What happened to the jobs?

[psikeyhackr]

I decided to stick my 2 cents in about the economy back in 1999.

Economic Wargames

I posted that on the Internet but I also posted it on the company message board. There was PhD economist at the company who would regularly tell people what he thought about economics. Several people asked me what he had said to me about it.

HE NEVER SPOKE TO ME OR SENT ME AN EMAIL!

I am going to be ridiculous and take this back to Adam Smith. Smith talked about enlightened self interest. But what did he mean by that? How about everybody maximizing NET WORTH? Every red blooded capitalist should be in favor of that. But Adam Smith did not live in a world with Freudian television advertising. Adam Smith never heard of planned obsolescence. Consumerism did not exist in 1776. But double-entry accounting was 500 years old even back then.

We should not be concentrating on JOBS.

We should be concentrating on NET WORTH and that is what we should have been doing for the last 50 years. So going into debt for crap mobiles should not have been on the agenda.

But buying crap mobiles creates JOBS.

We have a CASH FLOW economy instead of a NET WORTH economy. So buying junk that depreciates keeps the cash flowing and keeps most people in debt and we have been buying our way into slavery and the economists have not been saying a damn thing about it.

So talking about JOBS ain't the solution.

Maybe we should be lynching economists with piano wire.

They have not been talking about how many TRILLIONS we have been losing on the depreciation of automobiles every decade. Since 1995 it came to about $300,000,000,000 per year. So how do PhD economists and some with Nobel Prizes forget to mention that?

You don't suppose the economists are paid to LIE to us do you?

psik

 

[Samson]

Of jobs

Americans don't want to work.

Ask a Mexican.

 

[Flopper]

As long as people like you think it is - then it will remain so.
I bought a Dishwasher, Washer and Dryer...all 3 American made...all three are in the same store as all of the other brands.
Gosh - it took me like 6 seconds to Google "American made dishwashers".
Yeah - took a lot of effort.

Not everyone is in the market for big ticket items. If I were, I would definitely do some shopping around for American made, but I might still have a problem because where I live we don't even have a Best Buy, a Costco, or even a Walmart that sells major appliances.

When everything people use to normally stock a home with just essentials--bedding, dishes, kitchen and bath utensils--plus all the smaller items, that's where the big problem lies in trying to find THOSE products that are "Made in America." Again, to travel around searching would be counterproductive, and I'd probably come up empty in the end anyway.

Your just wrong Maggie.
You don't have to travel, The time it took you to type this post you can find brands made in America.
You just have to WANT to

Yes, there are lots of products made in the USA, see link below, however it's not that easy to tell which are American made. Many products are assembled in the US but all components are imported. The only thing American about some products is the box they are shipped in. I really think that if every product carried a large clear label saying, 100% made in the USA, Assembled in the USA, or Made in China or wherever backed up by a Made in the USA campaign I think it would really make a difference.

Still Made in USA.com - American-Made Products for Home and Family

 

[MaggieMae]

We cannot reverse this trend but we can slow it down. The corporate tax rate is too high. It's encouraging businesses to leave the country. Further there are too many tax loopholes in corporate taxes that reward companies for sending jobs overseas. We need to eliminate these loopholes and cut corporate taxes in half, however we can't do that without major spending cuts or raising personal income tax. A bill that would cut corporate taxes, provide some spending cuttings and restructure corporate taxes would go along way toward bring jobs back to America.

I think if the corporate loopholes are plugged and lower the rate, that would no longer encourage corporations to keep their business overseas (see link), and we wouldn't have to touch personal income taxes, at least for the time being.

Federal corporate taxes amount to about 300 billion. I think any serious cuts in corporation taxes need to be made up somehow, either through spending cuts or personal income tax.

The problem is they never pay the base rate of 25% because of the loopholes, i.e., GE and Exxon-Mobil as examples. Eliminate the loopholes and reduce the rate, and their net tax obligations might look at least slightly better than zero.

 

[MaggieMae]

I decided to stick my 2 cents in about the economy back in 1999.

Economic Wargames

I posted that on the Internet but I also posted it on the company message board. There was PhD economist at the company who would regularly tell people what he thought about economics. Several people asked me what he had said to me about it.

HE NEVER SPOKE TO ME OR SENT ME AN EMAIL!

I am going to be ridiculous and take this back to Adam Smith. Smith talked about enlightened self interest. But what did he mean by that? How about everybody maximizing NET WORTH? Every red blooded capitalist should be in favor of that. But Adam Smith did not live in a world with Freudian television advertising. Adam Smith never heard of planned obsolescence. Consumerism did not exist in 1776. But double-entry accounting was 500 years old even back then.

