DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: _JS on February 14, 2008, 02:58:16 PM
-
February 13, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Totally Spent
By ROBERT B. REICH
Berkeley, Calif.
WE?RE sliding into recession, or worse, and Washington is turning to the normal remedies for economic downturns. But the normal remedies are not likely to work this time, because this isn?t a normal downturn.
The problem lies deeper. It is the culmination of three decades during which American consumers have spent beyond their means. That era is now coming to an end. Consumers have run out of ways to keep the spending binge going.
The only lasting remedy, other than for Americans to accept a lower standard of living and for businesses to adjust to a smaller economy, is to give middle- and lower-income Americans more buying power ? and not just temporarily.
Much of the current debate is irrelevant. Even with more tax breaks for business like accelerated depreciation, companies won?t invest in more factories or equipment when demand is dropping for products and services across the board, as it is now. And temporary fixes like a stimulus package that would give households a one-time cash infusion won?t get consumers back to the malls, because consumers know the assistance is temporary. The problems most consumers face are permanent, so they are likely to pocket the extra money instead of spending it.
Another Fed rate cut might unfreeze credit markets and give consumers access to somewhat cheaper loans, but there?s no going back to the easy money of a few years ago. Lenders and borrowers have been badly burned, and the values of houses and other assets are dropping faster than interest rates can be lowered.
The underlying problem has been building for decades. America?s median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Most of what?s been earned in America since then has gone to the richest 5 percent.
Yet the rich devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they?re rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, and thus stimulating the American economy, the rich are more likely to invest their earnings wherever around the world they can get the highest return.
The problem has been masked for years as middle- and lower-income Americans found ways to live beyond their paychecks. But now they have run out of ways.
The first way was to send more women into paid work. Most women streamed into the work force in the 1970s less because new professional opportunities opened up to them than because they had to prop up family incomes. The percentage of American working mothers with school-age children has almost doubled since 1970 ? to more than 70 percent. But there?s a limit to how many mothers can maintain paying jobs.
So Americans turned to a second way of spending beyond their hourly wages. They worked more hours. The typical American now works more each year than he or she did three decades ago. Americans became veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese.
But there?s also a limit to how many hours Americans can put into work, so Americans turned to a third way of spending beyond their wages. They began to borrow. With housing prices rising briskly through the 1990s and even faster from 2002 to 2006, they turned their homes into piggy banks by refinancing home mortgages and taking out home-equity loans. But this third strategy also had a built-in limit. With the bursting of the housing bubble, the piggy banks are closing.
The binge seems to be over. We?re finally reaping the whirlwind of widening inequality and ever more concentrated wealth.
The only way to keep the economy going over the long run is to increase the wages of the bottom two-thirds of Americans. The answer is not to protect jobs through trade protection. That would only drive up the prices of everything purchased from abroad. Most routine jobs are being automated anyway.
A larger earned-income tax credit, financed by a higher marginal income tax on top earners, is required. The tax credit functions like a reverse income tax. Enlarging it would mean giving workers at the bottom a bigger wage supplement, as well as phasing it out at a higher wage. The current supplement for a worker with two children who earns up to $16,000 a year is about $5,000. That amount declines as earnings increase and is eliminated at about $38,000. It should be increased to, say, $8,000 at the low end and phased out at an income of $46,000.
We also need stronger unions, especially in the local service sector that?s sheltered from global competition. Employees should be able to form a union without the current protracted certification process that gives employers too much opportunity to intimidate or coerce them. Workers should be able to decide whether to form a union with a simple majority vote.
And employers who fire workers for trying to organize should have to pay substantial fines. Right now, the typical penalty is back pay for the worker, plus interest ? a slap on the wrist.
Over the longer term, inequality can be reversed only through better schools for children in lower- and moderate-income communities. This will require, at the least, good preschools, fewer students per classroom and better pay for teachers in such schools, in order to attract the teaching talent these students need.
These measures are necessary to give Americans enough buying power to keep the American economy going. They are also needed to overcome widening inequality, and thereby keep America in one piece.
Robert B. Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author, most recently, of ?Supercapitalism.?
NY Times Editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
-
So Reichs solution to binge buying by the middle and lower classes is to supply them with the equivalent someone else's alcohol?
Here is a better solution.
Live within your means.
-
>>It is the culmination of three decades during which American consumers have spent beyond their means.<<
If I had a dollar for evey time I heard this, I'd end this imaginary recession by myself.
-
What is more interesting to me is the fact that the wonderful standard of living in the US is primarily a fraud. The efforts of capitalism have not brought anything but stagnation to most classes and continued poverty to the poor. It is the wealthiest who have been served the best, as always. If American capitalism cannot eveen serve crass consumerism and materialism - its greatest progeny - then what use is it except as a tool for the wealthiest to continue to grow wealthier and widen the gap between elite and the rest?
If everyone lived within their means then a good portion of the financial sector would have no function. Lending companies don't want people to go bankrupt, but they need people to go into debt. They don't market heavily on college campuses for nothing. They have loans for vacations, don't you know. Many small businesses and investors take risks through financing debt.
-
Living within your means does not mean that you do not borrow or use credit.
It means that you do not exceed a level of debt that you can afford.
-
loans for vacations?
seriously,I didn`t know about this
It sounds crazy
the thought of getting more into debt for vaction sounds like downer and pointless to do
like taking a loan for a wedding
starting life together in debt ,just doesn`t sound like a good foundation for marriage.
