Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Deficits aren't dropping because we're doing something right, they're dropping because we're doing everything wrong   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 92
    More: Hero, deficits, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

7172 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 May 2013 at 6:18 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-23 02:13:47 AM  
7 votes:

Tommy Moo: As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice.


Of course there's a fourth choice.  Plenty of countries in the socialist hell that is Europe have higher tax rates than the US that pay for a variety of additional jobs, like child care and state-sponsored art.

Others here have pointed out the crumbling US infrastructure and need for modernization and improvements.  We still have a few million people unemployed who used to work in construction during the real estate bubble of the last decade - they'd be happy to repair roads, update schools and government buildings, install fiber optic lines everywhere.  The Republicans will be boiled in oil before they let a D president improve the economy doing that, but that just emphasizes how well it would work to reduce unemployment.

There's a lot of craft industries that people enjoy doing, but aren't cost-competitive against large producers - brewing, organic farming and ranching, prepared foods, and so on.  France subsidizes its bakers to ensure a continued supply of baguettes, and Japan bans the import of foreign rice and allows their rice farmers to make a living instead of having to compete with Brazilian rice farmers.

Tax the wealthy and the corporations at the rates they paid in the 60's, cut back on spending money trying to kill every brown person on the planet, and use the funds to fix all the broken stuff and let people have jobs they enjoy, even if they aren't cost-competitive with Bangladeshi labor.

Most people actually want to work instead of getting an unemployment check.  Mrs. Pachuco works in the telecom industry for the pay and benefits, but she'd put in even more hours if she could grow and sell fruit and vegetables, make and sell homemade jam and still have healthcare.  But the powers that be decided that the US should be designed to help Mitt Romney add another $20 million to his overseas account, instead of helping new parents with childcare so they could stay in the workforce.
2013-05-22 08:06:47 PM  
6 votes:

pxsteel: 10% range


Here's the thing, if they start producing in the US they'll have more stuff to write off on their taxes. Also anyone who says "It would be cheaper to do it here, but I won't do it until you cut taxes", is not a business person but just a shyster. And should be treated as such.
2013-05-22 06:34:59 PM  
6 votes:

PowerSlacker: So it's better to reduce the deficit by kicking the can down the road then?


One side believes the can we should be focusing on is employment. Fix employment and you'll fix the deficit and the debt.

The other side believes the can we should be focusing on is the deficit and debt. Fix the deficit and debt, you'll fix employment.

It's up to you to decide which of these makes sense, and which one defies math, history, and reality.
2013-05-22 07:51:54 PM  
5 votes:

pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place


And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.
2013-05-22 07:50:50 PM  
5 votes:

pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.


We've done this before. They'll take the 10% for all US operations and then use the money gained by the tax cuts to further offshore factories. You just stated exactly what the Bush tax cuts were supposed to do. Look what happened instead.

Trickle Down doesn't work. When you give the rich more money the rich just have more money.
2013-05-22 08:13:36 PM  
4 votes:

pxsteel: Actually the CEO of HP laid it out very nicely.  The employee costs in China have been rising in the last 7 years and the cost of freight has skyrocketed to the point that it would actually be cheaper to produce in the US than China or Malaysia if the taxes were in the 10% range


So why don't we just use protective tariffs? If you're going to outsource jobs, then you're going to pay the unemployment checks of the people you laid off when you moved those jobs overseas.

America is supposed to be for the people, not for the businesses. You're proposing what is good for businesses first, but promoting it as if the side effect of "creating jobs" were the main reason for your proposal.

Start focusing first on what is good for the people, and maybe look at what is good for business as the beneficial side effect.
2013-05-22 07:37:02 PM  
4 votes:

pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post


That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.
2013-05-23 01:49:28 AM  
3 votes:
ITT: Blithering morons who think that you can maintain a first-world economy with third-world wages. Every time the "we have to cut wages and taxes to compete with African shiatholes!" nonsense the coffin-stuffers spewing it conveniently omit the part where these companies rely on a first-world consumer base.