We should not be concentrating on JOBS.

We should be concentrating on NET WORTH and that is what we should have been doing for the last 50 years. So going into debt for crap mobiles should not have been on the agenda.

But buying crap mobiles creates JOBS.

We have a CASH FLOW economy instead of a NET WORTH economy. So buying junk that depreciates keeps the cash flowing and keeps most people in debt and we have been buying our way into slavery and the economists have not been saying a damn thing about it.

So talking about JOBS ain't the solution.

Maybe we should be lynching economists with piano wire.

They have not been talking about how many TRILLIONS we have been losing on the depreciation of automobiles every decade. Since 1995 it came to about $300,000,000,000 per year. So how do PhD economists and some with Nobel Prizes forget to mention that?

You don't suppose the economists are paid to LIE to us do you?

psik

So eliminate the depreciation loophole from the tax code. Problem solved.

 

[william the wie]

Bass-ackwards MM, depreciation of durable goods on individual tax returns are needed.

 

[signelect]

The China advantage is narrowing but stil there. As long as we have the Jack Welch mentality and the reward for CEO's who don't give a shit for their employees we get what we voted for. We, the voters, elected the wrong people for years R's and D's, you can't tell them apart. You know how to tell if a politician is lying, His lips are moving.

 

[MaggieMae]

Bass-ackwards MM, depreciation of durable goods on individual tax returns are needed.

Then who determines how a car will depreciate in value? While I realize that a brand new car depreciates in value as soon as it's driven off the lot, assuming the new owner takes excellent care of it, who makes the determination that it's worth, say half the original price just because it's a month old? Isn't that a little ridiculous? If there wasn't some mysterious formula involved, then the tax depreciation wouldn't be necessary. Correct?

 

[MaggieMae]

I would like to see good news like this more often. Rather than awarding huge contracts to overseas firms using "trade policy" as the determination, do whatever might be politically INcorrect if it means keeping jobs here. Let the EU solve their own unemployment problems.

Boeing gets $35 billion contract for KC-46A tanker - National Airlines/Airport | Examiner.com

For Boeing employees it means job security at manufacturing plants in Everett, WA and Kansas City, MO, where the old 767 assembly line was due to be shut down in 3 to 5 years. Estimates now indicate that plant may continue for another 30 years.

 

[Flopper]

Bass-ackwards MM, depreciation of durable goods on individual tax returns are needed.

Just what country needs, another tax deduction.

 

[Flopper]

I would like to see good news like this more often. Rather than awarding huge contracts to overseas firms using "trade policy" as the determination, do whatever might be politically INcorrect if it means keeping jobs here. Let the EU solve their own unemployment problems.

Boeing gets $35 billion contract for KC-46A tanker - National Airlines/Airport | Examiner.com

For Boeing employees it means job security at manufacturing plants in Everett, WA and Kansas City, MO, where the old 767 assembly line was due to be shut down in 3 to 5 years. Estimates now indicate that plant may continue for another 30 years.

Right. I have thought it a bit strange that we allow foreign manufactures to bid on military equipment. I suppose they needed EADS to bid or it would be sole source. There use to be so many manufactures of military aircraft, Grumman, North American, Northrup, McDonald Douglas, LTV, and General Dynamics just to name a few. There're all gone now due to mergers and acquisitions. I think Boeing is the only US corporation left that is capability of bidding on the big airplane contracts.

 

[william the wie]

Bass-ackwards MM, depreciation of durable goods on individual tax returns are needed.

Then who determines how a car will depreciate in value? While I realize that a brand new car depreciates in value as soon as it's driven off the lot, assuming the new owner takes excellent care of it, who makes the determination that it's worth, say half the original price just because it's a month old? Isn't that a little ridiculous? If there wasn't some mysterious formula involved, then the tax depreciation wouldn't be necessary. Correct?

No, psik is generally correct in that the tax code encourages stealing the wealth of the middle to pay off the poor while providing loopholes to the rich the capitalization of durable goods is more complicated than what he apparently realizes.

That is why mass production is losing ground slowly but surely to "print" manufacture. The propping up of politically useful industries is what the tax code is all about: what taxes and loopholes deliver the most votes in the next election. For runs of less 1,000 units printing units using a fabricator is generally cheaper than most current forms of production. So while the cost of Chinese assembly line manufacture is cheaper China is even further into cashflow accounting than the US and will be hurt even worse by the rise of print manufacture than the US

The US is running out of financial room to pull off its favorite foreign/economic policy of forcing opponents to overspend on their economy at the expense of population growth. This policy worked to some degree on France and the UK until they decided around 1870 that they really wanted to be our BFFs in the aftermath of the Alabama Affair. It has worked extremely well on Germany, Japan and the FSU. It is working on China and India but this cashflow accounting policy is not working on Muslim countries and the US population needs a break from this nonsense now that we are running out of money.