-
You do recognize the irony of your statement here, right Js. You're describing, to a tee, the efforts of an ever pervasive wonderful Federal government, and its means for power. By continuing to delve into areas it has no business, claiming problems it needs to fix, perpetuates more and more power maintained in DC. Without "the problems", there's no need for so much government
And before you twist my point into claiming how I think poverty isn't a problem, or poor working conditions isn't a problem, the point is how Politicians will consistently point to a problem/crisis, and promise to fix it, if you simply elect them. Problem never actually gets fixed, but the politician gets his power base, and keeps pertuating the status quo, in order to maintain and even grow that power.
Bt & Fatman were making good references to that in an earlier thread (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5391.0).
-
>>The efforts of capitalism have not brought anything but stagnation to most classes and continued poverty to the poor.<<
Right.
As apposed to what Communism has brought the poor:
(http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/34chino.jpg)
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/thompson/images/21bread.jpg)
-
It is a spurious argument to say that because communism has failed, somehow this means that capitalism has not failed as well.
Showing photos from the 1930's does not discredit something written in 2008 in any way.
-
<chuckle>
Sure it doesn't.
-
If you think it does, it just explains that you don't understand diddly-squat. I doubt that you could persuade a cat to try catnip.
-
Obviously photos from the My Lai massacre, Pinochet's torture chambers, South Africa's apartheid state, or modern Israel could be shown as a counterpoint to whatever vague notion Rich has invented. I'm not sure I see the point though.
I'll just reiterate what capitalism has done for Americans:
1. America's median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation.
2. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago.
3. Most women streamed into the work force in the 1970s less because new professional opportunities opened up to them than because they had to prop up family incomes.
4. The typical American now works more each year than he or she did three decades ago. Americans became veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese.
It should be pointed out that #3 and #4 have done nothing but destroy the families of this country. And why? To keep up with the real wages from the early 1970's. Nice.
Look at this report (http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf) on education by UNICEF. Notice Figure 1.3c Percentage of children age 15 reporting less than 10 books in the home. And then look at the combined table in Figure 1.3. Notice how well Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland do. Notice how poorly the U.S. does.
Look at Figure 2.0 the Health and Safety of children and notice the top 5 are: Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Finland, and Denmark. The United States is last. The factors are infant mortality, low birth weights, immunizations, and accidental deaths.
In actual education achievement, once again the U.S. is firmly behind Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Poland, and Belgium.
The entire report makes for an interesting read and one can see just one of the areas where the United States is falling way behind and has been for years. But...as long as the top 5% gets wealthier, that's all that matters - right?
-
Yep, yep.......and just think, things could be so much worse, if we adopted a Socialist economy/government/agenda
whew.....dodged one there
-
You do recognize the irony of your statement here, right Js. You're describing, to a tee, the efforts of an ever pervasive wonderful Federal government, and its means for power. By continuing to delve into areas it has no business, claiming problems it needs to fix, perpetuates more and more power maintained in DC. Without "the problems", there's no need for so much government
And before you twist my point into claiming how I think poverty isn't a problem, or poor working conditions isn't a problem, the point is how Politicians will consistently point to a problem/crisis, and promise to fix it, if you simply elect them. Problem never actually gets fixed, but the politician gets his power base, and keeps pertuating the status quo, in order to maintain and even grow that power.
Bt & Fatman were making good references to that in an earlier thread (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5391.0).
I'm not describing that at all. Capitalism is what it is. What would making it more free do? We've seen it in the Southern Cone and it only made for an even wider gap between the wealthy and the poor, with nearly no middle class. I'll grant that the federal government is often stumbling and sometimes just a partner in corporate corruption, but I don't see the solution as turning everything loose.
If a dam has flaws and you've got the wrong people making decisions for controlling the operations of the dam, the best decision is not to simply destroy the entire dam and flood the homes below.
-
Living within your means does not mean that you do not borrow or use credit.
It means that you do not exceed a level of debt that you can afford.
_______________________________________________________________-
I think it`s great we`re talking about this
I tried many times ,but it never goes anywhere
what i focus on is that`s it`s part of our culture to not worry about debt.
ex. ifi say I can`t buy that now I`m broke
the most common answer WILL be "charge it"
very few will back off .
hopefully now people will stop saying charge it.
I still use a real computer monitor
people bug me for not using flat screen
folks think it crazy for me to wait for something to break to replace than when it`s fashionable
-
Yep, yep.......and just think, things could be so much worse, if we adopted a Socialist economy/government/agenda
whew.....dodged one there
A simpleton statement.
-
Yea, yea....we righties apparently can't do nuance, while everything apparently requires it ::)
-
Living within your means does not mean that you do not borrow or use credit.
It means that you do not exceed a level of debt that you can afford.
_______________________________________________________________-
I think it`s great we`re talking about this
I tried many times ,but it never goes anywhere
what i focus on is that`s it`s part of our culture to not worry about debt.
ex. ifi say I can`t buy that now I`m broke
the most common answer WILL be "charge it"
very few will back off .
hopefully now people will stop saying charge it.
I still use a real computer monitor
people bug me for not using flat screen
folks think it crazy for me to wait for something to break to replace than when it`s fashionable
People say to "charge it" because they make money off of it kimba.
Associates who work at Target, Sears, Kohl's, etc. are encouraged either through financial incentives or through a quota system to talk customers into applying for high rate unsecured credit (credit cards). Most consumers don't understand what the Prime Rate is or how annual fees and penalty fees work. WHat they do understand is that they'll get 10% or 15% off with their purchase today. It is a sale, just like a television or car salesman. Only you're signing up for an unsecured loan often at ghastly percentages between 12 and 23% (rates most of us would never accept on a secured loan).
