Working people are without candidates in the upcoming elections

No worker should vote for candidates that appeal to big business and accept workers have to be competitive.

Last month, US manufacturing cut 15,000 jobs in the face of a weak global economy and as two of our biggest export markets, Europe and China, begin to slow. Much of Europe is already in recession. Under these conditions, the private sector refuses to hire and investors refuse to invest in our communities as they only invest if they can make profit from their investments; social needs are secondary.  Meanwhile, the pace of work for the employed intensifies as bosses “squeeze more work from their current staff” writes Bloomberg Business Week. And “squeeze” they have; The U.S. produces almost one-quarter more goods and services today than it did in 1999, while using almost precisely the same number of workers. It’s as if $2.5 trillion worth of stuff—the equivalent of the entire U.S. economy circa 1958—materialized out of thin air.” Bloomberg Business Week pointed out in January.

Inequality in the US has risen at an alarming rate as the rich get richer at our expense. According to the Congressional Budget Office, average real after-tax household income of the top 1 percent rose 275 percent from 1979 to 2007, vs 65 percent for the top quintile and 18 percent for the bottom. It is no wonder that 85% of self-described middle class adults claim it’s harder to keep their standard of living than it was a decade ago.  For the poor, they live in a permanent state of crisis and depression.

And close to 7 out of 10 Americans believe the income tax system is either somewhat or very unfair and they are right.

The tax rate on highest earners in the US under Eisenhower was 92% Under Nixon, the Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $200,000 was 77% Under Bush, the Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income Over $297,350 was 39.1% - Over $357,700, 35%.

Capital gains, the profit of capital assets as opposed to wage income, is presently at a 15% maximum, the lowest since 1933. The Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains under Nixon was 27.5% - 36.5%. You’re not dreaming---life is getting harder.

This rising inequality has occurred with the help of the politicians of both Wall Street Parties. Democratic and Republican administrations alike have helped the rich loot the wealth of society and increase their wealth at the expense of workers and the middle class. The famed Savings and Loan scandal was made possible through legislation supported by both parties.

Alongside the political offensive, we have seen a war against workers and organized Labor whose leaders have refused to mobilize the power of their members to drive back this offensive of capital.  As the power of Unions decline so do wages and benefits for all workers.  The offensive against the public sector, blaming workers and services for the economic crisis is part of the attempts to eliminate this last Union stronghold.

The privatization of public services from the USPS to education and transportation, water and power, and, of course, Social Security, is a conscious effort to open new avenues for profit making; for the coupon clippers public investment crowds private capital from the marketplace and opportunity for further capital accumulation.

San Leandro, the small town where I live has had its share of cuts and will, like communities throughout the country, be voting in local elections in a few months.  Local candidates throughout the nation will be asking for our votes and telling us that they are the man or woman for the job; they care about our community and our quality of life. 

But it is not possible for an individual to be elected to a local council or school board and drive back the forces that are destroying our standard of living; they are too powerful, in fact they are global forces.  Some candidates claim they will put “our” community first as if the fate of a small town in California can be determined in isolation from the economy as a whole.

Where I live, the candidates are all really candidates of business, not workers or wage earners.  They are either in one of the two big business parties, Democrat or Republican, or they look to investors, venture capitalists or other advocates of the so-called free market to solve our problems; these are the forces the taxpayers just bailed out.  They also all agree that to save our communities, they have to attract business, attract capital.  They all admit that other communities are doing this and we have to compete with them.

But what does this mean? How do we attract private capital?  We attract it with low taxes, low wages and no unions or compliant and cooperative ones.  If one community refuses to offer opportunity for investors to profit, the investors will go somewhere else.  It is a form of blackmail, economic terrorism in a way. There are numerous examples of this blackmail like Caterpillar moving production from Canada to Muncie Indiana where wages have been driven down to $12 an hour in order for the state to “compete” with low waged workers around the world. In 2010, US unit Labor costs in manufacturing were 13% lower than in 2000. This is what big business wants.

And we just bailed out the private sector, pulled it from the brink of the abyss. In fact, for all the propaganda about the “vibrant” private sector, it has been public funding that has brought about the great innovations of the last century. The Internet, medical advances including drugs, electricity and nuclear fission are all products of public expenditure.  And so many other scientific discoveries came about through public expenditure including through military spending which is a huge public expense. Transportation, social infrastructure like sewage systems and water which led to longer life for all of us were all developed through state spending as were the freeways that GM’s trucks run on.