Austerity economics are theft and the fascist farks rely on the fact that liberals will eventually fix what they broke without either taking back what was stolen or fixing the economic underpinnings that allow it. Then they can do it again. This whole cycle relies on complicity of the victims.
2013-05-23 12:34:03 AM  
3 votes:

chumboobler: there is no way in practical terms that you can ever even come close to paying down your debt to something manageable. It is over. Done. You are paying ZERO interest for the money you currently borrow. Up to .25% in certain circumstances. The day interest rates even hit 2.5% you are done. You can't pay that. Not now. You owe too much.


Dude, we had more debt during WW2, and we got out of it in like a decade.  We simply taxed the crap out of the rich (90% top rate) and used that money to fund private sector jobs with long-term growth as the overall objective.  America is not dead, we just need to go back to progressive economics like what dominated the most prosperous decades in American history and we must tell every conservative in Congress to eat a dick.  Simple.
2013-05-22 08:08:56 PM  
3 votes:

pxsteel: Actually the CEO of HP laid it out very nicely. The employee costs in China have been rising in the last 7 years and the cost of freight has skyrocketed to the point that it would actually be cheaper to produce in the US than China or Malaysia if the taxes were in the 10% range


Oh.

The government does not march to the beat of HP's CEO's drum.

You know who else could use a 10% tax rate? Everyone who earns under 50k/year in salary. Where's our big, gigantic giveaway sloppy-kiss handout stimulative tax rate cut? Of the ~1/3 of the economy that is "consumer spending", we're responsible for 60-70% of it. So why not give those billions to millions, and tell the Fortune 500 to go buy off some other government?

// like China's
2013-05-22 07:27:36 PM  
3 votes:

MayoSlather: un4gvn666: Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.

LOL

Actually, he's not technically wrong. Due to gains in production we are more than flush with supply at the current rate of employment, and as technology/automation increases the job market will require fewer and fewer people to meet demand. As it stands now, outside of construction, most industries could increase demand significantly without hiring any additional people.


While the economic forces leading to this situation are understandable, things better change sooner rather than later. A permanent, expanding underclass of people will only increase the chances of an existential threat to the system itself (i.e. revolution in one form or another).

Gee, maybe it would be a good idea for the government to address an issue like this. You know, an issue the market has no mechanism for dealing with.
2013-05-22 07:16:02 PM  
3 votes:
In my experience, if it pisses of Republicans its probably the RIGHT thing to do.
2013-05-22 07:08:15 PM  
3 votes:
2012: "Why should I vote Republican?" We need to get rid of Obammer because deficit and big money and too much government!
2013: "Looks like the deficit is getting smaller."  OMG Obammer do everything wrong!

Good god, man.  If Obama cured cancer and brokered world peace, they'd claim it was some sort of diabolical plot.  You know... Obama should join the NRA.  The conservative nuts would enter a permanent derp feedback loop.  It would be an awesome spectacle.  They'd be forced to double down, and double again, and again, and so on until they had so much derp that they'd collapse into a point of infinite stupidity and leave the universe forever.
2013-05-22 07:07:09 PM  
3 votes:

doyner: So we don't like reducing the deficit now?


Now? How about ever?

There's a difference between what the GOP says, and what they do.
2013-05-22 07:02:18 PM  
3 votes:

Tommy Moo: The economy is never going to "get better" than it is. The stock market is at a record high. Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth. If you're going to wait around for everyone to be hired simply because Megacorp thinks they should be altruistic and hire 10,000 people they don't need, don't hold your breath. If we wait for 5% unemployment to cut the deficit, it will just continue to grow forever.


We can pay people to repair our crumbling infrastructure and update the nation's electric and telecom grids.
Decrying it all as digging and filling in ditches ignores that there are quite a few valuable things people could be put to work doing.
2013-05-22 06:37:55 PM  
3 votes:

fusillade762: We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?


Friedman : Economics :: Astrologers : Astronomy

/they both managed to discover a few things while they were bullshiatting their way through life
2013-05-22 06:33:15 PM  
3 votes:
The article says its talking about the deficit, yet the giant chart says its referring to the debt.  Two very different things.
2013-05-22 06:18:23 PM  
3 votes:
We're just not doing austerity hard enough!!!!1!!1!
2013-05-23 02:55:35 AM  
2 votes:

El Pachuco: Tommy Moo: As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice.

Of course there's a fourth choice.  Plenty of countries in the socialist hell that is Europe have higher tax rates than the US that pay for a variety of additional jobs, like child care and state-sponsored art.