Having said that, the liability works both ways. The lenders aren't 100% to blame for the current credit crunch. Though, they certainly loosed the reigns quite a bit and are feeling the pinch because of it. Most lenders never want physical property. In other words, they have no desire to reclaim your home or your computer. Such assets are a real pain in the ass for most lenders (well, maybe not Knuckles and Vinny). So they are often willing to work with consolidation companies or even the individual to come to an agreement.
-
Yea, yea....we righties apparently can't do nuance, while everything apparently requires it ::)
I didn't say you needed nuance. You need something resembling an argument with supported facts. Like data or reasonable logic.
Any idiot can say "Thank God we didn't adopt X or things would've been much worse."
There's nothing to debate there. That's like having a conversation with your ink pen.
-
funny you should say computer
my ex tried to get a loan and put her computer as a liquid asset
the loan agent said No
despite how much we paid for them
no computer has value
you can sell them at ebay
but the resale is hardly worth it
I never sell mine
I give them away or upgrade them to usable standards
-
Yea, yea....we righties apparently can't do nuance, while everything apparently requires it ::)
I didn't say you needed nuance. You need something resembling an argument with supported facts. Like data or reasonable logic.
Your problem here Js, is that they have been brought out, in reasoned format. You simply don't want to acknowledge it. Our system of government and economic model have prompted this little country to become the superpower it is today, in the matter of a mere 230+yrs. That's far shorter a period of time than any other country. the middle east is STILL operating in 3rd world mode, in many areas. Point being, that despite all this supposed negative ramifications of capitalism, it combined with the freedoms we hold dear in this country, as outlined in our consitution, are the envy of so many, that they have to come up with all sorts of demeaning stats and disortions in order to try and discredit it, all the while ignoring the power that this country has become precisely because of capitalism coupled with our constitution.
Socialism & Liberalism is simply "feel-good" economics. Well intentioned, but fatally flawed in so many ways, and demonstrated to be a failure nearly everytime it was tried.
-
>>Obviously photos from the My Lai massacre, Pinochet's torture chambers, South Africa's apartheid state, or modern Israel could be shown as a counterpoint to whatever vague notion Rich has invented. I'm not sure I see the point though.<<
Riiiight. Never mind Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jon Il ... 60-70 million dead?
I didn't invent that genius.
But hey, tell us how wonderful Communism is if only people like you were in charge.
<chuckle>
-
It is the wealthiest who have been served the best, as always.
So what?
Why should you have a claim to their wealth. I don't have a claim to yours.
-
come to think it what place did practice communism?
not the varients we know about
ex. soviet union was socialist not communist
china was marxist
these are varients
it`s not really communism
I`m not so sure karl would approve
-
>>ex. soviet union was socialist not communist<<
huh?
Source??
-
huh?
Source??
What's in a name?
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
They were socialist, not communist.
-
wouldn`t true communism require no money?
the whole setup of all these supposed communist places are all wrong.
-
1. America's median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation.
2. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago.
3. Most women streamed into the work force in the 1970s less because new professional opportunities opened up to them than because they had to prop up family incomes.
4. The typical American now works more each year than he or she did three decades ago. Americans became veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese.
It should be pointed out that #3 and #4 have done nothing but destroy the families of this country. And why? To keep up with the real wages from the early 1970's. Nice.
Look at this report (http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf) on education by UNICEF. Notice Figure 1.3c Percentage of children age 15 reporting less than 10 books in the home. And then look at the combined table in Figure 1.3. Notice how well Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland do. Notice how poorly the U.S. does.
Look at Figure 2.0 the Health and Safety of children and notice the top 5 are: Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Finland, and Denmark. The United States is last. The factors are infant mortality, low birth weights, immunizations, and accidental deaths.
In actual education achievement, once again the U.S. is firmly behind Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Poland, and Belgium.
The entire report makes for an interesting read and one can see just one of the areas where the United States is falling way behind and has been for years. But...as long as the top 5% gets wealthier, that's all that matters - right?
EDIT: Wha? This is not what I intended to post. I made a mistake somewhere.
-
1. America's median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation.
2. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago.
3. Most women streamed into the work force in the 1970s less because new professional opportunities opened up to them than because they had to prop up family incomes.
Note that in 35 years the Workforce doubled almost with the introduction of so many women into the workforce, and more than doubbled counting the addition of Women and the population increase.
Yet the median wage has remained stable over this long priod in which about twice as many people share it?
How can you continue to think that the Economy is Finite when you also know facts like these?
For the economy to be finite it must have a finite size , no?
But there is no real finite size ,the real size of the economy is in constant flux and depends on the number of participants , if it were a finite amount, the participants would divide the economy an the share of each would diminish as the number of participants grew.
As you have ponted out , this is not the case.
You already know that I don't consider the Economy Infinate any more than you do , I hope , because I don't want to cover that ground again if I don't have to.
-
February 13, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Totally Spent
By ROBERT B. REICH
Berkeley, Calif.
WE?RE sliding into recession, or worse, and Washington is turning to the normal remedies for economic downturns. But the normal remedies are not likely to work this time, because this isn?t a normal downturn.
The problem lies deeper. It is the culmination of three decades during which American consumers have spent beyond their means. That era is now coming to an end. Consumers have run out of ways to keep the spending binge going.
Don't panic Mr. Reich.
Our country has a Credit crunch every dozen or so years and a recession economy just about as often , nothing new is happening , this is just an new combination of familiar factors.
Nothing unprecidented is happening, this "crisis " will present difficulty in ways that people older than thirty should remember.
-
Didn't Soviets describe themselves as Communist?
I do understand socialists are basically Communists, but I'm using the Soviets own description.
Interesting question though, what is the difference? Is there any?
-
Interesting question though, what is the difference? Is there any?
===============================
You could google this and find out.