One candidate in my community claims that we should vote for him as we have to compete for jobs which will bring a better quality of life. Impossible.  Competing for jobs sets workers in one community against workers in another which weakens us and prevents the unity and building of a generalized direct-action movement that can actually accomplish these things. Another says she will promote partnerships with businesses so as they prosper, we all do”

Every one of them talks about being the one to make "tough choices”. What “tough choices” are they talking about? They are talking about implementing the austerity measures that big business wants.  It means they are prepared to cut wages, education public services.  These statements are an assurance to moneyed interests that they can be relied upon to defend their interests.

Any candidate for public office that claims to represent working class people should pledge that they would not support attacks on workers and the middle class and instead use their position to build a movement that can drive back the big business offensive.  While such campaigns start locally they must reach out and link with surrounding communities as part of the effort to build a generalized offensive of our own. The money is there, it is how the wealth of society is allocated that is the issue.  Rooted in such a campaign, candidates independent of the two Wall Street parties can be put forward for office that would eventually become a national political alternative for workers, the middle class and small community businesses.

By building a direct action movement that will ensure it will not be business as usual if our needs are not met, we can change the direction our society is going in and close this inequality gap.  We cannot leave it to Wall Street and their precious free market. This is crucial for our young people whose future is one of increased instability, poverty and wars if we continue as we are. As things stand, the prisons are what the 1% have for them as the US imprisons more people than any other country.

Any candidate that wants a workers’ vote should make it clear that at a minimum they stand for:

* No cuts, no austerity: for a massive social spending program to rebuild infrastructure with Union Labor at Union rates of pay.

* For a $15 an hour minimum wage or a $5 an hour wage increase whichever is greater

*Federally funded education through all levels and a student to teachers ratio of 1 to 15

*A public health care system, no one turned away. Eliminate the Insurance middlemen.

* End the corporation’s wars abroad, bring our young people home

* Make the rich pay for their crisis. Not to raising taxes on workers, the middle class and small community businesses.

