Rolling US Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

i still think the broader point is right. if we embraced globalization as a way to send lower-skill jobs elsewhere and attract higher-skill, and better-paying, jobs to the u.s., we need to have a better educated, better trained workforce. that's true whether the "winning industry" is the technology sector or something else.

my problem is i struggle to see what sector could be the "winner," in the way i imagine we need a sector to "win."

provide every american adult a basic income ($20,000 / year?) and watch consumption boom

do you have to adjust the income level based on where that adult lives?

as a public school teacher, im obv in favor of a massive influx of money. but equitable distribution is my aim. any labor benefits of tech-oriented govt investments would accrue to the children of the privileged who have tech at home, who have the math and language background to take to tech more easily, etc. so the ppl least likely to need help finding a job or help their progeny find one) would be better positioned to get better ones later.

tech companies who could drive down wages of domestic tech workers

Not to mention the massive cash flow that is generated for tech companies when public schools nationwide invest more heavily in tech equipment.

see: apple, millions of ipads being used as little more than electronic textbooks and testing machines

do you have to adjust the income level based on where that adult lives?

This should work itself out very nicely as population redistributed and wages adjust to the new reality. Rural areas would undoubtedly see an influx of both people and cash. Transportation would see some new strains in the process, I expect, and as iatee would also be quick to deplore.

Am I wrong or is there not a significant portion of the money Apple spends to make their products going to Germany for their STEM factories to take care of the more 'sophisticated' bits?

i mean i'd like all my students to have an inexpensive laptop with wifi access at home and school. and i'd like for computer science to be an elective at all schools. and i'd like all schools to have the tech needed to make publications, produce audio and video, collect data and so on. but tech investment in schools is usually discussed (not by you, daniel, but at large) in a way like "how do we rescue white working class?"

we already have lots of tech investment in schools of the well-off. what we need is govt action to invest equitably in schools like mine that do not offer computer science but have started phasing in ipads which get used as gaming platforms and not as something that students can create with.

xp

i don't necessarily mean for this discussion to be funneled into a "tech-only" framework. it would be fine with me if someone said, "look, here's a study saying the emerging market for smart-cars can fuel sustainable job-growth for a generation, if only we had a labor-force able to do that type of work." i just assume that's not realistic at this juncture. a smart fellow i know said maybe the u.s. could become a high-end r&d hub for medical research and devices. there's something very appealing about this as an answer. health-care is, obviously, a huge sector with a massive need for innovative solutions. and i can actually see a robust medical r&d industry fueling the economy. it's just harder to imagine that as the engine for sustainable u.s. job-growth versus, say, the steel mills or manufacturing plants of the past.

Every sector of the global economy requires energy inputs to function. Fossil fuel energy inputs must be replaced asap. The energy tech industry (aka big oil) was extremely instrumental in building the US into the world's biggest economy in the 20th century. I'd vote for massive-scale conversion to alternative/renewable energy as the highest priority for the US economy moving forward. Even if we lose the competition for the most advanced energy tech sector, the payback for conversion would be enormous.

Even if we lose the competition for the most advanced energy tech sector, the payback for conversion would be enormous.

Why? How?

Ever hear of global warming? When it slows down, everyone's a winner, but especially agriculture (where the US is also a world leader).

Do we know it will slow down?

Would love to see the projected cost of massive conversion.

Less than the cost of a 5C rise in global temperatures.

That's a non answer

here's an attempt at an answer. a 2013 u.n. report suggests fighting climate-change could cost 4% of the total world economy by 2030. but the report notes that, if we wait, the cost will be far higher later (that is, of course, if you believe the crackpot, outlier scientists that believe the earth is warming, and it's humans' fault).

and this article is an important counter-point, noting the economic benefits of acting against climate-change.

AOL said in its quarterly earnings that profits were hurt by $13.2 million in costs associated with layoffs, including at Patch, the struggling local news venture recently sold to investment firm Hale Global. The Patch unit, championed by Armstrong, has lost an estimated $200 million.

Armstrong earned $12.1 million in 2012, $3.2 million in 2011 and $15.2 million in 2010.

As for Armstrong's reasoning: It's not clear why a company with about 4,000 employees would not be able to absorb the expenses of two employees with abnormally high medical bills. And Armstrong's explanation about Obamacare also raises questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/06/aol-chief-cuts-401k-benefits-blames-obamacare/

Hey, it takes a lot of work to lose your company $200 million.

A company worth around $3 billion dollars, unwilling to take care of their 4,000 employees.

^^ The class warfare we are not supposed to notice or disapprove of.

m bison killing it

Here, after all, was a group that included many of the executives whose firms had collectively wrecked the global economy in 2008 and 2009. And they were laughing off the entire disaster in private, as if it were a long-forgotten lark.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/i-crashed-a-wall-street-secret-society.html

Not sure if this is the right thread, but something I've been chewing on lately:

There's this popular left meme now about how taxpayers "subsidize" Wal-Mart workers, enabling Wal-Mart to pay less. The argument, of course, is that this demonstrates that Wal-Mart should be paying more, which it should. But at the same time, doesn't this also imply that government benefits are some kind of "enabler" for low pay? Aren't we undercutting ourselves with this argument? Or what is the logical conclusion of it?