I am betting that you won't, because you appear to prefer ignorance.
-
<chuckle>
I thought it might make for interesting discussion. But hey, fuck off if you like.
-
Yea, yea....we righties apparently can't do nuance, while everything apparently requires it ::)
I didn't say you needed nuance. You need something resembling an argument with supported facts. Like data or reasonable logic.
Your problem here Js, is that they have been brought out, in reasoned format. You simply don't want to acknowledge it. Our system of government and economic model have prompted this little country to become the superpower it is today, in the matter of a mere 230+yrs. That's far shorter a period of time than any other country. the middle east is STILL operating in 3rd world mode, in many areas. Point being, that despite all this supposed negative ramifications of capitalism, it combined with the freedoms we hold dear in this country, as outlined in our consitution, are the envy of so many, that they have to come up with all sorts of demeaning stats and disortions in order to try and discredit it, all the while ignoring the power that this country has become precisely because of capitalism coupled with our constitution.
Socialism & Liberalism is simply "feel-good" economics. Well intentioned, but fatally flawed in so many ways, and demonstrated to be a failure nearly everytime it was tried.
Your problem Sirs is that you base your entire system of beliefs on anecdotal evidence that scarcely exists.
We are the envy of whom? What freedoms do I have here that I don't have in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or Iceland?
Your last sentence is a joke. I've shown you countries that are doing very well with socialism, they have better education for their children, better public services, better healthcare, safer cities, better transportation systems, a better quality of life than the United States (and most countries in the world) yet you turn around and say "it doesn't work" contrary to all the evidence pointing to the fact that it most certainly does work.
You have given no facts except that we are a Superpower, i.e. an Empire.
Wow.
What does that mean? Does being a superpower make the inner city of Detroit a better place to live for the Americans there? Memphis? New Orleans?
Does being a Superpower bring better healthcare to everyone?
I haven't seen it. If you were honest you'd admit that you've not seen it either.
So go beyond the petty anecdotes and give me some facts. Where is this freedom that the Danes, Finns, Swedes, and Norwegiens don't have? Where are these envious hordes? Are they mostly from third world countries in Latin America? Do you know the history of Honduras? El Salvador? Guatemala? Mexico? Do you know about the Governments that peddled capitalism in those countries? The right-wing death squads that murdered priests?
Let's talk freedom, but let's use facts and data - not anecdotes and jingoism.
-
Your problem here Js, is that they have been brought out, in reasoned format. You simply don't want to acknowledge it. Our system of government and economic model have prompted this little country to become the superpower it is today, in the matter of a mere 230+yrs. That's far shorter a period of time than any other country. the middle east is STILL operating in 3rd world mode, in many areas.
=================================================================
It took Spain from 1492 to about 1520 to become a superpower, when (1) Columbus discovered the New World and (2) Carlos V of Spain became the Holy Roman Emperor.
It took England from perhaps 1588 to 1750, between the sinking of the Spanish Armada to the conquest of India.
Portugal was a superpower by the late 1590's.
The Middle East consists of many countries that are 3rd world by any standards: Yemen, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and others that are in the process of becoming more advanced.
The US was extremely lucky because not only did it inherit a huge amount of natural resources, there was also a great system of river transport to get it to market, and no tropical diseases that were as fatal to Europeans as malaria, dengue and yellow fever.
Canada is not a superpower, despite its huge amount of natural resources, because it lacks the population, but the standard of living is on a par with the US anyway. Canada's government is as democratic as that of the US, if not more so. There are more than two viable parties in most provinces, anyway.
-
Yea, yea....we righties apparently can't do nuance, while everything apparently requires it ::)
I didn't say you needed nuance. You need something resembling an argument with supported facts. Like data or reasonable logic.
Your problem here Js, is that they have been brought out, in reasoned format. You simply don't want to acknowledge it. Our system of government and economic model have prompted this little country to become the superpower it is today, in the matter of a mere 230+yrs. That's far shorter a period of time than any other country. the middle east is STILL operating in 3rd world mode, in many areas. Point being, that despite all this supposed negative ramifications of capitalism, it combined with the freedoms we hold dear in this country, as outlined in our consitution, are the envy of so many, that they have to come up with all sorts of demeaning stats and disortions in order to try and discredit it, all the while ignoring the power that this country has become precisely because of capitalism coupled with our constitution.
Socialism & Liberalism is simply "feel-good" economics. Well intentioned, but fatally flawed in so many ways, and demonstrated to be a failure nearly everytime it was tried.
Your problem Sirs is that you base your entire system of beliefs on anecdotal evidence that scarcely exists.
We are the envy of whom? What freedoms do I have here that I don't have in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or Iceland?
Your last sentence is a joke. I've shown you countries that are doing very well with socialism, they have better education for their children, better public services, better healthcare, safer cities, better transportation systems, a better quality of life than the United States (and most countries in the world) yet you turn around and say "it doesn't work" contrary to all the evidence pointing to the fact that it most certainly does work.
You have given no facts except that we are a Superpower, i.e. an Empire.
Wow.
What does that mean? Does being a superpower make the inner city of Detroit a better place to live for the Americans there? Memphis? New Orleans?
Does being a Superpower bring better healthcare to everyone?
I haven't seen it. If you were honest you'd admit that you've not seen it either.
So go beyond the petty anecdotes and give me some facts. Where is this freedom that the Danes, Finns, Swedes, and Norwegiens don't have? Where are these envious hordes? Are they mostly from third world countries in Latin America? Do you know the history of Honduras? El Salvador? Guatemala? Mexico? Do you know about the Governments that peddled capitalism in those countries? The right-wing death squads that murdered priests?