Such a campaign would attract millions of workers and the poor and a direct-action campaign can be built to change the course planned for us by Wall Street.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Dalamar September 26, 2012 at 12:39 AM
"I believe as I stated before you tax what you want less of, therefore a reduced rate on investing suggests the government is pushing for private sector money to be recirculated versus sitting idle."--Michael In other words, an inverted subsidy on investing. i believe there is something in the current tax code that dividends reinvested into a company is not taxed at all. Revenue removed from the company as income is. Therefore if your goal is to keep money invested in companies, ergo the economy, then you DO want to tax dividend income more so there is less incentive to "cash out" "I'm willing to bet money invested versus placed into savings drums up a hell of a lot more economic activity on a per-dollar basis..."--Michael Even though we chose different paths, we still managed to find common ground.
David September 26, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Dal, you're wrong. Dividends are taxed, unless held in a tax-advantaged account (401k, IRA, etc). There is no "subsidy" on investing. That invested money has already been taxed, as stated, once, twice, multiple times.
Fred Eiger September 26, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Yeah, Kirk invested in Chrysler which was a poster child for UAW laziness; dope heads showing up for work only to sleep under the conveyor belts, 2 hour lunches down at the local dive bar, guys coming back from lunch with hangovers, shoddy products. Freeloaders? Yeah that UAW Jobs Bank was a vampire on the Auto Industry. Chrysler was also the first idiots to bow before the UAW demands for 30 years and out, so you had guys retiring at 48, 49, 50 years old and milking the pension dry for 35, 40, 45 years. Chrysler was paying guys for more years of idleness than they ever put into the system. But, under Craig and Mellor's distorted view this is paradise. This is the most idiotic statement yet, and Mellor has so doozies... "And personally, if the transportation industry what there was profit in that particular vehicle as owned by the worker as worker and consumer, we wouldn't be producing as many cars or vehicles based on the which brought the greater return" What do you expect Mellor? For cars to be produced at a loss? Really you are THAT stupid!
Fred Eiger September 26, 2012 at 01:10 AM
Exactly Michael. Take the Jobs Bank; paying guys 80% of their wages to sit on the butt and play cards at the UAW Hall. But, under Mellor's point of view these UAW guys were victims and we must be sensitive to their plight because all those management types were exploiting GM. Walther Reuther was a stinking Commie, plain and simple, he went to the Soviet Union for crying out loud and lived for several years. Then he comes back to the USA and sets up the destruction of the Automotive Industry.
Fred Eiger September 26, 2012 at 01:12 AM
Providing human shelter??? bahahhahahahaha What a laughable statement. Mellor, you really can't believe the crap you post. But, then YOU DO!
Richard Mellor September 26, 2012 at 02:20 AM
You know you are a disgusting individual. I should know better than to argue with a fool and this will be my last communication with you. Working in a factory is extremely stressful. GM, like AT&T used to have uppers that could help workers speed up production. In the 30's the company goons spied on and terrorized workers. generations of workers whose mothers and fathers built that industry, whose communities that nurtured it. The profits of the coupon clippers were made on the backs of these people. Belt speed was a major issue in the struggle to build the Unions there, it can drive you to take drugs just to keep up. You, Fred, represent the most backward ignorant elements of the US working class, assuming you are a wage worker like you said you are. It's hard to say because you're not the brightest bulb in the pack.
Fred Eiger September 26, 2012 at 04:35 AM
I'm taking that as a compliment coming from you Mellor. You attempt to project your foolishness and incompetence onto others. Working in a factory is stressful? Is that why semi literates excel at it? Profits of the coupon clippers were made on the backs of who? Henry Ford raised wages in 1912, way before the UAW and that disgusting pig Walter Reuther were ever conceived in a bubbling cauldron. Mellor, your ilk is nothing more than the constant echoing of mindlessness that destroys industries and lowers everyone's standards of living.
Dalamar September 26, 2012 at 02:58 PM
David- I did not say the world owes anyone a living, let alone 'for nothing' as you imply. I was connecting the dots of the mantra. We're told to work hard. By doing so, even if a person starts from poverty, they can achieve a comfortable living, up to and including retirement. I am pointing out that the conditions to achieve that goal are getting harder and harder. Average worker wages have remained stagnant since 1980, while executives have soaked up the difference of the growing economy. The wealth distribution has already occurred. It has been taking place over the past 30+yrs. The growth of the U.S. economy has been shifted away from average workers and has accumulated to an ever increasingly smaller group which has become known as the current top 4%. Pre- 1980, the mantra was true. The wealth used to be out there for everyone IN A CAPITALIST ECONOMY. Upward mobility was a reality for anyone who did work hard. Since 1980, stagnant wages have restricted upward mobility of the average worker. If anyone has the time, look into this article. Try putting this in the search bar. For some reason the link doesn’t work; Overworked America: 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil ...www.motherjones.com/.../speedup-americans-working-hard... So now the mantra of simply working more hours or longer is not a successful plan for the average American. Rather than a reality, the mantra has become more of a fantasy.
David September 26, 2012 at 03:31 PM