 

[signelect]

I do not own a home, I have expenses in my job that are deductible if you itemize but not if you don't. Where is the fairness in that. The jobs are there but not like the old days with more jobs than workers.

 

[MaggieMae]

Bass-ackwards MM, depreciation of durable goods on individual tax returns are needed.

Then who determines how a car will depreciate in value? While I realize that a brand new car depreciates in value as soon as it's driven off the lot, assuming the new owner takes excellent care of it, who makes the determination that it's worth, say half the original price just because it's a month old? Isn't that a little ridiculous? If there wasn't some mysterious formula involved, then the tax depreciation wouldn't be necessary. Correct?

No, psik is generally correct in that the tax code encourages stealing the wealth of the middle to pay off the poor while providing loopholes to the rich the capitalization of durable goods is more complicated than what he apparently realizes.

That is why mass production is losing ground slowly but surely to "print" manufacture. The propping up of politically useful industries is what the tax code is all about: what taxes and loopholes deliver the most votes in the next election. For runs of less 1,000 units printing units using a fabricator is generally cheaper than most current forms of production. So while the cost of Chinese assembly line manufacture is cheaper China is even further into cashflow accounting than the US and will be hurt even worse by the rise of print manufacture than the US

The US is running out of financial room to pull off its favorite foreign/economic policy of forcing opponents to overspend on their economy at the expense of population growth. This policy worked to some degree on France and the UK until they decided around 1870 that they really wanted to be our BFFs in the aftermath of the Alabama Affair. It has worked extremely well on Germany, Japan and the FSU. It is working on China and India but this cashflow accounting policy is not working on Muslim countries and the US population needs a break from this nonsense now that we are running out of money.

I'm not so sure I want to believe the US has been involved in such a convoluted conspiracy. It seems to me I would have heard more about this type of economic/socio-political maneuvering, but I haven't. Do you have a textbook explanation that would give the history of your scenario? No biased dissertations, please.

 

[MaggieMae]

I do not own a home, I have expenses in my job that are deductible if you itemize but not if you don't. Where is the fairness in that. The jobs are there but not like the old days with more jobs than workers.

Those who have no deductions take the personal exemptions right off the top of gross wages, thereby reducing the tax liability. Try figuring it both ways to see if maybe your deductible items would be more than your exemption, in which case you can itemize instead, if you want.

 

[Flopper]

I do not own a home, I have expenses in my job that are deductible if you itemize but not if you don't. Where is the fairness in that. The jobs are there but not like the old days with more jobs than workers.

Whoever said taxes were fair. It's not about fairness. The mess we call our tax code was created by politicians, catering to corporate and special interest groups, and voters. It's also about government trying to influencing our decisions. Congress decides homeownership is to be encouraged, thus a deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes. Marriage is a good thing, so there're deductions for being married. Divorce must also be a good thing because we deduct alimony. There are deductions for working and there are deductions for not working. There's help for the poor and help for rich. Is it any wonder half the country doesn't even pay income tax. No, taxes are not about fairness.

The only good tax is a tax I don't have to pay.

 

[MaggieMae]

I do not own a home, I have expenses in my job that are deductible if you itemize but not if you don't. Where is the fairness in that. The jobs are there but not like the old days with more jobs than workers.

Whoever said taxes were fair. It's not about fairness. The mess we call our tax code was created by politicians, catering to corporate and special interest groups, and voters. It's also about government trying to influencing our decisions. Congress decides homeownership is to be encouraged, thus a deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes. Marriage is a good thing, so there're deductions for being married. Divorce must also be a good thing because we deduct alimony. There are deductions for working and there are deductions for not working. There's help for the poor and help for rich. Is it any wonder half the country doesn't even pay income tax. No, taxes are not about fairness.

The only good tax is a tax I don't have to pay.

Well, I don't know when Congress will ever get around to a genuine concerted effort to overhaul the tax code. Not in my lifetime, for sure, but hopefully in yours.

 

[finebead]

You have to ask why the huge cost differential in labor cost.

The federal reserve has presided over a 99% decline in the value of the dollar since the fed was established early last century. This has caused huge inflation over the century. Wages kept pace in the first half of the 20th century, but purchasing power peaked for the US worker in the 70's.

Between robotics, computerization, and offshoring of jobs, there is now an excess of labor in the US, wages have stagnated for decades.