Let's talk freedom, but let's use facts and data - not anecdotes and jingoism.
Js, do you have emigration data for those Scandinavian countries? After all, if they are as wonderful as you repeatedly state, wouldn't everyone want to go there? Are they? Are they attempting to? After all, I know many attempt to come HERE as well as the many who apply and do come here legally to live and WORK, not only those south of the border. What are the stats for the Wonder that is Scandinavia? Are people beating down the doors to go there like they are here in this downtrodden, only-to-serve-the-rich nation called America?
-
and yet, for all of Canada's positives, as you just stated, I do not see the immigration to Canada that I see here. Is it because, Heaven forbid, the United Statres is indeed a wonderful place that people want to come to live and work in? Canada has plenty of available land and industry and a good standard of living, so why aren't folks rushing tot go there like they are here. Please enlighten me. Seriously, I may be missing something here. (really).
I hear a lot of discussion about the negatives of our nation in this forum and if it is so dang terrible, why do people FLOCK in great numbers to come HERE?
-
Canada has had almost as high a percentage of immigration as the US. If Canada had a border with Mexico, I am sure it would be higher. The US is closer to Mexico than Canada is.
Canada is also less permissive about allowing illegals to stay.
Immigrants do not come because of our system of government.
-
Professor,
People are beating down the doors enough in Denmark that they elected a right-wing Government (remember that this is right wing in terms of Denmark, not the US) that specifically ran on a campaign of toughening immigration laws and restricting access to the country.
So yes, people are immigrating to Scandinavia.
A lot of people do migrate to the United States, but if you took away the third world border we have, which no Scandinavian nation has, then our immigration figures would not be nearly as impressive.
As an example, Mexico has a huge illegal immigration problem on its Southern borders (see the recent National Geographic article). If we used your theory we'd have to assume that Mexico is an amazing and desirable place to live. Of course it is not, it is just that it shares a border with some dramatically impoverished nations.
I've shown you the economic stats and international reports that show Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland as some of the top countries throughout the world across many factors that effect one's quality of life. You've shown me nothing except one dubious theory on immigration and Sirs' pseudo-historical theory on Empire.
-
Ok. I was not aware the Scandinavian countries were experiencing such an immigration problem. Not that I doubt you, but why don't we hear about this in the news?
-
Canada has had almost as high a percentage of immigration as the US. If Canada had a border with Mexico, I am sure it would be higher. The US is closer to Mexico than Canada is.
Canada is also less permissive about allowing illegals to stay.
Immigrants do not come because of our system of government.
I wonder. Is there data on how many people leave the U.S. to go ot Canada? or the reverse? That mgiht prove interesting data pertinent to this discussion.
-
Ok. I was not aware the Scandinavian countries were experiencing such an immigration problem. Not that I doubt you, but why don't we hear about this in the news?
Good question to be perfectly honest I have no idea. I don't find that American news outlets are very useful for world news. I really don't mean that as a slight to this country, I just think it is a disservice to the people. Canadian and British newspapers and the CBC and BBC seem to do a far better job with world news.
Here's an article from the BBC in November 2007 before a snap election Professor:
Danes in poll tussle over migrants
By Thomas Buch-Andersen
BBC News, Copenhagen
Immigration has become the central battleground in the Danish parliamentary election, which takes place on Tuesday.
Denmark's relations with the Muslim world reached crisis point in 2005 over a Danish newspaper's publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons.
The leader of the opposition Social Democrats, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, proposes to relax restrictions on asylum seekers.
The centre-right Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warns that such a move could turn Denmark into "a magnet for refugees".
Strict immigration policies have been at the heart of his government's programme since 2001.
Mrs Thorning-Schmidt, daughter-in-law of former British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, wants to give a group of some 500 Iraqi failed asylum seekers permission to live and work outside their refugee camps until Iraq becomes safe enough for them to return. She says Denmark has a special responsibility to help the Iraqis because of Denmark's role in the Iraq conflict.
Although most Danes want to ease restrictions on asylum seekers, Mrs Thorning-Schmidt still looks unlikely to win.
Her party, like Mr Fogh Rasmussen's, would need the support of the centre-right New Alliance Party to form a government - but it is thought to be leaning towards the incumbent prime minister.
Cartoon row
New Alliance was founded in May this year by a popular immigrant politician, Syrian-born Naser Khader.
He came to prominence in 2005 when he promoted reconciliation and religious tolerance to defuse the row over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Anti-cartoon protests across the Muslim world left more than 100 dead. Mr Khader, who has "democracy" tattooed across his right arm, remains a cultural Muslim.
His party wants to reform Denmark's tax system. The country has one of the highest tax rates in the world - up to 68% - and New Alliance is keen to reduce it. The party also wants better conditions for asylum seekers.
Rival Muslim candidate
Mr Khader contrasts with the other prominent Muslim politician in the race, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid of the left-wing Unity List.
Mrs Abdol-Hamid - who wears a headscarf - has upset many by refusing to shake hands with men in public for religious reasons.
There is absolutely no way we will bow to a terror organisation
Pia Kjaersgaard, DPP leader
At the other end of the political spectrum is the anti-immigration Danish People's Party (DPP). The DPP has been the driving force behind the tightening of Denmark's immigration laws in recent years.
It has angered the Palestinian Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Gaza by using an image of the Prophet Muhammad on one of its election posters, in direct reference to the cartoon row.
The image was accompanied by the text "Freedom of speech is Danish, censorship is not".
No TV debate
In an interview with Jyllandsposten, the newspaper that originally published the cartoons, a spokesman for the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Khaled al-Jabbari, said "this party is dealing with the blood of the Danish people. That is dangerous."