Except what you "point out" isn't exactly true either. Living standards have significantly increased for both the poor and to a lesser extent the "middle class." If there's one thing holding the standard of living from rising even more for the middle class is, yes, taxes. Even Liz Warren, the fake Indian 1%er who claims to speak for the downtrodden, charts out that the SINGLE BIGGEST INCREASE in middle class household expenditures over the past 40 years has been taxes. Not health care, not child care, not education, not housing. Taxes. If the middle class is running on a treadmill, it's because our bloated bureaucracy and overpaid, self-serving "public servants" have set the "incline" on max. And then to make it up, they propose taxing us more to fund more transfers so that all you can hope is that you now fall into the favored group of welfare recipients. Like the old song goes, they'll make us all into beggars because we're easier to please. and Mother Jones? You can't be serious. Anyway, again, you don't build up the weak by tearing down the strong, and as a final thought/question--why do you think the government exists? Is it to provide services as you seem to state earlier, or is it to enforce "fairness." If the latter, how do you do so without theft? Because that's what you're doing. Stealing from one group and giving it to another, solely because the latter "deserves it"--i.e. they are "owed a living."
Richard Mellor September 26, 2012 at 03:48 PM
I agree with Dalamar that a certain upward mobility, what became known as the American Dream occurred in the post war period but even during this period, there were many who were exempt. The civil rights movement took place at this time for example. But the reason for this I would argue was the exceptional situation for US capitalism after the war, the destruction of productive forces and death of 50 million people. The US emerged as the dominant capitalist power with about 52% of world trade by the early 50's. The productive forces of it's rivals were destroyed, and that of it's allies,Britain for example, severley weakened and indebted. The US has never had its cities bombed and productive forces destroyed like other countries with the exception of 911 and the Japanese bombing in Hawaii. The war was a great boon to US industry and after the war it flooded the world with its goods. Bretton Woods cemented this dominance as the US drove down the tariff barriers of its rivals through GATT and tied the dollar to gold. These conditions allowed US capitalism to offer certain reforms, benefits to its workers, especially white and Unionized workers; this boom occurred outside the US as well. I doubt that US workers called themselves middle class prior to WW2. The recessions in the early seventies ended this period and the dollar/gold link severed. Increased competition emerged once again with a rebuilt Japan and Germany.
Richard Mellor September 26, 2012 at 03:49 PM
I do not believe the conditions that gave rise to the American Dream will return. As Dalamar explains, since the 1980's it's been a rapid decline. Despite the rosy scenarios exampled by some here, they are truly dreaming, it seems pointless pointing to graphs showing this as some just ignore reality; they're OK so society must be. If you're poor, unemployed, lost your home, it's your fault.
Dalamar September 26, 2012 at 04:04 PM
David- Apparently you choose not to validate the statistics of my other post due to the source. So here is another source basically saying the same thing Study Shows Meager Increase in Median Wages Since 1980 ... economyincrisis.org/.../study-shows-meager-increase-median-wages-... Here's some quotes for everyone to review; “While average wage growth has remained flat during the past thirty years, median wage growth only saw a slight increase of 11%, despite each individual worker’s contribution to GDP soaring by 59%, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute. “ “modest wage growth is the result of the way the economy has been designed to work. Essentially, economic policy of the last three decades has not supported good jobs. The focus instead has been on policies that claimed to make consumers better off through lower prices,” study author Lawrence Mishel wrote” “.. our nation has seen declining employment (less people employed now than 10 years ago), stagnant wages (as this study shows) and a declining standard of living as the government and individuals have gone deeper into debt. We cannot solve a problem until we acknowledge there is one, and trade deficits caused by disastrous agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO are the reason for our economic woes, not the solution...” Wages have remained stagnant while the economy has grown. There is money in our ecomony, but it has been and still is going to an every smaller percentage.
David September 26, 2012 at 04:09 PM
Wages have been stagnant, living standards have improved. For example, the portion of wages devoted to the "necessities" (food, shelter, clothing) has steadily and significantly declined. Think about computing, cars, etc have all improved and done so at less cost. The one thing that hasn't? Education (mostly run by the government), and other government-run services.
David September 26, 2012 at 04:13 PM
And again, two questions for you: 1) if wage stagnation is a problem, what's your solution other than government sanctioned theft and transfer? If theft is your "solution" how is that any different from me helping myself to your pocket for my car window? Where does it end? after we've eaten all the rich? 2) if government sanctioned theft is not your solution, or can't be your solution, then your focus should be on workers themselves improving their lot, perhaps in conjunction with improved, bona fide government services (education, training, better roads, cheaper electricity by cutting stupid regulations etc).
Dalamar September 26, 2012 at 04:28 PM
Before 1980, the median wage always kept pace with the economy. If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1980, MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME WOULD NOW BE ABOUT $92,000, NOT $50,000. In the past 20 years, the US economy has grown nearly 60 percent. This huge increase in productivity is partly due to automation, the internet, and other improvements in efficiency. But it's also the result of Americans working harder (more hours, more jobs) without a big boost to American workers bottom lines. Even though corporate profits are up 20 percent. Increase in real value of the minimum wage since 1990: 21% Increase in cost of living since 1990: 67% One year's earnings at the minimum wage: $15,080 Income required for a single worker to have real economic security: $30,000 Median yearly earnings of: Union workers: $47,684 Non-union workers: $37,284 The economy has been growing, (look at the DOW) but the median income hasn’t kept pace. It’s because the remaining revenue is going to an ever smaller percentage of individuals. Regardless of the sources, the data is out there. The data will not change no matter how many times or what sources you research. As you have said once, twice, multiple times. Math is math.
