Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No, it's not happening because the top 3% holds all the power and the other 88% feel lucky to have jobs.You are operating under this ideological delusion that if Company X offers mediocre benefits, that the really good employees will just go to Company Y with their better benefits package. There is no company Y. Every company knows they can get away with what X does because the rich won the "class war" two decades ago and no one noticed. I think we are down to 7% of private workers that belong to a union now? It is a rare, rare scenario where an employee has leverage on his employer these days.
That may make sense if this were a two or three or five year trend, but it has been moving in the same direction for at least 30 years. Are you seriously going to tell me there has been no competition for employees in 3 decades?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What's the difference between a particular gene sequence in an abstract sense and a particular gene sequence that exists within a cell? Can you explain the difference in a way that doesn't boil down

This is pretty funny. The problem isn't the itty bitty details. The problem is Romney refuses to say if he's going to play Poker or Go Fish with the cards, and is on record as saying he doesn't know

I see.   I'd rather give the poor tax breaks than give them welfare. As a general rule. Let them keep their money to live on rather than take their money and then provide for them.

There absolutely is Henry. 401k's are cheaper for employers. There is no actuary. They can choose to match or not match. All the have to do is make sure they pass the weighting test and file the form 5500. A basic 401K plan can cost the employer as little has $2000 a year TOTAL if there is no matching. For a pension plan it is much much more expensive, and in a pension plan the employer HAS to contribute, along with much higher administrative and actuarial costs.
This is correct, pensions are dead because companies can't compete with them. They are a fixed cost that never goes away and virtually always cost more...in todays world where most companies are cutting every $ possible to stay profitable you will never see them return. There may be a few pension based companies still out there but they are few and far betweeen, mostly very old companies and the it is highly likely that our government will end up in control of their pensions as the companies go under.All new hires at most companies that i am aware of are excluded from pensions...except for the unions that is...who never have lived in the real world.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is correct, pensions are dead because companies can't compete with them. They are a fixed cost that never goes away and virtually always cost more...in todays world where most companies are cutting every $ possible to stay profitable you will never see them return. There may be a few pension based companies still out there but they are few and far betweeen, mostly very old companies and the it is highly likely that our government will end up in control of their pensions as the companies go under.All new hires at most companies that i am aware of are excluded from pensions...except for the unions that is...who never have lived in the real world.
I don't think Henry understand the cost of running a pension. He does have a point though, that the 401Ks may be more conducive to people who are planning to change jobs a lot. Companies like ATT, PGE, Railroads, etc that have lifers, still have pensions. But a company like HP is phasing theirs out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think Henry understand the cost of running a pension. He does have a point though, that the 401Ks may be more conducive to people who are planning to change jobs a lot. Companies like ATT, PGE, Railroads, etc that have lifers, still have pensions. But a company like HP is phasing theirs out.
I do understand that they are more expensive. Isn't that the point of compensation: to give people the best value they can for as little as possible? If companies are unable to provide pensions plans that are competitive to self-directed plans, that means they are not a good value to employees -- which is exactly my point.Sure, I'd love a benefit package that gave me a lifetime pension at age 40, a free Porsche to use each year of employment, all meals paid for, and free massage. Companies don't do that because in the real world, employees make trade-offs between fantasy benefit packages and real-world useful benefits. On that scale, 401Ks are the clear winner over defined-benefit plans. Defined benefit plans are a dinosaur because they are not a cost-effective way to reward employees. And to get this back to the original subject -- Social Security -- now imagine that a company had a choice of personal retirement plans or a really, really bad pension plan. That would be equivalent to the choice between "privatized" SS and the current form. No sane person would take the bad pension, because, as we can see, even good pensions plans aren't competitive in the real world, much less one that sucks as bad as SS.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Employees ability to 'demand' anything is based solely on their ability to organize and bargain collectively.
This whole post was fairly surprising to me, and I think it's obvious that I disagree with this statement the most. We were never talking about strictly union workers, which only make up 11% of the total workforce. Did you mean to say that 89% of the country has no ability to demand anything? Surely you know that's silly. Maybe you were just being hyperbolic.
This is correct, pensions are dead because companies can't compete with them. They are a fixed cost that never goes away and virtually always cost more...in todays world where most companies are cutting every $ possible to stay profitable you will never see them return. There may be a few pension based companies still out there but they are few and far betweeen, mostly very old companies and the it is highly likely that our government will end up in control of their pensions as the companies go under.All new hires at most companies that i am aware of are excluded from pensions...except for the unions that is...who never have lived in the real world.