The average family is in a pickle. They kept up in the 70's - 90's by sending their wives into the workforce and becoming two income families. Now inflation has eaten through that trick.

The problem is the fed and inflation. They have been lying to the public for years, understating inflation to curb cost of living adjustments (COLA's) to social security recipients and govt. retirees (actually attempting to retard spending).

We look to the president to solve this, but he can't. The fed has to do a better job controlling inflation, so we don't have to push for such high wages to keep our standard of living up. This is why we have priced ourselves out of the labor market internationally.

Energy costs (oil), housing, healthcare costs, food, college tuition. Those are the big killers of the middle class.

We need a national energy policy aimed at getting us off oil over the next 30 years (at least reduce dependence, nat. gas?, could Boone Pickens be right?), and we need to curb increases in healthcare cost at twice the inflation rate year after year. We need fewer people, no more than two kids.

Neither the repubs nor the dems are addressing the real problem, IMO, maybe because they realize they can't. The repubs tried to overstimulate housing to get the economy going in the last decade, but that didn't work out too well.

 

[MaggieMae]

You have to ask why the huge cost differential in labor cost.

The federal reserve has presided over a 99% decline in the value of the dollar since the fed was established early last century. This has caused huge inflation over the century. Wages kept pace in the first half of the 20th century, but purchasing power peaked for the US worker in the 70's.

Between robotics, computerization, and offshoring of jobs, there is now an excess of labor in the US, wages have stagnated for decades.

The average family is in a pickle. They kept up in the 70's - 90's by sending their wives into the workforce and becoming two income families. Now inflation has eaten through that trick.

The problem is the fed and inflation. They have been lying to the public for years, understating inflation to curb cost of living adjustments (COLA's) to social security recipients and govt. retirees (actually attempting to retard spending).

We look to the president to solve this, but he can't. The fed has to do a better job controlling inflation, so we don't have to push for such high wages to keep our standard of living up. This is why we have priced ourselves out of the labor market internationally.

Energy costs (oil), housing, healthcare costs, food, college tuition. Those are the big killers of the middle class.

We need a national energy policy aimed at getting us off oil over the next 30 years (at least reduce dependence, nat. gas?, could Boone Pickens be right?), and we need to curb increases in healthcare cost at twice the inflation rate year after year. We need fewer people, no more than two kids.

Neither the repubs nor the dems are addressing the real problem, IMO, maybe because they realize they can't. The repubs tried to overstimulate housing to get the economy going in the last decade, but that didn't work out too well.

Good analysis. If the right and the left would stop butting heads over the major issues and get down to business, at least some baby steps could eventually get the country on better footing. No sooner does some plan for energy independence, controlling health costs, education incentives, and other job-producing ideas get laid out on the table, it's time for another election and the war(s) begin again, with nothing ever resolved.

 

[Flopper]

You have to ask why the huge cost differential in labor cost.

The federal reserve has presided over a 99% decline in the value of the dollar since the fed was established early last century. This has caused huge inflation over the century. Wages kept pace in the first half of the 20th century, but purchasing power peaked for the US worker in the 70's.

Between robotics, computerization, and offshoring of jobs, there is now an excess of labor in the US, wages have stagnated for decades.

The average family is in a pickle. They kept up in the 70's - 90's by sending their wives into the workforce and becoming two income families. Now inflation has eaten through that trick.

The problem is the fed and inflation. They have been lying to the public for years, understating inflation to curb cost of living adjustments (COLA's) to social security recipients and govt. retirees (actually attempting to retard spending).

We look to the president to solve this, but he can't. The fed has to do a better job controlling inflation, so we don't have to push for such high wages to keep our standard of living up. This is why we have priced ourselves out of the labor market internationally.

Energy costs (oil), housing, healthcare costs, food, college tuition. Those are the big killers of the middle class.

We need a national energy policy aimed at getting us off oil over the next 30 years (at least reduce dependence, nat. gas?, could Boone Pickens be right?), and we need to curb increases in healthcare cost at twice the inflation rate year after year. We need fewer people, no more than two kids.

Neither the repubs nor the dems are addressing the real problem, IMO, maybe because they realize they can't. The repubs tried to overstimulate housing to get the economy going in the last decade, but that didn't work out too well.

The fed has been playing with interest rates for 50 years with no clear evidence that what they are doing really works. The Fed began cutting interest rates from 5.25% in Sept 2007 to zero by Jan 2009 to stimulate the economy which was obviously a failure. I think this recession proved that when business sees a serious problem in the economy, low interest rates are not going kick start the economy.