"The DPP will not only be an enemy of the Al-Aqsa Brigade. They will be an enemy of many Muslims," he added.
DPP leader Pia Kjaersgaard said "this is insane - there is absolutely no way we will bow to a terror organisation".
"We did not draw the image. It is a 400-year-old drawing of Muhammad that we are using to symbolise freedom of speech."
Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said "Al-Aqsa Brigade is a terror organisation that should not dictate the political life of Denmark".
Although he is the favourite to win the election, Mr Fogh Rasmussen has been reluctant to meet Mrs Thorning-Schmidt at live debates. He says such debates are too populist and distract from real politics.
However, some commentators suggest that his real concern is that Mrs Thorning-Schmidt, the first female prime ministerial candidate in Denmark, has a better connection with the audience. "
Whoever wins, immigration will remain high up Denmark's political agenda.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7087474.stm
Published: 2007/11/13 13:21:13 GMT
? BBC MMVIII
-
Well, I see the U.S. is not alone in having weirdos in the political arena.
-
Well, I see the U.S. is not alone in having weirdos in the political arena.
No. And like any state they have problems with racism too. I've never claimed that the Scandinavian nations are perfect or even close. I just think that they run a state far better than we do. Plus I have stats to show it.
-
Well, I see the U.S. is not alone in having weirdos in the political arena.
No. And like any state they have problems with racism too. I've never claimed that the Scandinavian nations are perfect or even close. I just think that they run a state far better than we do. Plus I have stats to show it.
"better" is subjective, is it not?
-
I fail to see the problem here with capitalism. If you work hard, you can accomplish almost anything. If you are lazy, then you don't. Which is justifiable, I believe.
Socialism and communism do not reward you for being industrious. People like Bill Gates started with zip and are now wealthy. Nothing wrong wit that, that I can see anyway. In this country, people without advanced degrees have and do become millionaires and are successful in every other sense of the word. Can that happen in pure socialism/communism. Also, doesn't socialism basically protect the lazy?
-
it`ll protect the lazy till they become a problem
same as here
-
People like Bill Gates started with zip and are now wealthy.
Bill Gates was not poor.
Unless it's common among the poor to have a mother who's full time job was giving away the father's excess millions.
Bill Gates was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was never poor, or even middle class. He was born into a wealthy family.
-
>>Ok. I was not aware the Scandinavian countries were experiencing such an immigration problem.<<
The problem professor, is that the immagrant are overwhelming Muslim. I've pointed this out several times. The birth rates in Europe are below replacement levels, and it takes workers to keep the welfare state up and running. This crap JS and BO are pushing is just that. It's not that Scandinavia is so wonderful, it's the same thing all over Europe.
-
People like Bill Gates started with zip and are now wealthy.
Bill Gates was not poor.
Unless it's common among the poor to have a mother who's full time job was giving away the father's excess millions.
Bill Gates was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was never poor, or even middle class. He was born into a wealthy family.
Sigh, shall I come up with many others then? You're picking at straws here. How about another one of my heroes, Ben Carson? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson.
Are you then saying that there are not many people in this nation that have started with little and become financially successful? Can this happen under pure socialism/communism? Where is the incentive to be productive in that schema?
-
"...and no tropical diseases that were as fatal to Europeans as malaria, dengue and yellow fever."
Yellow fever and Malaria used to be endimic to the Southern US, DDT was really good for that but they can come back and Dengue is coming with them.
-
People like Bill Gates started with zip and are now wealthy.
Bill Gates was not poor.
Unless it's common among the poor to have a mother who's full time job was giving away the father's excess millions.
Bill Gates was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was never poor, or even middle class. He was born into a wealthy family.
Sigh, shall I come up with many others then? You're picking at straws here. How about another one of my heroes, Ben Carson? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson.
Are you then saying that there are not many people in this nation that have started with little and become financially successful? Can this happen under pure socialism/communism? Where is the incentive to be productive in that schema?
You do realize that Maersk, Nokia, and Ikea are all Scandinavian companies, right? Last time I checked they were all rather successful and innovative.
-
Three firms from a dinky country.
But you did not answer my question.
-
People like Bill Gates started with zip and are now wealthy.
Bill Gates was not poor.
Unless it's common among the poor to have a mother who's full time job was giving away the father's excess millions.
Bill Gates was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was never poor, or even middle class. He was born into a wealthy family.
Sigh, shall I come up with many others then? You're picking at straws here. How about another one of my heroes, Ben Carson? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson.
Are you then saying that there are not many people in this nation that have started with little and become financially successful? Can this happen under pure socialism/communism? Where is the incentive to be productive in that schema?
You do realize that Maersk, Nokia, and Ikea are all Scandinavian companies, right? Last time I checked they were all rather successful and innovative.
Are these three good examples of Scandinavian socailst policy?
How?
-
Canada is not a superpower, despite its huge amount of natural resources, because it lacks the population, but the standard of living is on a par with the US anyway. Canada's government is as democratic as that of the US, if not more so. There are more than two viable parties in most provinces, anyway.
Well, let's see - the number of Americans who emigrated to Canada in 2004 was 6,470.
The number of Canadians who emigrated to the United States the same year was 15,569.
Considering Canada has a population only the size of California, that doesn't argue well for Canada's superiority in quality of life...
http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/data.cfm
We are the envy of whom? What freedoms do I have here that I don't have in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or Iceland?
The freedom to spend the fruits of my labor on my own benefit, and on things and people who are important to me, rather than on what's important to the government, to the benefit of parasites like you, who are decidedly not important to me...
-
America?s median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago.