I think everyone knows that companies were moving away from pensions because of their cost. What this isn't going to affect is overall compensation. The employee still has the ability to get the overall compensation that they want based on market demand. Right now, the market demand is low, which is why many companies have the lion's share of the leverage. However, as market conditions improve, demand will increase and the leverage will shift to the hands of quality employees.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole post was fairly surprising to me, and I think it's obvious that I disagree with this statement the most. We were never talking about strictly union workers, which only make up 11% of the total workforce. Did you mean to say that 89% of the country has no ability to demand anything? Surely you know that's silly. Maybe you were just being hyperbolic.I think everyone knows that companies were moving away from pensions because of their cost. What this isn't going to affect is overall compensation. The employee still has the ability to get the overall compensation that they want based on market demand. Right now, the market demand is low, which is why many companies have the lion's share of the leverage. However, as market conditions improve, demand will increase and the leverage will shift to the hands of quality employees.
right, I mean, that explains the last three years. that massive, rapidly expanding gap in scram's chart? not so much.
Link to post
Share on other sites
right, I mean, that explains the last three years. that massive, rapidly expanding gap in scram's chart? not so much.
a) why is it badb) what should be done about itgo
Link to post
Share on other sites
a) why is it badb) what should be done about itgo
I don't know if it's good or bad (in the extreme, it IS bad, but is this extreme?) and I don't have any solutions. I'm just saying it isn't a phenomenon that stems from this recession, it's something that's been happening over the last 30+ years.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish I could see what that chart is actually trying to illustrate (difference between the whole and the bottom 90%)
Seriously?It shows the difference of income growth between the top 10% and the bottom 90%. The red line is inclusive of everyone, the blue line is controlled for everyone but the top 10%. The disparity between red and blue illustrates the enormous growth of income disparity between the top 10% and everyone else, whereas in years past, that same relative figure closely tracked.
Of course the rich are going to make the lions share of the increase...they always have throughout history..even in Communist China and Russia. Especially in communist countries...
No. Like poor Strategy, you don't understand the chart. The rich will always have more than the poor. That isn't in question, that is fair. What is a new phenomenon in our modern era is that the mega-rich are taking such a disproportionate share of the available pie, at the direct expense of ninety percent of the population. This isn't the rich getting richer and everyone else getting richer, too. This is the rich getting richer and everyone else getting poorer because the rich are getting richer. The only thing that history tell us about any of this is that stratification of wealth inevitably leads to rabble uprisings (violent or political) and the end of free market systems. American Capitalism has always been a very delicate balance of that small handful of smart people keeping the large masses of retards well stocked with bread and circuses, so they're too apathetic to take back power and enslave the producers. It's not a 'fair' system, but it is the best system as far as productivity goes and the only shot the 'poor' have a decent standard of living. It's why our poor enjoy a standard of living that would be upper-middle class in many other countries. The left may hate it, but trickle down economics is a totally real phenomenon. What the right doesn't want to face up to is that when it stops working, it threatens the entire show and empowers the left...The problem arises when the poor can no longer provide for their basic necessities- when the job market collapses, when their mortgages go into default, when they can't pay for their cable bills and monthly Bangbros subscription. When that happens, they begin to seriously question 'the rich' and they will always vote in people who take counter-actions to take their money away.What you see in that chart is about what it looked like before they stormed the Bastille, too. The fact that the US has been in elegant decay for the past 30 years only exacerbates this. Yes, it's been good for computer programmers, but the past 30 years have been dogshit for a huge segment of the working class population. We're reaching the breaking point. You don't have to see it coming. I do.
Link to post
Share on other sites
American Capitalism has always been a very delicate balance of that small handful of smart people keeping the large masses of retards well stocked with bread and circuses, so they're too apathetic to take back power and enslave the producers.
