What do Republicans think a "good" salary is for skilled and unskilled workers?

[The Rabbi]

I'm as interested in a buck as the next guy... what difference does that make? My job is to point out the reasons behind the politics.

So why do you think employers should be different? They want to pay the least amount possible while still getting someone competent for the job.
Do you think the Democrats are intentionally keeping the unemployment rate high so businesses can pick and choose cheap labor?

Not necessarily, but I think politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are beholding and beholding in a big way to folks and organizations who have a vested interest in keeping unemployment above 6%.

How beholding they are and/or how they fulfill that obligation is an ethics question.

OK, so you must be a Republican. Because during Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 6% for most that time. Therefore, according to you, Bush was bucking the BIG MONEY interests you deplore.

 

[itfitzme]

Republicans complain about teachers and other union workers making way too much money.

So I'm curious. What is a "skilled" worker to Republicans and what is an "unskilled" worker? I would love some examples.

How much do Republicans think a "skilled" worker should be paid and should they get the same as what an "unskilled" worker gets?

Since 90% of workers don't belong to a union, do Republicans feel those workers are being treated "fairly"?

What I really want to know is how many Republicans on this board are unemployed and getting disability, Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps and unemployment. But they would never tell the truth.

Unfettered corporatism works this way.

A. Get rid of the competition, either through mergers or outright elimination.
B. Create an environment where there are very few places to work.
C. Create an environment where there is a lot of people looking for the same job.
D. Pay as little as possible.
E. Take home as much profit as possible.
F. Have government assume risk..privatize Profit.

Fellow conservatives...Sallow is right here.
Corporatism is not conservatism, nor is it a free market principle. It is called monopoly.
I hate how all across America every city is becoming "Anytown, USA" with the same big box stores, same chain restaurants, same chain hardware stores, same chain lumber etc.etc.etc
At the same time, the policy of the last 30 years where the financial risk is burdened by taxpayers via sudo government entities is also not a free market principle. That is plutocratic principle.
We don't have a free market in America. We just think we do.

Oligopolies, or more to the point, national and international oligopolies.

Monopolies form out of market imperfections, in particular economies of scale and barriers to entry. Start up costs themselves become a barrier to entry as, in order to compete with an established company with economies of scale, a start up must match that level of supply. The US has a history of anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws and, for the greater part, monopolies do not exists.

The key to monopolies is that they supply a product that is in considerable demand and they are able to control the supply to drive up prices.

Oligopolies are a different matter. They form for the same reasons as monopolies with lesser market imperfections. Typically, oligopolies in a market number in the few. A perfect free market has dozens of competitors, enough that they are unable to coordinate their behavior. Oligopolies enjoy similar but lesser economies of scale and barriers to entry, often on having established market dominance.

There are standard procedures and pricing schemes that oligopolies can and do follow to ensure maximum pricing. Price and quantity is not inversely proportional. Revenues are price times quantity and there is a sweet spot where price and quantity is maximized. As with monopolies, oligopolies do coordinate pricing to maximize profits. They are not entirely competitive. They function in a competitive/cooperative fashion.

Among the obvious oligopolies are the petroleum refineries, insurance companies and banks. One need only examine the products on the shelf at the grocery store to recognize a few major brands. The line between what is and isn't an oligopoly dominated market is not a clear line. It depends on the product, it depends on the market.

An interesting behavior in local markets is the advertising "will beat any price in town". This form of advertizing is a message to other competitors that the market leader will set the pricing. Attempts to lower prices below what the market leader has set will be met with a pricing war. A pricing war will be detrimental to all competitors in the market and, in the end, the market leader will win, but not without sustaining considerable opportunity losses.

An ideal free market with perfect competition and perfect information results in zero profits. It is important to understand that profits are after salaries and wages. Profits are after all expenses. (I still take exception to mega CEO salaries being considered as expenses, not profits, and this is a fuzzy area that is difficult to define.) Where profits exists, competitors enter the market, driving down profits, and all the companies make sufficient revenues to cover costs. Oligopolies can be identified by the existence of considerable profits.