Others here have pointed out the crumbling US infrastructure and need for modernization and improvements.  We still have a few million people unemployed who used to work in construction during the real estate bubble of the last decade - they'd be happy to repair roads, update schools and government buildings, install fiber optic lines everywhere.  The Republicans will be boiled in oil before they let a D president improve the economy doing that, but that just emphasizes how well it would work to reduce unemployment.

There's a lot of craft industries that people enjoy doing, but aren't cost-competitive against large producers - brewing, organic farming and ranching, prepared foods, and so on.  France subsidizes its bakers to ensure a continued supply of baguettes, and Japan bans the import of foreign rice and allows their rice farmers to make a living instead of having to compete with Brazilian rice farmers.

Tax the wealthy and the corporations at the rates they paid in the 60's, cut back on spending money trying to kill every brown person on the planet, and use the funds to fix all the broken stuff and let people have jobs they enjoy, even if they aren't cost-competitive with Bangladeshi labor.

Most people actually want to work instead of getting an unemployment check.  Mrs. Pachuco works in the telecom industry for the pay and benefits, but she'd put in even more hours if she could grow and sell fruit and vegetables, make and sell homemade jam and still have healthcare.  But the powers that be decided that the US should be designed to help Mitt Romney add another $20 million to his overseas account, instead of helping new parents with childcare so they could stay in the workforce.


Well said. Also, economizing on labor was the 20th century's economic paradigm. Economizing on RESOURCES will be the 21st century's. With 8 or 9 billion people on this planet, automation In the sense you describe is actually counterproductive. Labor used to be the most expensive part of production, but the marginal rateof return on labor efficiency is diminishing while the relative coat of materials is skyrocketing.

Use the available labor, make the increasingly costly materials and land go further... That will be the defining economic paradigm of our time...
2013-05-23 12:39:15 AM  
2 votes:

Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate

You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...
[pictures.mastermarf.com image 600x258]


If you want to return jobs to this country I'd suggest mining the shipping lanes.
2013-05-22 10:17:04 PM  
2 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: PowerSlacker: So it's better to reduce the deficit by kicking the can down the road then?

One side believes the can we should be focusing on is employment. Fix employment and you'll fix the deficit and the debt.

The other side believes the can we should be focusing on is the deficit and debt. Fix the deficit and debt, you'll fix employment. tax cuts, except when proposed by a democrat or aimed at the middle or lower classes.  We totally need to just give trickle down enough time to work.  The sudden magical increases in GDP that result will more than pay for the cuts!

It's up to you to decide which of these makes sense, and which one defies math, history, and reality.


Fixed that fer ya.
2013-05-22 09:03:29 PM  
2 votes:

MayoSlather: un4gvn666: Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.

LOL

Actually, he's not technically wrong. Due to gains in production we are more than flush with supply at the current rate of employment, and as technology/automation increases the job market will require fewer and fewer people to meet demand. As it stands now, outside of construction, most industries could increase demand significantly without hiring any additional people.


Thank you. Jesus Christ am I sick of people mocking me. About 5% of the population gets this simple concept. As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice. One of those will happen. Making up nonsense work for people to do is the same as increasing unemployment. Every person working a Keynesian job is on welfare, except that it's worse than welfare, because it disguises the unemployment and allows people to imagine that there is no underlying problem that needs to be addressed.
2013-05-22 08:52:07 PM  
2 votes:

pxsteel: Do you think China will not try and protect itself.  If we put tariffs on stuff built there they will respond with their own tariffs.  This has been tried before and it has backfired almost every time.


the idea that any country would risk a trade war with the US right now is ridiculous.

The rest of the world is projected to enter, or stay in recession, for at least another year; central banks are falling over themselves, trying to stay competetive - japan, korea, australia, the ECB: all cutting rates, or printing money; meanwhile the chinese print BARELY (and questionably) positive GDP, and CPI in the face of reduced demand from every other country in the world except the US.

if there were any time to start redefining the terms of trade with the US, it would be now.
2013-05-22 08:36:38 PM  
2 votes:

pxsteel: Do you think China will not try and protect itself.  If we put tariffs on stuff built there they will respond with their own tariffs.  This has been tried before and it has backfired almost every time.