By the way, if wages haven't risen in 35 years, why am I always hearing about our need for a massive influx of immigrants? The last I heard, the price of commodities rises with respect to their scarcity. If labor is so scarce we desperately need to import it, why isn't the price of it rising?
Robert Reich is a known idiot. Even if you're going to accept his contention that wages haven't risen since 1973, ask yourself how many Americans owned cell phones, VCR's, computers, iPods, new cars from under $12,000 in today's dollars, and compare the size of the typical home in 1973 with the size of the average home in 2008.
Wages are by far not the only measure of how much the quality of life has improved in the last 35 years. Even if wages haven't improved, they can be spent on life-enhancing goods and services that couldn't have been had at any price in 1973.
-
So Reichs solution to binge buying by the middle and lower classes is to supply them with the equivalent someone else's alcohol?
Here is a better solution.
Live within your means.
While this is excellent advice, it is also a difficult lesson to learn. It is compounded by the fact that corporations in America BY LAW find that people learning that lesson is antithetical to the end goals of a corporation.
Since it is so antithetical, it is part of a corporation's existence to make sure that no WANTS to learn that lesson so they use advertising to convince Americans that they should be one of several types of afraid. Afraid that the Jones' are getting ahead. Afraid that the objects of their sexual desire will not desire them. Afraid their kids won't be healthy or get into the best school or be stupid...and on and on.
So, when Momma comes in and says that everyone else at work is driving a new car and the old car is losing oil pressure, a lot of times, Daddy is going to do whatever it takes to make sure Momma is happy 'cause she already puts up with a lot and everyone wants the best for the Momma and nobody wants the Boy to be riding in a possible deathtrap.
So, the Daddy is going to try and swing a new car however possible because if he tries to stick to his guns and "live within his means", he's probably going to get a lot of stink eyes from other Mommies and perhaps his own Mommy and then he's got to walk around with that on him constantly along with other god damned thing he's got to think about and worry about.
However, none this changes the fact that those in the top 5% who are so desperately wanting tax cuts to allegedly invest in the American economy are doing nothing of the sort. The rising tide has not lifted all boats but to the contrary have actually helped some build new boats of paper and have dashed them against the rocks.
The most mind-boggling thought to me in this whole thing is that the top 5% could have averted all this for literally PENNIES on the dollar and still had the same exact lives they lead now replete with $6000 shower curtains by simply raking in money by the same PERCENTAGE rather than by the larger AMOUNTS.
But no, they felt that as the owners or CEO's they somehow were more valuable to the corporation than the guy who turns the nut, pushes the broom or shuffles the papers when in reality, they aren't.
-
Yep, spend whatever you need to spend, so long as it makes everyone feel better......screw the consequences. That's for Government to deal with >:(
-
[snippage]
Gah, what a steaming pile.
-
That's an understatement
-
It's tough to be a man baby!
dc cab
-
>>Gah, what a steaming pile.<<
Elephant size.
(http://static.flickr.com/2384/1801392364_82ffb00edf_m.jpg)
-
".........However, none this changes the fact that those in the top 5% who are so desperately wanting tax cuts to allegedly invest in the American economy are doing nothing of the sort.
They arn't?
News to me , what are they doing?
-
".........However, none this changes the fact that those in the top 5% who are so desperately wanting tax cuts to allegedly invest in the American economy are doing nothing of the sort.
They arn't? News to me , what are they doing?
You didn't hear Plane? It's the lower 50% employing.....the lower 50% :-\
-
".........However, none this changes the fact that those in the top 5% who are so desperately wanting tax cuts to allegedly invest in the American economy are doing nothing of the sort.
They arn't? News to me , what are they doing?
You didn't hear Plane? It's the lower 50% employing.....the lower 50% :-\
Yeah, like those 74,000 that GM bought out.
:-X
-
".........However, none this changes the fact that those in the top 5% who are so desperately wanting tax cuts to allegedly invest in the American economy are doing nothing of the sort.
They arn't? News to me , what are they doing?
You didn't hear Plane? It's the lower 50% employing.....the lower 50% :-\
Yeah, like those 74,000 that GM bought out.
:-X
No really , what does a wealthy person or oganisation do with additional money that is unhelpfull?
-
".........However, none this changes the fact that those in the top 5% who are so desperately wanting tax cuts to allegedly invest in the American economy are doing nothing of the sort.
They arn't? News to me , what are they doing?
You didn't hear Plane? It's the lower 50% employing.....the lower 50% :-\
Yeah, like those 74,000 that GM bought out.
and that has what to do with the tea in China?? What's the population in this country again? The # of those currently considered employed? And who largely employs them again??
-
The study of chaotic dynamical systems has many applications for the 'real world.' Think of any mathematical system that changes over time, such as the weather, the stock market, or the genetic distribution of a population. Whatever dynamical system you think of, Chaos Theory can be used to understand it.
http://library.thinkquest.org/2647/chaos/chaos.htm
-
and that has what to do with the tea in China?? What's the population in this country again? The # of those currently considered employed? And who largely employs them again??
74,000 people are going home and don't have jobs. I'm glad you feel ok with that since it is just a small percentage of our god-blessed population of this oh=so=great nation.
-
"With 46,000 of the 74,000 workers already eligible for retirement, G.M. laid out several attractive options ? including retirement with full benefits and a cash payout of $45,000 to $62,500 depending on job classification.
Employees with less than 30 years of seniority can leave and receive fixed monthly payments until they reach full ?30 and out? status. Younger employees can depart with cash payments of $70,000 or $140,000, depending on years of service, in exchange for giving up health care and other postretirement benefits.