And interesting point is that where oligopolies exists, unions are typically formed. Major grocery store chains, medical services, petroleum refining, and shipping are a couple of examples. The big three automobile manufactures had US market dominance at one time and there are market forces that help them maintain some level of market dominance such that the unions have remained intact. Government services is an interesting market as it has a unique pricing scheme. There can be no doubt that government has some market leverage in terms of pricing and government workers have formed unions.

Unions are simply part of the company, part of the supply. The mistake belief is that eliminating the union would lower prices. For oligopolies, pricing is at the level that the consumer is willing to pay, given the demand placed upon their wallet by the range of products that they must purchase.

Pricing is, of course, fairly fixed. In a perfect market, everyone would bid for that gallon of gasoline. This is inefficient so prices are set. With differential incomes, this allows for some level of market imperfection that allows some income earners to have disposable income. DVD rentals are not entirely driven out by gasoline prices. There is a balance that high income earners buy big cars and larger quantities of gasoline, forgoing the opportunity to purchase more DVDs. Never the less, when push comes to shove, BlockBuster doesn't enjoy the profit levels that grocery stores, major retailers, and petroleum markets enjoy.

All in all, there is a balance that is struck with oligopolies with considerable market leverage commanding higher profits than lesser oligopolies. Companies in truly competitive markets earn no profits, like the corner mini-market owner who's market dominance is localized to a few blocks around his store. It is, after all, called a convenience store for a reason.

 

[The Rabbi]

So why do you think employers should be different? They want to pay the least amount possible while still getting someone competent for the job.
Do you think the Democrats are intentionally keeping the unemployment rate high so businesses can pick and choose cheap labor?

Not necessarily, but I think politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are beholding and beholding in a big way to folks and organizations who have a vested interest in keeping unemployment above 6%.

How beholding they are and/or how they fulfill that obligation is an ethics question.

OK, so you must be a Republican. Because during Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 6% for most that time. Therefore, according to you, Bush was bucking the BIG MONEY interests you deplore.

And Joe has checked out of the discussion.

 

[itfitzme]

So why do you think employers should be different? They want to pay the least amount possible while still getting someone competent for the job.
Do you think the Democrats are intentionally keeping the unemployment rate high so businesses can pick and choose cheap labor?

Not necessarily, but I think politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are beholding and beholding in a big way to folks and organizations who have a vested interest in keeping unemployment above 6%.

How beholding they are and/or how they fulfill that obligation is an ethics question.

OK, so you must be a Republican. Because during Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 6% for most that time. Therefore, according to you, Bush was bucking the BIG MONEY interests you deplore.

It really helped that the labor force participation rate was falling from 2001 on.

 

[Leweman]

Explain how it should be Rdean. I'm just curious on your specifics for correcting what you see as a problem

U.S. manufacturing sees shortage of skilled factory workers - The Washington Post

Some say "skills gap" lends to US joblessness - CBS News

American manufacturers importing workers - Mar. 5, 2012

US Manufacturing Sees Shortage Of Skilled Factory Workers

One word: EDUCATION

Was that "specific" enough?

nope ... all those shortages are a result of people being told they have to waste a ton of money on a useless education for four years. No one appreciates 2 year skill jobs or apprenticeships. Money must be spent on going to college. haha. I meant how much do you think everyone deserves to earn. That's all. Simple right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Not necessarily, but I think politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are beholding and beholding in a big way to folks and organizations who have a vested interest in keeping unemployment above 6%.

How beholding they are and/or how they fulfill that obligation is an ethics question.

OK, so you must be a Republican. Because during Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 6% for most that time. Therefore, according to you, Bush was bucking the BIG MONEY interests you deplore.

It really helped that the labor force participation rate was falling from 2001 on.

Actually it was fairly steady. Until Obama took office.
Do you have some other excuse you can use now? Maybe say the incarcerated population grew and that's why UE was so low?

 

[itfitzme]

OK, so you must be a Republican. Because during Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 6% for most that time. Therefore, according to you, Bush was bucking the BIG MONEY interests you deplore.

It really helped that the labor force participation rate was falling from 2001 on.

Actually it was fairly steady. Until Obama took office.
Do you have some other excuse you can use now? Maybe say the incarcerated population grew and that's why UE was so low?