Yes, and do you really think they'll want to ruin our economy when they're holding so much of our debt?

We could print the $1 trillion and send it right over, and their manufacturing would all of a sudden be worthless when we devalue our currency that much. They wouldn't be able to compete with our internal manufacturing for the products we buy here.

The reason we don't do this right now is because it would collapse their economy, and we don't have the manufacturing capacity at the moment to fill our own needs.

Thing is, the threat of a protective tariff will keep the manufacturers from moving overseas to begin with, so countries like China won't ever have the bargaining chip.
2013-05-22 08:04:48 PM  
2 votes:

Vectron: Washington D.C. is the problem.


The lack of income growth that is a huge factor in the size of the deficit in recent years, is purely the fault of the private sector.
2013-05-22 08:01:51 PM  
2 votes:

Vectron: Washington D.C. is the problem.


as much as States are the problem too.
2013-05-22 07:59:25 PM  
2 votes:

pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.


I know you're getting some flak for your suggestion.
but at least you have proposed a solution to bring jobs back home.

as mentioned we cannot compete with 3rd world ease of exploitation.  I think some healthy tariffs are in order at the very least, after that, we wait until gas prices soar to new heights making transport such a burden in addition to tariffs that anyone living & selling goods & services in the U.S.A. either cut their CEO pay or start making in the U.S.A. again.
2013-05-22 07:55:46 PM  
2 votes:
One of the biggest consumer markets in the world we should be controlling our imports in out best interest like other countries for starters.  Then go back to the previous tax rates before the Bush temporary cuts. And we should stop lighting fires where there is no need.  Get some self confidence back and act like Americans and not like a couple of ferrel cats. Mic off......
2013-05-22 07:41:03 PM  
2 votes:

pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.


Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?
2013-05-22 07:30:48 PM  
2 votes:

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate, the CEO's of HP and Dell and Micro-semi have said they would return if you we did.


media.comicvine.com
2013-05-22 07:19:09 PM  
2 votes:
You mean short-term deficit reduction isn't the be-all end-all of good governance?  Well, knock me down with a feather.
2013-05-22 07:16:42 PM  
2 votes:
Don't be cajoled by the deficit hawks into thinking it has to drop because if we don't OMGCATASTROPHE! Deficit spending is necessary to fix the actual economic problems the US faces. Federal debt is not one of those problems. When Cheney said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he wasn't just being his normal evil Dick self. It's true. So don't let the economic right wingers win the argument through their normal hysteria.
2013-05-22 06:55:41 PM  
2 votes:
1. Cut the military spending. Significantly.
2013-05-22 06:45:46 PM  
2 votes:
The economy is never going to "get better" than it is. The stock market is at a record high. Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth. If you're going to wait around for everyone to be hired simply because Megacorp thinks they should be altruistic and hire 10,000 people they don't need, don't hold your breath. If we wait for 5% unemployment to cut the deficit, it will just continue to grow forever.
2013-05-22 06:40:57 PM  
2 votes:

doyner: So we don't like reducing the deficit now?


Just imagine if we get a GOP president in 2016, they won't matter at all. Then we'll invade Iran and North Korea at the same time.
2013-05-22 06:12:45 PM  
2 votes:
We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?
2013-05-23 11:34:43 AM  
1 votes:

Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate

You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...


I'm as left as they come and I agree with Grumbles 100%.  If you lower the corp tax rate from 35% to say, 15% with ZERO loop holes, and the goal is to maximize the money flowing into the treasury, how is this a bad thing?  We're getting zero now with all the loop holes, why not up it to 15 and get something?

Politically it's a win/win too.  The right can claim "look, we cut taxes" and the left can laugh as say, "yea but we're getting MORE money now."

As far as the money overseas....  Why can't we pass a bill that says you can bring your money into the US at 0% tax IF and ONLY IF you spend it on Americans, i.e. employment, R&D, products, etc with zero of it going to executive payment or shareholder dividends?  Wasn't the biggest mistake letting them bring their money back in 2004 and assuming they'd spend it in and on the US?  Why can't we tie the tax holiday to the spending?
2013-05-23 11:09:40 AM  
1 votes:

Tommy Moo: This should cut across all races and socioeconomic statuses. But, for the record, rich white people are currently not generally having more than two children, so this is one problem you can blame on them. Blame all the others, perhaps, but not this one. It is not racism or eugenics to ask people of all races to have sustainable family sizes.