haha. "bread and circuses" is a pretty awesome line.Also, I don't think anyone mis-understood your chart. They are just not coming to the same conclusions that you are. Certainly people making from 75k - 200k are in the lower 90%. Are these people going to join the revolution?Once the economy recovers, won't people be right back to being apathetic?I'm sure that LimbaughGod agrees with me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

so scram, I'll ask you the same questions I asked of strategy. for a, your answer was so far the only answer I've heard to the question, in that if income disparity gets too high then the poor will revolt. you did categorize the "revolt" a little differently than most try to argue, though, in that it could mean through voting for socialism/end of capitalism, which would be just as bad as a physical revolt and is much more likely, so I could kind of see that possibility as much more probable than riots in bel aire. but then what's your answer to question b?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem arises when the poor can no longer provide for their basic necessities- when the job market collapses, when their mortgages go into default, when they can't pay for their cable bills and monthly Bangbros subscription. When that happens, they begin to seriously question 'the rich' and they will always vote in people who take counter-actions to take their money away.
based on the bolded we need to define poor...but funny. I do think there is some merit to the comments on a fair wage...i do think employers are short sited and end up hurting themselves in long run at times...but business is tough right now and will continue to be for the nearfuture so it is not going to change.I have said a thousand times and it is true - the little guys, the weak and the poor get hurt first and the hardest and it will always be that way.
Link to post
Share on other sites

That chart is misleading.The top 10% number that is always rising isn't made up of the same people. A middle class guy who works hard starts making serious money gets removed from the bottom 90% and his money gets moved with him to the top 10%.The bottom 90% includes people who retire and no longer need to make the big money.The bottom 90% includes people who make almost no money but rely on government assistance.Of course wages will go through cycles like any economic models, wage earners will make more, until they price themselves out, then they get fired and replaced and the wages decline and reset at lower levels and then slowly rise as things stabilize.The grocery stores in Southern California were talking strike yesterday. this is after a 2-3 month long strike a couple years ago that created a two tiered system, where the old union employees maintain their wages and benefits, but all new ones got replaced to realistic levels.The end result of the strike was the stores lost their 70% market shares and now have 25% market shares. People were creatures of habit and would just go to the same store, but during the strike they started looking around and whammy, the big chains are losing big time, closing stores etc.The strike for more money that lasted 2-3 months here destroyed their industry for themselves, but the industry is still going on without them. I'm sure 10-20 years from now the industry will be back with higher wages and a change will be required. But should the revolution happen, what gun would you suggest a familiy man should own? I mean 9mm is cheap etc, but can't stop a dog let alone a man, but 45s ammo could be non-existent. Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That chart is misleading.The top 10% number that is always rising isn't made up of the same people. A middle class guy who works hard starts making serious money gets removed from the bottom 90% and his money gets moved with him to the top 10%.The bottom 90% includes people who retire and no longer need to make the big money.The bottom 90% includes people who make almost no money but rely on government assistance.Of course wages will go through cycles like any economic models, wage earners will make more, until they price themselves out, then they get fired and replaced and the wages decline and reset at lower levels and then slowly rise as things stabilize.The grocery stores in Southern California were talking strike yesterday. this is after a 2-3 month long strike a couple years ago that created a two tiered system, where the old union employees maintain their wages and benefits, but all new ones got replaced to realistic levels.The end result of the strike was the stores lost their 70% market shares and now have 25% market shares. People were creatures of habit and would just go to the same store, but during the strike they started looking around and whammy, the big chains are losing big time, closing stores etc.The strike for more money that lasted 2-3 months here destroyed their industry for themselves, but the industry is still going on without them. I'm sure 10-20 years from now the industry will be back with higher wages and a change will be required. But should the revolution happen, what gun would you suggest a familiy man should own? I mean 9mm is cheap etc, but can't stop a dog let alone a man, but 45s ammo could be non-existent. Thoughts?
when did this thread turn to why the auto bailouts were bullshit?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The rich will always have more than the poor. That isn't in question, that is fair. What is a new phenomenon in our modern era is that the mega-rich are taking such a disproportionate share of the available pie, at the direct expense of ninety percent of the population. This isn't the rich getting richer and everyone else getting richer, too. This is the rich getting richer and everyone else getting poorer because the rich are getting richer.
Uh, in the graph I see, the line for the bottom 90% goes up significantly. Pretty dramatically in fact. If they were getting poorer, it would go down.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously?It shows the difference of income growth between the top 10% and the bottom 90%. The red line is inclusive of everyone, the blue line is controlled for everyone but the top 10%. The disparity between red and blue illustrates the enormous growth of income disparity between the top 10% and everyone else, whereas in years past, that same relative figure closely tracked.
I get the intent of the chart. what I want charted is the difference between the two lines. like, we're just eyeballing what the person is actually trying to get at with the chart you posted. does that make sense?
Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, leave it to scram of all people to start making sense in one of these threadsto shake's questions:a) it's bad because it creates a massive draw in aggregate demand and our economy is completely consumer-driven. as the lower and middle class lose ground in real wages they borrow to make up the difference (right or wrong) and then we have massive credit bubbles which in turn lead to recessions and depressions. as scram said, this has occurred throughout history over and over. the best and most relevant example was the u.s. in the 1920s. wages and personal income disparity fueled a giant credit bubble which eventually caused the great depression.b) progressive income tax, better regulation of monopolistic enterprises, better regulation of margin in all securities markets, better regulation of consumer credit in all forms

Link to post
Share on other sites
wow, leave it to scram of all people to start making sense
I don't understand. Is Scram normally not making sense?
Link to post
Share on other sites
1)progressive income tax, 2)better regulation of monopolistic enterprises, 3)better regulation of margin in all securities markets, 4)better regulation of consumer credit in all forms
These are too vague. You need to go into detail on each one and tell us what you think they should be. I think that one of the main jobs of the federal government is #2, so I'm on board with that one.What do you think the income tax brackets should be.What kind of regulations should be implemented on margin? How much are margin rules going to effect the lower and middle classes? I know very few middle classers that trade anything, let alone on margin. Most of the people I know are satisfied with their 401k and how it's managed.How should the government regulate credit? As far as I'm concerned the only thing the government did wrong in this area is giving BIG BUSINESS and BIG BANKS free money for making terrible decisions.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I'll give mine, then we'll see how close MK is, if he answers.1)progressive income taxI think all the brackets should stay the say, and we should add a bracket for either about 500K or 1MM at the old 39.6% rate. I would need to see how many filer fall between those two.I would also look at modifying for good, the AMT. But if it were done correctly, Buffet would never pay 17.1% effective rate. It should not, however, include municipal bond interest. If people like ross perot, want to derive the majority of their income from muni's I don't see anything wrong with that because it provides an incentive to invest in your local communities.2)better regulation of monopolistic enterprisesTo many details to get into here, but basically we just need to enforce regulations that already exist, and reduce crony capitalism as much as possible, as a start I would limit lobbying as much as possible.3)better regulation of margin in all securities marketsNot really sure how much the big boys use this, MK would obv have a much better idea. Maybe reduce the leverage % to 25%??4)better regulation of consumer credit in all formsIn this area, I think we need to monitor and securitize the credit instruments being used, such as CDS and how ever credit cards sell off their debt. If the banks aren't guaranteed so much protection, or afforded so much latitude, they won't take the risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
These are too vague. You need to go into detail on each one and tell us what you think that should be.
Speaking for myself: I disagree with #1 and prefer flat taxes and consumption taxes (hate the idea of taxing- thus disincentivizng- productivity), although I do question whether it's too late for that; if the horse hasn't already bolted and socialistic income tax is the only way.I agree with #'s 2, 3 and 4. It's not too hard to understand. If you examine the foundational elements that cause economic troubles and instability, they can be tracked back to a pretty narrow operating model. 2) ... is very difficult. How much success is too much success? I could probably bullshit an answer to that but instead, I'll just say I don't know (and endure all the bullshit answers everyone else gives to that question). What I do know is that the economic consequences of monopolistic practices can completely fuck entire large segments of the economy. We saw it at the turn of the last century. Open Source is the only thing keeping MS in check, but there's no economic contribution there. The Mart's have basically destroyed retail (and the MASSIVE economic engine it offered at the small business level) in the United States. Yes, a lot of this tracks back to the average US Consumer being mentally retarded- if you go to Europe, they still have Marts but not this problem- but the consequences of allowing all retail to be defined by one company has been the death-knell to an awful lot of business and has precipitated the ghettoization of a large part of this country, beyond the upper tiers. Drive through a non-affluent area some time and pay attention to what businesses are operating in their overflowing, mostly shuttered retail space. Score 1 point for every business that isn't a shack-restaurant, beauty salon, payday advance loan/pawn shop, cel phone shop, tax preparation service, currency exchange or liquor store. Now, imagine how that used to look in 1985- hell,1995. Monopolistic practices caused that. That is what unchecked monopolies do. It's easy to fall back on some grandiose ideology about free markets to answer for that hugely negative outcome, but is it so wrong to say "Hey, this outcome fucking sucks... Lets break up these monopolies..." ?In a way, this is where those on the right do what those on the left love to- cite ideology in the face of a counter-reality, as if one negates the other.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think the income tax brackets should be.What kind of regulations should be implemented on margin? How much are margin rules going to effect the lower and middle classes? I know very few middle classers that trade anything, let alone on margin. Most of the people I know are satisfied with their 401k and how it's managed.How should the government regulate credit? As far as I'm concerned the only thing the government did wrong in this area is giving BIG BUSINESS and BIG BANKS free money for making terrible decisions.