Why is it that you see an examination of facts as "an excuse"? Is it that you only look for excuses, rather than just examine the facts as they are? It is, after all, apparent from your tone that you are defending something.

I just noted that the labor force participation rate began falling in 2001. The BLS was studying in in 2006, before the recession began.

The labor force participation rate peaked in about 2001 then began to decline. It is really interesting and has been a point of study, suggesting some structural changes.

Here is the graph of the labor force participation rate and employment rate;

Here is an article written by staff at the BLS. It was published in October of 2006.

Trends in labor force participation, October 2006 - www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/10/art3full.pdf

It has, of course, fallen further since the recession. It appears that the changes in the labor force participation rate may have begun in 2001.

You are aware that unemployment peaks after the recession ends? The increase in unemployment was caused/part of by the recession. Surely you're not stupid enough to think that it was Obama taking office that caused the unemployment, are you? Anyone with half a brain recognizes that the recession began in December of 2007 and that this was followed by unemployment peaking in January of 2010 (unadjusted).

When we look at a number of economic factors, it appears that something was changing beginning in 2001. The labor force participation rate is just one of those indicators. The emloyment rate also began to decline in 2001. Curiously, the real dollar per capita government expenditures also began to increase in 2001. Some suggest that the 2007 recession is just an extention of the recession that began in 2001.

Really, is that how you see science and economics, a series of making excuses? Is this an issue that you've had since childhood?

Really, until you're actually ready to examine the facts as they are, instead of making excuses, you have no hope of understanding what is going on. But you know, they say ignorance is bliss. You must be pretty darned blissful.

You don't suppose that your signature pic suggests a bit of bias of your part, do you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What do Republicans think a "good" salary is for skilled and unskilled workers?

a salary is a price; prices for goods and services and salaries must be set by the Republican free market to be accurate enough to guide us the highest standard of living possible.

 

[The Rabbi]

George Bush's average rate of UE around 6% was not due to a falling participation rate. It was due to a strong economy marked by expansion and hiring because of good economic policies. Or at least decent ones.

Obama has the worst jobs record ever. The UE rate is higher now than when he took office. AND the participation rate has fallen drastically. So really it ought to be higher than it is.

I took your comment to be an attempt to diminish Bush's economic achievments and make Obama look better by comparison. If it wasn't then I'm sorry.

 

[The Rabbi]

What do Republicans think a "good" salary is for skilled and unskilled workers?

a salary is a price; prices for goods and services and salaries must be set by the Republican free market to be accurate enough to guide us the highest standard of living possible.

Lefties think a salary is another form of charity. So if businesses are paying less it is because they are mean and stingy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama has the worst jobs record ever.

yes the last I heard total unemployment was 23 million. Krugman calls it a depression. It's no wonder given that BO is anti business, had 2 communist parents, and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders!

 

[AVG-JOE]

So why do you think employers should be different? They want to pay the least amount possible while still getting someone competent for the job.
Do you think the Democrats are intentionally keeping the unemployment rate high so businesses can pick and choose cheap labor?

Not necessarily, but I think politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are beholding and beholding in a big way to folks and organizations who have a vested interest in keeping unemployment above 6%.

How beholding they are and/or how they fulfill that obligation is an ethics question.

OK, so you must be a Republican. Because during Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 6% for most that time. Therefore, according to you, Bush was bucking the BIG MONEY interests you deplore.

REPUBLICAN?!?

​

Please do NOT associate my good name with those tools.

I'm not a democrat either - whoring out tax-payer contracts and favoritism to special interest groups in general for campaign money is just as disgusting as whoring to groups whose shared special interest is profits alone.



I am a Liberal.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html



Economically and politically there's little that separates the two parties beyond WHO they are beholding to for their jobs and the only reason I usually vote democratic is that they at least talk about fairness in the market place and the importance of educating Americas spawn, even if they're still too beholding to various 'special' interest groups to really do anything about it.

One of these days, if the republicans ever pull their collective head out of their shared ass with regards to social freedoms and equality, I might take another look at Team R for federal office.
Until then, ass-u-me-ing that we continue having a political choice between two and only two "least objectionable tools", my vote will continue to gravitate toward the left.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Not necessarily, but I think politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are beholding and beholding in a big way to folks and organizations who have a vested interest in keeping unemployment above 6%.