Except ... it is ...

In many many areas (including the US) one or two children may become economically unviable. Since the children's earnings are the primary methods of late-life support for the parents, they hedge against this with having more children. In fact, in largely agricultural areas, children are income generators once they get out of diapers and can do some kind -any kind -of work.

Wealthier families have less children in part because they are plowing more resources into their existing children, with a substantially lower chance of economic failure for each. Even a lazy bum born in the middle class can limp along with a bank teller job, moving into management in 5-10 years and spending their lives quietly accumulating a home and a modest savings, as long as their tastes aren't that rich.

You further then go on to argue that we are , in fact, subsidizing the family, and by extension, procreation. You might say that or you might say that we are taxing singles more heavily. This point I will leave for later, but it shows that your mindset is definitely that the 'undeserving' are the ones having families that are screwing the planet up.

Add to that the fatuous notion that simply having 'fewer' children is what we need. Even having only one child is enough to 'grow' the planets population, due to longer lives and better health care. So, again, I will ask : What population do you feel would be 'enough' to be sustainable ? Perhaps we should license children? Maybe take a global 20-year break from farking? Think of all the schools we could close and the money we could save in teacher salaries, school administrator costs, bust driver, janitors, lunch ladies and school nurses we wouldn't have to pay for ?

Or perhaps we could license or auction off the right to have a kid? I bet we could raise a lot of money (and keep a lot of crack-babies away) if we had mandatory long-term BC for all women at age 10, with only a limited series of injections re-enabling fertility once they were licensed.

My Point is that all your reproduction-based prattle is just that ... prattle.
2013-05-23 10:04:40 AM  
1 votes:

Kibbler: I'm not buying the "if you lower taxes on job creators, then trust us, jobs will flow back to the US, it's simple economics" line.  I buy the "if you lower taxes on big corporations, they'll hoard yet more cash, and make even bigger payouts to the executives who tell us that jobs are about to flow from China back to the US, if only we would create a billionaire-friendly zone, but then come up with other reasons why 0Bummer has destroyed the US middle class" line.


This.

I'd like to see some kind of limit placed on executive corporate remuneration. Perhaps 1% of the five-year average profit level ? Also : No Stock options, no vesting, just w-2 cash.

Most of all, I'd like to see some kind of penalty for screwing things up. We don't allow a guy who drunkenly causes a 70-Car pileup to walk away on the idea that all parties were voluntary participants. Similarly, if a company goes bankrupt, I'd love to find a way to say "no, young man, you are not getting an extra cookie, and you are not going anywhere until this mess is cleaned up."
2013-05-23 09:37:44 AM  
1 votes:

stirfrybry: ShawnDoc: The article says its talking about the deficit, yet the giant chart says its referring to the debt.  Two very different things.

liberals don't know the difference.


stirfrybry: So Dick cheney was right... deficits don't matter?


Your trolling is like the  erection during the pledge of allegiance: Obvious and embarrassing.

Kibbler: if only we would create a billionaire-friendly zone,


It's pronounced "congress".
2013-05-23 08:48:49 AM  
1 votes:
The only thing we need to fix the financial problems of today is by drinking the blood of our children's future.

Why is that so hard for anyone to understand?
2013-05-23 03:15:24 AM  
1 votes:

Rwa2play: red5ish: That was not up to the usually high standards I have come to expect from Ezra Klein.

Ezra Klein has standards?


He's usually a good numbers cruncher so yeah.
2013-05-23 02:23:56 AM  
1 votes:

Ehh: Vectron: Washington D.C. is the problem.

And alcohol is the solution?


To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
2013-05-23 01:41:28 AM  
1 votes:

Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth.


It's worked before.
seattletimes.com
2013-05-23 01:25:23 AM  
1 votes:

MayoSlather: But if we pay people to dig ditches AND fill the ditches with poor people then you're getting rid of all the unemployed, and employing more ditch diggers. Win/win.


i.imgur.com

There is a disturbing lack of Judge Smails in this thread.
2013-05-23 12:53:56 AM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: tinfoil-hat maggie: Gyrfalcon: Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.

