The middle class is shrinking

[SOAD]

Well, when you are able to erase the consumer demand for the best product at the lowest price, you might have success in halting what you find so objectionable. Until then, your beef is with reality, not business.

Way to reinforce his "I pledge allegiance to the buck" observation

 

[lordbt]

Way to reinforce his "I pledge allegiance to the buck" observation

Did I ever take issue with it? The $ beneath my screen name didnt get there by accident.

 

[USincognito]

Did I ever take issue with it? The $ beneath my screen name didnt get there by accident.

Which, again, validates my "so much for patriotism" comment.

 

[SOAD]

Did I ever take issue with it? The $ beneath my screen name didnt get there by accident.

Your god is the all mighty dollar? Does your faith wane with an inflation increase?

 

[lordbt]

Your god is the all mighty dollar? Does your faith wane with an inflation increase?

You know, SOAD, the only thing I seem to gain by our encounters is an increase in my post count.

 

[SOAD]

You know, SOAD, the only thing I seem to gain by our encounters is an increase in my post count.

So you really cannot tell me what the $ sign under your screen name means? How did it get there? Have you moved out of the country yet in search of greener dollars and larger profits?

 

[mzungu]

So you really cannot tell me what the $ sign under your screen name means? How did it get there? Have you moved out of the country yet in search of greener dollars and larger profits?

It is clear that it means MONEY IS ABOVE ALL and this includes country, family, or whatever other things people believe are precious.

These ultra neo liberals will stoop to nothing so long as they can make a buck! God only knows how much the global community is suffering because of these vultures. These people only worship Goldman Sachs and the like!

Watch and weep!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqN3amj6AcE&feature=related

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is clear that it means MONEY IS ABOVE ALL and this includes country, family, or whatever other things people believe are precious.

Profit at any price. The Libertopian way.

 

[rambot]

Well, when you are able to erase the consumer demand for the best product at the lowest price, you might have success in halting what you find so objectionable. Until then, your beef is with reality, not business.

Best product and lowest price have little to do with underpaid international labourers; that's pure profit motive.

 

[lordbt]

Best product and lowest price have little to do with underpaid international labourers; that's pure profit motive.

Underpaid? How did you determine that? As for the profit motive, so what? You make it sound like an indictment. How do you think these things work?

 

[thaumaturgy]

It is clear that it means MONEY IS ABOVE ALL and this includes country, family, or whatever other things people believe are precious.

This is what it appears to be. Most corporations will ship jobs overseas for one reason: decrease opex and thereby increase profits, or make up for losses in revenue.

No corporation is moving jobs to China and then Indonesia because they care about the Chinese or Indonesian standard of living.

When one backwards country with cheap labor becomes expensive or they start to develop care for the workers the industry moves to a cheaper country.

Yet the CEOs and Executives never move to those places themselves.

That is the most telling.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Underpaid? How did you determine that?

Surely you are not naive. You supposedly are a businessman. Corporations look around the world and say "I can get this labor for this product done at a much lower price and transportation costs + labor will still be lower than if I employ a U.S. citizen and transport from there."

It's simple math. The people in the foreign countries often actually do get a better life than if they didn't have the corporation move in. It is by NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION ANYTHING NEARLY AS GOOD AS YOU AND I HAVE.

The minute it gets even close to OUR standard of living (you and I, Lordbt) the corporation moves to the next cheaper place.

Now for a long time I've been a proponent of economic realism and I fully understand that all the world's economies will not rise up to our level and we all have a world-wide utopia. In fact what will actually happen when this game plays out fully is:

America's standard of living will fall precipitously while third would nations rise.

At that point Americans cease to become the world's consumers and demand drops off.

In between these states (now and then) we may see America drop even moreso and China rise and take over our role for a while.

But in none of these cases will it be to the advantage of the U.S. citizen.

You and I (that's YOU and I) will suffer. There's not an infinite supply of money or demand on the earth.

Now I'm ready for it because I can imagine it coming. Are you?

You talk big about profits and capitalism but when the American economy collapses under its own weight and we move production offshore leaving only a plutonomic system, will the top 1% be able to carry our economy forever?

You likely will not be part of the plutonomy. You are, by your suggestion a small businessman. You won't be in the top 1%. I won't be. 99% of us won't be.

We'll be a burden.

As for the profit motive, so what? You make it sound like an indictment. How do you think these things work?

Yes, it is profit. And yes profit motive is a good thing just like morphine is good (if you are injured or having a leg cut off), but anything in extremes can be bad. REALLY bad.

That is why there really has never been a truly "free" free market. The closest we've ever come would be the guilded age here in the U.S.

Like it or not business owners had to face a large group of people who forced them to accept external oversite on their business practices.

Businessmen of yore, while all powerful were not powerful enough when their greed turned a large fraction of humanity against them.

No argumentum ad profitum will ever save a business person in that scenario.

Profit will lose when humanity is threatened. It always has and it always will.

We have history to tell us that.

 

[USincognito]

Underpaid? How did you determine that? As for the profit motive, so what? You make it sound like an indictment. How do you think these things work?

How do I determine "underpaid"? Let's just say I use the Henry Ford metric.

You know what that is, right? Or has you time in Libertopia so distanced you from our nations economic history that you'd rather our actual producers move to Randistan?

 

[mzungu]

RYAN AIR is the ultimate LIBERTARIAN Airline. They even wanted to charge the use of the toilet while inflight!!!