David September 26, 2012 at 04:42 PM
Did I dispute your math? no. I said that there are wages, and then there's standard of living. The latter has improved, the former has not. Why? Lower cost of higher quality goods. Compare a 1982 Ford Escort to a Ford Fiesta. A 1984 Mac to a current iPad. etc etc. Yes, there's been a change since 1980 in the relationship between productivity increases and wages. Just like after 1957, bonds started yielding more than stocks, and that relationship stayed true until just a couple years ago. There are several hypotheses for why it changed beginning in 1980. I don't care which one is right. What you need to figure out is what is your position. 1) Is it a problem. You think it is. Given the improvement in living standards, I'm not so sure. 2) If it is a problem, what's the "solution"? You seem to think you can improve median wage by stealing money from higher income people and corporations (in the interest of "fairness"). I know that is false. It's been tried before, across countries, across eras. It never works. 3) If the government cannot redistribute wealth, then what *services* can it perform to improve the median wage? I would suggest government can perform services (or outsource them) that would improve the chances we see future wage growth. You, and "liberals" like you are hung up on "fairness." There's no such thing. Life isn't fair, never has been, and never will be. Conservatives or people like me prefer opportunity, not fairness.
Richard Mellor September 26, 2012 at 04:50 PM
David's definition of improvements in standard of living are cell phones and technological advantages. But we do not own technology, technology could reduce the workweek, give us more leisure time and allow us to participate more in the organization of society and work. Technology is used by those who own it to in crease the exploitation of labor and surplus value. A cell phone is not happiness. Also, what opportunity are we talking about? Most people get rich by luck, trickery, connections, etc. Not hard work. Look at the imbecile Bush, everything he did failed but it doesn't matter, a shiek or a relative stepped in and bailed him out.
David September 26, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Richard, a typical "worker" could have more leisure time if he wanted to recreate the halcyon days of the 1950's. In the 1950's, your average house was just under 1000 sq ft (compared to double that now), 70% or so of households had one car, never mind 2, one TV, one radio, one phone, no microwave, no dishwasher, no A/C, no central heat, etc etc. To recreate that standard of living would be pretty easy on even a lower than median wage (aka a part-time job). Especially if you lived in a real state, like, say, Texas. But even a higher cost, higher service state like Wisconsin, it'd be pretty easy in. People want more than that now. Are they seduced by marketing? Maybe. So what, they have a choice.
Dalamar September 26, 2012 at 07:08 PM
"You seem to think you can improve median wage by stealing money from higher income people and corporations "-- David Maybe it's just a difference of opinion on WHEN the "stealing" took place. Because by establishing the fact circa 1980 is when the change to median wage increases occurred, defines who did the "stealing" in the first place. American workers median income had a certain pace. The wages were increasing year over year at a given percentage. Then it stopped. At that point it went to executive's, CEO's, etc. etc. Now that American workers are trying to RETURN wage increases at or near the original rate, it's called redistribution of wealth, stealing or whatever is the catch phrase of the month. I know you claim standard of living has improved. But that statement refers to what American workers are doing with their median wages, after getting paid. That's irrelevant. The fact remains median wage increases has stagnated. While the rest of the growth was redistritbuted since 1980
Richard Mellor September 26, 2012 at 07:17 PM
I would like to hear an alternative viewpoint to this, but I agree with Marx that capitalist profit comes from unpaid labor. In other words, the system works like this: the capitalists pay workers a price for their labor power but get to use that labor power over and above the time during which workers produce their own wages in value. In the extended period they produce value that they are not paid for. That's why the capitalists fight viciously against lowering the working day. This is theft. If we think not, then neither is slavery or feudal relationships. Out of this relationship comes overproduction, recession, slump, when they have to destroy past value and wars in the course of competition for markets. The added value is not realized until the commodity is sold, hence, we live in a 24 hour marketplace. Wars are part of the struggle for market access. This is not to say capitalism did not advance the productive forces in relationship to feudalism.
Rob Raistlin September 26, 2012 at 07:21 PM
i'm so sick and tired of seeing dalimor's postings all over. dalimor why dont you get a job? or even better go to school and learn about business and economics instead of the koom-by-ya crap you keep pushing on us.
Rob Raistlin September 26, 2012 at 08:56 PM
dalimor what dont you get? this is the land of opportunity. why you gotta hate on those who made money? unions got to greedy and made paying for labor to expensive in the U.S.. why dont you take your frustrations out on the unions? all they do is encourage people to be lazy while the fat cats at the top of unions charge the good workers. unions encourage everyone to be lazy. expensive and lazy. dont you get it? then on top of that govt keeps raising taxes taking their piece of the action so politicians can sit fat and happy like union bosses. theres your problem buddy. now run along and go make a sign about it and protest someplace far away. i'm sure your parents would like to see you get out of the house once in a while.