Isn't Walmart going to pay low salaries whether or not their employees get SNAP benefits? Or does Walmart rely on the purchases of employees getting SNAP benefits to such a degree, that they will increase their salaries a tad? Also I don't see conservatives ever concerned really about low wages (people need to work harder, get smarter on their own blah blah blah) , so taking away the "enabler" might not cause anyone to behave differently?

In response to Dick Cheney comments about the military, someone noted how many entry-level military folks are on SNAP benefits.

Isn't Walmart going to pay low salaries whether or not their employees get SNAP benefits? Or does Walmart rely on the purchases of employees getting SNAP benefits to such a degree, that they will increase their salaries a tad?

Well that's what I'm trying to figure out. Is the idea behind that meme supposed to be that Wal-Mart is able to pay lower salaries because of govt benefits? Because that implies that they'd have to pay higher salaries if there were no government benefits. I don't think they could get away with paying too little to keep their employees alive/fed/clothed/sheltered.

Well if there were no gov't benefits, it would stand to reason that there likely also be no gov't employment regulations. Wally World would be well-positioned in what would be a race to the bottom wage-wise.

I don't think they could get away with paying too little to keep their employees alive/fed/clothed/sheltered.

Maybe its out there and I haven't read it (or I did and forgot it) , but would like to see the stats on the percentage of Walmart employees in this situation, and how much it affects their bottom line. I think I'm less trusting than you are on this.

What, the percentage of Wal-Mart employees that are literally starving and/or homeless?

That secret society thing is jaw-dropping.

I don't think they could get away with paying too little to keep their employees alive/fed/clothed/sheltered.

Seriously??? They DO pay too little for those things, even WITH the available supports, WHICH btw don't cover real-world needs to begin with!

What percentage of Walmart employees are getting SNAP benefits?

Their bottom-line meant Walmart. Sam and family are insanely rich

What percentage of Walmart employees are getting SNAP benefits?

Right, a large percentage, but that's the whole point I'm trying to make. I don't understand the rhetorical point of this argument that SNAP and other government benefits are "subsidizing" low wages, because that sounds almost like an argument against the benefits.

I mean it seems like a confusing mixed message to me.

I see what you're saying -- and it's a fool's game to believe that Walmart and other low-wage employers would pay a nickel more if government assistance didn't exist -- but the argument I see generally isn't over that. It's over Walmart et al. paying so little on the one hand that their employees are forced to rely on government assistance; and on the other hand their CEOs and owners crying to Congress about their "high taxes" and the welfare state.

It's subsidizing a low wage business model

It's subsidizing a low wage business model

― anonanon, Friday, February 28, 2014 11:56 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Right, but that makes it sound like if you stopped subsidizing, the business model wouldn't work. Which is why the argument makes me a little uncomfortable. I support raising the minimum wage.

It's over Walmart et al. paying so little on the one hand that their employees are forced to rely on government assistance; and on the other hand their CEOs and owners crying to Congress about their "high taxes" and the welfare state.

This is a nice way of putting it, ty.

xp It is, but removing the "subsidy" will not change the business model.

xxp What he said. Both a higher minimum wage and a guaranteed minimum income.

On a different but related subject--

I've skimmed a couple articles lately on the Earned Income Tax Credit as a few conservatives are now pushing this as a better way to help the folks who they say do work and need help rather than increasing the minimum wage (which they insist largely helps middle and upper class high schoolers working after school, and not the working poor and middle class trying to survive). But its not clear enough conservatives want to expand the use of the credit. In fact, that Republican Dave Camp tax reform package reduces the amount of folks eligible for the EITC

walmart will pay low wages whether or not anyone is getting welfare because they can

Also the first day at work after you watch an orientation video they tell you to snoop on any of your fellow employees who start talking about unions. Or at least they did when I worked there when I was 18 (10+ years ago).

mixed myself up I agree gov is not an enabler bc walmart wouldnt raise pay if SNAP didn't exist

seems fair enough to raise the minimum wage in response to a large proportion of gainfully employed people having to rely on SNAP.

not necessarily a large proportion. let's say significant number of people.

allowing Walmart to employ people even full time without meeting their cost of living, with government forced to pick up the difference makes the current min wage law itself a subsidy (kinda analogizing to "tax expenditure" concept here)

raise the minimum wage

Yes. As soon as possible. This is would help millions of working poor, not just WalMart employees. I'd say $10/hr. should be the lowest amount even considered as proper compensation for any paid work of any description.

I question the logic in this guest editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/02/28/maybe-raising-the-minimum-wage-isnt-such-a-good-idea-after-all/

Wow, the number of elisions (e.g. not mentioning that Douglas Holtz-Eakin was the head economic advisor for the McCain campaign and heads some right wing think tank), omissions (a single unlinked Texas A&M study that contradicts nearly all other available research on the minimum wage) and bad-faith logical fallacies (it's not the best way so let's not use it at all/it doesn't help everyone so we shouldn't help anyone) in that article are staggering.