We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.

Truthfully, I think you are thinking too recently. I here there was a glorious day back before that awful thing called the enlightenment where if you owned land you owned everything on it including people.

Those were truly the good ole days wel,l if you owned land.

True, but there weren't "laborers" then. And they didn't get even so much as a dollar a day--but they did get to keep some of what they grew, so there's that. But in the 1890's the robber barons didn't have to own the land to get the laborers to work their asses off for next to nothing. They could just get them to sign a contract that said they'd work 14 hours a day, six days a week for $2 a week, and then laugh when they meekly asked for more, sir.

Today's CEOs dream of such wonderous times.


Well sure the cheapest slaves are the ones you don't have to buy or take care of. And we would've owned it all if it weren't for those pesky unions and that Rino Teddy Roosevelt ; )
2013-05-23 12:42:16 AM  
1 votes:

tinfoil-hat maggie: Gyrfalcon: Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.

We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.

Truthfully, I think you are thinking too recently. I here there was a glorious day back before that awful thing called the enlightenment where if you owned land you owned everything on it including people.

Those were truly the good ole days wel,l if you owned land.


True, but there weren't "laborers" then. And they didn't get even so much as a dollar a day--but they did get to keep some of what they grew, so there's that. But in the 1890's the robber barons didn't have to own the land to get the laborers to work their asses off for next to nothing. They could just get them to sign a contract that said they'd work 14 hours a day, six days a week for $2 a week, and then laugh when they meekly asked for more, sir.

Today's CEOs dream of such wonderous times.
2013-05-23 12:36:17 AM  
1 votes:

HeartBurnKid: pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.


This. As long as they can pay foreign workers a tiny fraction of what Americans make those jobs are not coming back. Though I fear their solution IS to turn the US into a third-world sweatshop.
2013-05-23 12:06:15 AM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.

We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.


Truthfully, I think you are thinking too recently. I here there was a glorious day back before that awful thing called the enlightenment where if you owned land you owned everything on it including people.

Those were truly the good ole days wel,l if you owned land.
2013-05-22 11:39:28 PM  
1 votes:
Now this graph may look favorable to the President, but if I add a projection on the end that suddenly ends this trend and swoops back downwards, just look how bad it gets! I call it Satan's Rollercoaster.
2013-05-22 11:22:52 PM  
1 votes:

Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.


We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.
2013-05-22 11:09:51 PM  
1 votes:
scm-l3.technorati.com

Tonight on Fox News... Lower Deficit: Is it a bad thing?
2013-05-22 11:07:00 PM  
1 votes:

Grungehamster: Of course Chinese wages are on the rise, that's a natural result of globalization that countries that export gain strength and eventually demand parity with richer countries. Eventually we'll be out of China and India and moving into Central Asian and African countries for dirt cheap labor. That doesn't actually make hiring US workers more feasible until all countries reach close to parity for wage costs.


And even then they'll just send the manufacturing to the South because it's a much cheaper COL which means workers don't demand the highest wages
2013-05-22 10:32:34 PM  
1 votes:
By the time 2016 and beyond roll around we'll have another Bush in the White House and deficits won't matterTM again so this is pretty much a non-issue.
2013-05-22 10:25:12 PM  
1 votes:

pxsteel: HeartBurnKid: pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.

Actually the CEO of HP laid it out very nicely.  The employee costs in China have been rising in the last 7 years and the cost of freight has skyrocketed to the point that it would actually be cheaper to produce in the US than China or Malaysia if the taxes were in the 10% range


Of course Chinese wages are on the rise, that's a natural result of globalization that countries that export gain strength and eventually demand parity with richer countries. Eventually we'll be out of China and India and moving into Central Asian and African countries for dirt cheap labor. That doesn't actually make hiring US workers more feasible until all countries reach close to parity for wage costs.
2013-05-22 10:23:19 PM  
1 votes:

RickyWilliams'sBong: fusillade762: We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?

Keynes:Friedman::Led Zeppelin:Cinderella


Keynes:Friedman::Fidel Castro:Monster Trucks

What are we doing here?
2013-05-22 10:17:03 PM  
1 votes:

pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.