Ryan Air Explained:

"Spare a thought for Michael O'Leary, Chief Executive of 'Ryanair'.......

Arriving in a hotel in Dublin, he went to the bar and asked for a pint of
draught Guinness. The barman nodded and said, "That will be one Euro
please, Mr. O'Leary."

Somewhat taken aback, O'Leary replied, "That's very cheap," and handed
over his money.

"Well, we try to stay ahead of the competition", said the barman. "And we
are serving free pints every Wednesday evening from 6 until 8. We have the
cheapest beer in
Ireland"

"That is remarkable value" Michael comments

"I see you don't seem to have a glass, so you'll probably need one of
ours.
That will be 3 euro please."

O'Leary scowled, but paid up. He took his drink and walked towards a seat.
"Ah, you want to sit down?" said the barman. "That'll be an extra 2
euro. - You could have pre-book the seat, and it would have only cost you
a Euro."

"I think you may to be too big for the seat sir, can I ask you to sit in
this frame please"
Michael attempts to sit down but the frame is too small and when he can't
squeeze in he complains "Nobody would fit in that little frame".

"I'm afraid if you can't fit in the frame you'll have to pay an extra
surcharge of €4.00 for your seat sir"

O'Leary swore to himself, but paid up. "I see that you have brought your
laptop with you" added the barman. "And since that wasn't pre-booked
either, that will be another
3 euro."

O'Leary was so annoyed that he walked back to the bar, slammed his drink
on the counter, and yelled, "This is ridiculous, I want to speak to the
manager".

"Ah, I see you want to use the counter," says the barman, "that will be 2
euro please." O'Leary's face was red with rage.

"Do you know who I am?"

"Of course I do Mr. O'Leary,"

"I've had enough, What sort of Hotel is this? I come in for a quiet drink
and you treat me like this. I insist on speaking to a manager!"

"Here is his E mail address, or if you wish, you can contact him between 9
and 9.10 every morning, Monday to Tuesday at this free phone number. Calls
are free, until
they are answered, then there is a talking charge of only 10 cent per
second"

"I will never use this bar again"

"OK sir, but remember, we are the only hotel in Ireland selling pints for
one Euro".

 

[Steve Petersen]

No it isn't, you're confusing your descriptive statistics. (and why on earth would middle income be the third quintile not the second tercile?)

Middle income is defined as income between inflation-adjusted set points which delineate certain standard of living levels. "Middle income" is any income between the "lower income" and "upper income" cut off points.

The number of people falling into the "middle income" range is decreasing and those people are primarily going into the "lower income" range. Meaning that they are moving from a "middle income" standard of living to a "lower income" standard of living.

Quintile is fifths. The middle fifth is the middle quintile. That leave two fifths on either side, hence the 'middle.'

I am not talking numbers of people, but the income represented by the middle fifth, thus middle income.

People could be moving UP from the middle quintile as well as down.

From Wiki 'Economic Mobility.'

There are two main types of mobility, absolute and relative.[1] Absolute upward mobility involves widespread economic growth which benefits everyone[1]. Relative mobility is specific to individuals or groups and occurs without relation to the economy as a whole[1]. Different from absolute, relative mobility is a zero-sum game. Both absolute and relative income mobility have been large and upward in the past ten years for those starting with below-average incomes; 80 percent of taxpayers had incomes in quintiles as high or higher in 2005 than they did in 1996, and 45 percent of taxpayers not in the highest income quintile moved up at least one quintile[2].
There has been a great disparity of income growth between 1979 and 2004 in the United States. The real, after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent during that time, compared to a 69% rise for the top 20%, and an increase of 9% for the lowest 20%[1]. Increasing income inequality, however, does not necessarily imply decreasing mobility. Median family income has risen 29% and mean family income has risen 43%, compared to the income of the previous generation for people that were children in 1968[3]. Most of this growth in total family income can be attributed to the increasing number of women who work since male earnings have stayed relatively stable throughout this time[3]. Two thirds of those who were children in 1968 reported more income than their parents, but only half of them exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles[3]. Although one third of the nation is moving up quintiles, another third is downwardly mobile — experiencing a decrease in income and economic standing compared to their parents[3].
Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile[3]. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile[3]. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%[4]. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%[4].

 

[JustMeSee]

It is clear that it means MONEY IS ABOVE ALL and this includes country, family, or whatever other things people believe are precious.

These ultra neo liberals will stoop to nothing so long as they can make a buck! God only knows how much the global community is suffering because of these vultures. These people only worship Goldman Sachs and the like!

Watch and weep!!!!

BBC Speechless As Trader Tells Truth: "The Collapse Is Coming...And Goldman Rules The World" - YouTube

Me, me, and more me!
Profit, profit, and more profit!

Thanks for sharing the video. It is very revealing.

 

[dlamberth]

Underpaid? How did you determine that? As for the profit motive, so what? You make it sound like an indictment. How do you think these things work?

Making a profit is OK, but it's when profit is more important than people...that's not OK.

.

 

[MachZer0]

Interestingly, the Capitalist and the Socialist share something in common. They both want the Capitalist's profits

 

[EdwinWillers]

Interestingly, the Capitalist and the Socialist share something in common. They both want the Capitalist's profits

QFT

One earns it, and thus feels entitled to it.

One sees others earning it, and thus feels entitled to it.

 

[dlamberth]

Interestingly, the Capitalist and the Socialist share something in common. They both want the Capitalist's profits

Socialist programs feed back the profits to the people. Where as Capitalism is ONLY about profits for the owner.

.