The range of offers may be tempting for workers who see GM....."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/business/13auto.html?ex=1360645200&en=133939772663439e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
-
"With 46,000 of the 74,000 workers already eligible for retirement, G.M. laid out several attractive options ? including retirement with full benefits and a cash payout of $45,000 to $62,500 depending on job classification.
Employees with less than 30 years of seniority can leave and receive fixed monthly payments until they reach full ?30 and out? status. Younger employees can depart with cash payments of $70,000 or $140,000, depending on years of service, in exchange for giving up health care and other postretirement benefits.
The range of offers may be tempting for workers who see GM....."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/business/13auto.html?ex=1360645200&en=133939772663439e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
And? It's somehow more attractive that they were paid to go away?
-
"With 46,000 of the 74,000 workers already eligible for retirement, G.M. laid out several attractive options ? including retirement with full benefits and a cash payout of $45,000 to $62,500 depending on job classification.
Employees with less than 30 years of seniority can leave and receive fixed monthly payments until they reach full ?30 and out? status. Younger employees can depart with cash payments of $70,000 or $140,000, depending on years of service, in exchange for giving up health care and other postretirement benefits.
The range of offers may be tempting for workers who see GM....."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/business/13auto.html?ex=1360645200&en=133939772663439e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
And? It's somehow more attractive that they were paid to go away?
Last time I got fired , the deal was much simpler , like "Hey , you got paid all the time your were here, you are ahead by that."
so ......Yes getting a consolation of a final pay worth six months work or so is better than the tipical firing.
When people are buying fewer cars , or cars of increased competition the company has to shrink , shrinking is better than dieing.
-
the early retirement package is a tricky one
this sounds crazy but I think some of those will lose thier social security benefits by taking it
I seem to remember quite afew people working for me were early retirees
I was in contract security and I`ve seen quite ALOT of people working under me trying to fulfil thier quarters to qualify for social security
-
and that has what to do with the tea in China?? What's the population in this country again? The # of those currently considered employed? And who largely employs them again??
74,000 people are going home and don't have jobs.
And.......that prohbits them from finding another job, how again??? Again, the point is who hired them in the 1st place. Other poor people??
I'm glad you feel ok with that since it is just a small percentage of our god-blessed population of this oh=so=great nation.
Somehow you're equating my position that no one has a right to a job with being glad someone doesn't have a job. Hint, they're not the same, and has nothing to do with the point being made on generally who employs who
-
When people are buying fewer cars , or cars of increased competition the company has to shrink , shrinking is better than dieing.
================================================
But people aren't buying fewer cars. They are buying fewer GM cars. GM could have made more desirable cars staring in the 1980's. They designed the most boring and awful cars sold anywhere in the 1980's. Instead of innovating, they decided to push trucks, because trucks could guzzle, whereas cars could not. They put leather seats and all manner of cushy crap on huge, lumbering, gas-guzzling trucks and advertised these as a proper way to take little Becky-Sue to ballet class.
GM had the ability to make reliable, fuel efficient cars like Camrys, Sentras, Altimas and such, but they peddled Suburbans and Silverados and Azteks. They screwed up bigtime in the 80's, and followed that with peddling trucks to people had no real need of trucks in the 90's. Only now are they coming around and building reliable cars like the Chevy Malibu.
The execs got raises, and the workers, who had nothing to do with the stupidity of poor R&D, got the sack.
Will there ever be a Chevy Volt? They seem to be spending a huge amount of money advertising a car no one can buy or even sit in at the auto show.
-
When people are buying fewer cars , or cars of increased competition the company has to shrink , shrinking is better than dieing.
================================================
But people aren't buying fewer cars. They are buying fewer GM cars. GM could have made more desirable cars staring in the 1980's. They designed the most boring and awful cars sold anywhere in the 1980's. Instead of innovating, they decided to push trucks, because trucks could guzzle, whereas cars could not. They put leather seats and all manner of cushy crap on huge, lumbering, gas-guzzling trucks and advertised these as a proper way to take little Becky-Sue to ballet class.
GM had the ability to make reliable, fuel efficient cars like Camrys, Sentras, Altimas and such, but they peddled Suburbans and Silverados and Azteks. They screwed up bigtime in the 80's, and followed that with peddling trucks to people had no real need of trucks in the 90's. Only now are they coming around and building reliable cars like the Chevy Malibu.
The execs got raises, and the workers, who had nothing to do with the stupidity of poor R&D, got the sack.
Will there ever be a Chevy Volt? They seem to be spending a huge amount of money advertising a car no one can buy or even sit in at the auto show.
The reason they designed these cars was NOT due to gasoline efficiency issues but for profit. Loading them down with luxury items like leather, etc heightened their profits.
-
The reason they designed these cars was NOT due to gasoline efficiency issues but for profit. Loading them down with luxury items like leather, etc heightened their profits.
==========================
Well, duh. They peddled trucks because trucks could guzzle and not bring down their CAFE averages for cars.
They made bazillions on these ugly things, but they had to know that the day of $3.00 gal. gas would bite them in the butt someday. AS usual, it bit the workers' butts, not the executives'.
Roger Smith got a nice fat raise every year he was pres. of GM.
Every years, they lost market share.
Every years they built crappy cars. legendarily crappy cars.
By the time the got the bugs out of the Olds Diesels and the Caddy Allante, no one wanted to touch them.
There was never a reason to touch a Cadillac Cimarron.
-
this sounds crazy but I think some of those will lose thier social security benefits by taking it
I seem to remember quite afew people working for me were early retirees
You can take the package, and defer collections on social security until you qualify for that. Or, you can defer collecting on the package and work a few years, sometimes the early retirement packages are structured so that the payout is larger if you wait to collect it.
You cannot "lose" social security unless you die before you are eligible to collect.