Responding to brv, guap and scram sort of in one1) The tax rate on all businesses should be 0%. Let's just end the sham that currently exists wherein the large, sophisticated companies successfully employ major tax avoidance practices because they have the resources to do so and thus pay very low effective rates while small business owners pay high rates on everything and get completely squeezed. Obviously taxes on all businesses get passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices or to their employees in the form of lower wages. Get rid of them.I think the tax rates on personal income should be lower across the board, of course, (with requisite cuts in spending--raising SS age being priority #1, medicare overhaul #2, defense #3--to offset) but still pretty heavily progressive--something close to what they are now, with a 5-10% increase on the top 0.1% and a 3-5% increase on the top 1% and a 3-5% reduction in the rate for the middle 3 quintiles. I also think income taxes should be adjusted according to the cost of living, i.e. if a person earns $100k/year and lives in NYC it makes no sense to tax that person at the same rate as a person who earns $100k in North Carolina. Yes, it's true that if you live in a city you get much more in the way of services, but you pay for that through local city consumption taxes and goddam parking tickets etc.The problem with a flat tax+consumption tax is that it's massively REgressive. Low income people spend 100% of their income on consumption and therefore you tax their income at 100%. High income people spend a fraction of their income on consumption and therefore you tax them at a very low effective rate. This is why the uberrich like Steve Forbes bang the flat tax drum.3) The regulation of margin comment was aimed at lessening the effect of bubbles, but it also allows the wealthy to grow their wealth exponentially. If e.g. I were to tell you that right now the scrap steel market is really fat and full of idiotic European bozos who have no idea what they're doing, and if you have a modicum of sophistication you can rob them blind, to the tune of $100-$200/ton (which is true), but then I also told you you have to be able to trade it in blocks of like 500 tons and it trades between $400-$800/ton (also true) you'd be like, "COOL! IN. Oh wait, SHIT. That would mean I need to get the leverage to swing $300k at a clip. FUCK ME. How am I going to get that much leverage?" Well, if you were rich already, you'd be able to get a line of credit and you'd be able to get in there and trade that shit and make a killing. Then you could move on to the next thing. E.g.4) Consumer credit includes mortgages, and obviously the regulation of the mortgage lending industry was and is a total joke. Predatory lending is still rampant in this country. Why these practices are allowed to continue I have no idea. You can argue that people are personally responsible and if you are dumb enough to take a payday loan or max out a credit card with a 30% rate or buy a condo for double what it's worth on an IO mortgage or an ARM then you deserve what's coming, but I don't see any reason why these 'businesses' need to exist. Banks' credit card practices were basically unchecked until 2009. It was a total free for all. Again, maybe you don't think the government should be able to tell Citi they can't raise rates on all their customers' credit cards by 5% for no reason, but I don't have a problem with that. It's simple consumer protection, and the consumer is pretty important in this country.And as Guap mentioned, the securitization of all these forms of debt creates a house of cards which allows lenders to pass the buck (which they know is worthless, but hey, they already took their vig so fuck em) onto investors, some of whom are sophisticated and know what they're getting themselves into and some of whom have no idea they've sold a worthless piece of paper. I'm not saying securitization of all forms of debt are bad, but the securitization of loans which are INHERENTLY bad to begin with (again, IOs, ARMs, high rate CCs) and then bundled with a bunch of other similarly terrible loans and passed off to investors as a non-risk asset (IT'S A BOND! IT CAN'T BE AS RISKY AS THE STOCK MARKET DERP)...yeah, that shouldn't be allowed.
as a start I would limit lobbying as much as possible.Not really sure how much the big boys use this, MK would obv have a much better idea. Maybe reduce the leverage % to 25%??
Yes, K Street should be blown up. If there's one singular thing responsible for the total and utter corruption of Washington it's the lobbying industry.If I told you what kinds of multiples most hedge funds operate with you wouldn't believe me. I ACKNOWLEDGE MY OWN HYPOCRISY IN THIS REGARD.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...