You're going to honestly suggest that companies will completely abandon globalization and the opportunity to hire workers for dollars a day with little to no safety oversight at the opportunity to pay 10% of their profits in taxes rather than pay sweetheart rates they hashed out overseas to countries begging for their business and just not repatriate the money? If they get the promise of a tax cut? When companies like HP you mentioned purposely funnel their funds through Singapore and Bermuda to avoid taxes altogether on goods sold overseas?

Show me where any corporate officer ever promised to create jobs if their demands were met and then actually went through with it rather than reap the benefits and say they can't uphold their end of the agreement because they have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to continue to minimize cost and that requires going overseas for new hiring. But hey, if the US government will just meet their next demand, they're sure that they will be able to bring those jobs back.

If
2013-05-22 10:13:48 PM  
1 votes:

pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place


Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.
2013-05-22 10:07:18 PM  
1 votes:

red5ish: That was not up to the usually high standards I have come to expect from Ezra Klein.


Ezra Klein has standards?
2013-05-22 10:01:17 PM  
1 votes:

fusillade762: We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?


Keynes:Friedman::Led Zeppelin:Cinderella
2013-05-22 09:26:20 PM  
1 votes:

asdfbeau: If we create increased productivity per-person in one area, and offset it by creating a demand for increased productivity per-person in another area, haven't we created a 4th option that keeps things in balance? seems to me this is what's been happening forever.


Something like vastly increasing medical services so that everybody can have access to them?
2013-05-22 09:22:01 PM  
1 votes:

Tommy Moo: Thank you. Jesus Christ am I sick of people mocking me. About 5% of the population gets this simple concept. As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week.


what about increasing our demand for productivity per person?
obviously we've automated away entire industries, but at the same time we've created entirely new industries that we can't automate yet.

If we create increased productivity per-person in one area, and offset it by creating a demand for increased productivity per-person in another area, haven't we created a 4th option that keeps things in balance? seems to me this is what's been happening forever.
2013-05-22 09:06:10 PM  
1 votes:
We are governed by retarded people. Just accept that fact, for now. There is no amount of sh*t Congress can't screw up. Just be thankful the economy is resilient despite the best efforts of our dear leaders to screw it up eight ways from Sunday.

Don't watch cable news. Stay away from the opinion pages. There's nothing to see here but a gigantic sh*tshow. It's embarrassing and it will depress you.

Ignore it. Sounds economics and budgeting have been thrown right out the f*cking window and will never be heard from again until Congress grows the f*ck up and stops using that body as a live-version of FreeRepublic.com.
2013-05-22 08:39:53 PM  
1 votes:
Everybody farking the "cut SS, Medicare and taxes" chicken this week.

Seriously, I think the Koch brothers bought up all the media.
2013-05-22 08:37:55 PM  
1 votes:

sendtodave: Businesses are people, remember?

/some could say they are "the people"
//"who matter"


www.changingworld.com
2013-05-22 08:31:38 PM  
1 votes:

pxsteel: ox45tallboy: pxsteel: tariffs would cause either higher prices or shortage of product on the shelves.  We need to compete in the world economy and we have been doing a pretty pi$$ poor job of it for a while now.

Whoa, now, wait a second.

I'm not talking about taxing stuff we ship to other countries, just the stuff we import through companies that shuttered US operations to move manufacturing overseas.

How exactly does that keep us from competing in the world economy, especially when it means we will definitely be manufacturing more stuff here? Seems like the opposite should happen.

Do you think China will not try and protect itself.  If we put tariffs on stuff built there they will respond with their own tariffs.  This has been tried before and it has backfired almost every time.


And our stores might have to pay $4 for a pair of $120 shoes (that they'll likely shred and toss out), instead of $3!

And thus the world economy ground to a halt.
2013-05-22 08:28:41 PM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: America is supposed to be for the people, not for the businesses. You're proposing what is good for businesses first, but promoting it as if the side effect of "creating jobs" were the main reason for your proposal.


Businesses are people, remember?

/some could say they are "the people"
//"who matter"
2013-05-22 08:26:32 PM  
1 votes:

Granny_Panties: This is what I am getting from the comments after the article...

The so called president is bla, so everything is wrong. Nothing can possibly go right when we have bla in the WHITE House. Bring back America, put an old rich WHITE guy back in the WHITE House.


