place.

Had the minimum wage kept pace with inflation, it would be $25 per hour today.