How beholding they are and/or how they fulfill that obligation is an ethics question.

OK, so you must be a Republican. Because during Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 6% for most that time. Therefore, according to you, Bush was bucking the BIG MONEY interests you deplore.

And Joe has checked out of the discussion.

Forgive me for having a life. It's a short list of folks I'll miss my plans for and you Sir, are not on it.




That's why I appreciate you writing it down for me to look at later.

You ROCK!! USMessageBoard ROCKS!!! ​

 

[Rshermr]

Obama has the worst jobs record ever.

yes the last I heard total unemployment was 23 million. Krugman calls it a depression. It's no wonder given that BO is anti business, had 2 communist parents, and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders!

As usual, ed, thanks for the brilliant analysis. It must be hard to do with your head so far up your ass.

If you cared to look dispassionately at the economy simply by looking at stats, from the Bureau of Labor for instance, you would find that since the beginning of this recession, two of three parts of the economy have done great 1. GNP is growing, with record corporate profits. 2. The stock market has done extremely well. Unemployment always lags, after every recession in our history.

So, please give me some facts: 1. Since Obama is so anti business, why are businesses doing so well?
2. Give me proof of his parents being communist.
3. Left of Bernie Sanders, of course, is just plain stupid but give it your
best try.
I find this kind of crap un-american, whether it comes from the right or left. And childish. And stupid. But I have come to expect it from you, ed. Just more vacuous crap.

 

[The Rabbi]

UE, higher than when he took office.
GDP. Slowest post recession growth on record

WHich part of the economy is doing well? I mean other than the parts he bailed out and lavished money on.

 

[edthecynic]

Obama has the worst jobs record ever.

yes the last I heard total unemployment was 23 million. Krugman calls it a depression. It's no wonder given that BO is anti business, had 2 communist parents, and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders!

Yes the last I heard you were a pathological liar.

Total unemployment as of May 2012 is 12.7 million, which becomes a testament to the accuracy of the rest of your bullshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama has the worst jobs record ever.

yes the last I heard total unemployment was 23 million. Krugman calls it a depression. It's no wonder given that BO is anti business, had 2 communist parents, and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders!

Yes the last I heard you were a pathological liar.

Total unemployment as of May 2012 is 12.7 million, which becomes a testament to the accuracy of the rest of your bullshit.

sorry dear but U-6 is 15% and SGS is 23%. Want to bet, liberal???

 

[edthecynic]

So why do you think employers should be different? They want to pay the least amount possible while still getting someone competent for the job.
Do you think the Democrats are intentionally keeping the unemployment rate high so businesses can pick and choose cheap labor?

Not necessarily, but I think politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are beholding and beholding in a big way to folks and organizations who have a vested interest in keeping unemployment above 6%.

How beholding they are and/or how they fulfill that obligation is an ethics question.

OK, so you must be a Republican. Because during Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 6% for most that time. Therefore, according to you, Bush was bucking the BIG MONEY interests you deplore.

Bullshit, that 6% was from the BLS and CON$ervoFascists tell us that those BLS numbers are fudged. Bush's REAL unemployment was 20%. If it wasn't then CON$ervoFascists are full of shit!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

then CON$ervoFascists are full of shit!

how interesting that you don't seem to like conservatives who, like our Founders, were opposed to big liberal government.

Why don't you tell us your principle objection to conservatism. Thanks

 

[edthecynic]

yes the last I heard total unemployment was 23 million. Krugman calls it a depression. It's no wonder given that BO is anti business, had 2 communist parents, and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders!

Yes the last I heard you were a pathological liar.

Total unemployment as of May 2012 is 12.7 million, which becomes a testament to the accuracy of the rest of your bullshit.

sorry dear but U-6 is 15% and SGS is 23%. Want to bet, liberal???

U-6 is UNDERemployment, earlier you gave 6% as Bush's UE and that was the U-3 rate. Only dishonest lying scum use the U-3 number for Bush and the U-6 number for Obama. Total UE for May 2012 is still 12.7 million and you are still a pathological liar. Want to bet, CON$ervoFascist???