Dalamar September 26, 2012 at 10:53 PM
@Rob Raistlin- I don't know why you constantly have to be so hostile to those who have different opinions from you. And for some reason you are particularly hostile towards me. I do make an effort to support my posts with references whenever possible so anyone can research themselves. Hopefully some day you might take the time look up the references I post. You might find something new which you didn't know. Or at the very least we can have honest dialogue.
David September 26, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Or it went to shareholders and bondholders. Who happen to be your pension funds, IRAs and 401(k)s. Or it went to "white collar" manufacturing employees. Believe it or not (probably not, since you probably never lived in the Midwest, like I did and had actual factory workers as neighbors), but manufacturing employees who made it through the "rust belt '80's" were handsomely compensated (and still are). They are highly productive, skilled workers. There aren't enough "executives" in the country to have "stolen" all this money from "workers." Less productive line assembly workers were automated out, and work in retail or health care or whatever now. They weren't "stolen" from.
Richard Mellor September 27, 2012 at 02:47 AM
Dalamar, I would pay no attention to Rob, he is semi illiterate and also completely off on his take on things. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with being illiterate or not understanding a language that's not your own. But i think in Rob's situation it's a hopeless case.
Fred Eiger September 27, 2012 at 03:35 AM
Why did people lose their homes???? Could it be they signed a crappy Adjustable Rate Mortgage? If people were intelligent they would have saw the falacy of ARMs and went with a traditional mortgage. However, basic economics is lacking in most people and non existence in Mellor.
Michael Allen October 05, 2012 at 06:55 PM
Richard, he's soundly beaten you in these online posts, Sir. No need to resort to name calling but you're right to not look worse by arguing with him more. You take 1930's values and apply them to today as justification for unions that have twisted their original purpose into a simple money and power grab. Union bosses have done to you what modern-day Hoffa's do to everyone, make you think they're your savior when they're your downfall. A wonderful magic act indeed. Make people think you're fighting for them, for their future, that they want to give you things for free just because of how awesome you are, and it'll all work out. Vote Democrat, oops, I mean Union. Sorry, they're soooooo much alike I get them confused sometimes. Unions lost their way. The bosses knew what they were negotiating would break the company eventually. I see them laughing at the sheep in the 50's over drinks and nice steak dinners saying, "30, 40, 50 years from now when the retirees are collecting that pension we negotiated, can't last forever! Don't worry about it, we'll be retired ourselves by then but we will have saved/invested elsewhere so when the company goes broke we'll be fat and happy!" Only an idiot wouldn't see that Social Security, and pensions are unsustainable by most entities. You need what, 10 workers to support 1 retiree? Is the population/economy going to sustain that growth as lifespans increase? No. <-- there's your answer, NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
Richard Mellor October 05, 2012 at 07:32 PM
In response to Michael, we simply have a difference of opinion over what is sustainable or not. The shift in wealth to the top from the rest of us, the cost of predatory wars, the stashing away in tax havens by individuals (never mind corporations) of upwards of #21 trillion in cash equal to the combined GDP of the US and Japan, that 6 Americans (the Waltons) who do o work have more wealth than 100 million of us. These statistics all refute your claim, but they don't matter in your case because the difference is that you support such thievery of society's wealth and I don't.
Richard Mellor October 05, 2012 at 07:35 PM
There is one other thing that is not sustainable, and that is life as we know it on this planet. The environmental catastrophe's that are occurring almost daily, the planet cannot sustain these market driven catastrophes. And let's be honest, who would build nuclear plants on an earthquake fault next to the ocean in an area called "The Ring of Fire" due to seismic activity and in a country that gave us the term, Tsunami? There's the market at work for you?
Michael Allen October 05, 2012 at 08:22 PM
Ever hear of the "global economy"? How many people around the world work for the production of goods and services for companies that are based in the US? When factored in, what is the TRUE size of labor dedicated OR SIMPLY AVAILABLE to the US? How many times does that increase the size of the US working population? 6, 8, 20? What do they get paid vs. US workers? The most accurate solution I can find is increasing the labor pool via telecommuting and outsourcing has decreased the amount you have to pay for services, keeping the cost of goods down and inflation in check. Now, if we just sourced inside our own borders and kept all the money here, people would scream bloody-murder that we're daring to not outsource our jobs, we're selfish. No doubt many people here would echo that cry that it's just SO UNFAIR that we allow our incomes to go up while not spreading the wealth and putting the world to work. Flip-side, lets look at when incomes go up, so do the cost of goods produced regardless of the cost, margins go UP. More disposable income means higher prices because people are willing to part with more dollars on discretionary purchases. Factor that in and you see that we'd be no better off. Let's say I make $50k and buy a $4 coffee, I'd make the same purchase if I made $100k, even if that was an $8 coffee. $50K- $200 bike, $100K- $400 bike. After increased taxes I'm actually paying a larger percentage of disposable income toward that purchase.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something