Welcome to the Internet.
2013-05-22 08:22:25 PM  
1 votes:

pxsteel: tariffs would cause either higher prices or shortage of product on the shelves.  We need to compete in the world economy and we have been doing a pretty pi$$ poor job of it for a while now.


Whoa, now, wait a second.

I'm not talking about taxing stuff we ship to other countries, just the stuff we import through companies that shuttered US operations to move manufacturing overseas.

How exactly does that keep us from competing in the world economy, especially when it means we will definitely be manufacturing more stuff here? Seems like the opposite should happen.
2013-05-22 08:17:16 PM  
1 votes:

Granny_Panties: doyner: So we don't like reducing the deficit now?

Just imagine if we get a GOP president in 2016, they won't matter at all. Then we'll invade Iran and North Korea at the same time.


And fire everyone who isn't making $500,000 a year.
2013-05-22 08:16:33 PM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: So why don't we just use protective tariffs? If you're going to outsource jobs, then you're going to pay the unemployment checks of the people you laid off when you moved those jobs overseas.


That.

And the more the country exploits workers and wrecks the planet, the higher the tariff.
2013-05-22 08:16:02 PM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: America is supposed to be for the people, not for the businesses.


Amazing how so effortlessly the GOP forgets this.
Ehh
2013-05-22 08:13:00 PM  
1 votes:

Vectron: Washington D.C. is the problem.


And alcohol is the solution?
2013-05-22 08:08:11 PM  
1 votes:

Isitoveryet: pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

I know you're getting some flak for your suggestion.
but at least you have proposed a solution to bring jobs back home.

as mentioned we cannot compete with 3rd world ease of exploitation.  I think some healthy tariffs are in order at the very least, after that, we wait until gas prices soar to new heights making transport such a burden in addition to tariffs that anyone living & selling goods & services in the U.S.A. either cut their CEO pay or start making in the U.S.A. again.


I think if it were to be done, tariffs would be the way. The combination of paying workers $50 a week, plus the lack of environmental and safety regulations means there's huge incentive to produce offshore.
2013-05-22 08:00:44 PM  
1 votes:
Washington D.C. is the problem.
2013-05-22 07:52:23 PM  
1 votes:

pxsteel: We want the jobs
We want the revenue


Then enforce the existing tax code. And if need be get a bit tough, threatening their status as public companies would likely work well. And if it doesn't, oh well, the SEC can tear up their paperwork plenty fast.
2013-05-22 07:49:49 PM  
1 votes:

pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.


pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate


You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...
pictures.mastermarf.com
2013-05-22 07:31:13 PM  
1 votes:
That was not up to the usually high standards I have come to expect from Ezra Klein.
2013-05-22 07:27:30 PM  
1 votes:

HeartBurnKid: You mean short-term deficit reduction isn't the be-all end-all of good governance?  Well, knock me down with a feather.


BUTBUTBUT HYPERINFLATION AND FIAT CURRENCY AND DEBT SLAVERY AND BLACK PRESIDENT
2013-05-22 07:25:19 PM  
1 votes:
Let me guess. We need to cut taxes for the rich. Right?
2013-05-22 07:24:13 PM  
1 votes:
i86.photobucket.com
2013-05-22 07:23:36 PM  
1 votes:
...So vote Republican?
2013-05-22 07:10:28 PM  
1 votes:

un4gvn666: Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.

LOL


Actually, he's not technically wrong. Due to gains in production we are more than flush with supply at the current rate of employment, and as technology/automation increases the job market will require fewer and fewer people to meet demand. As it stands now, outside of construction, most industries could increase demand significantly without hiring any additional people.
2013-05-22 07:01:35 PM  
1 votes:

Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.


LOL
2013-05-22 06:51:09 PM  
1 votes:
So what he's saying is that we should cut taxes?
2013-05-22 06:49:56 PM  
1 votes:

Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.


I'm not sure unemployment works that way...
2013-05-22 06:46:24 PM  
1 votes:

Skarekrough: So, are rich people going to be okay?

I'm worried about them.


Me too.  I lose sleep at night hoping that the Job CreatorsTM won't get levied with more burdensome taxes, forcing them to send their money overseas to live with its cousin in Ireland.
2013-05-22 06:41:29 PM  
1 votes:
I was under the impression that the CBO report also mentioned that this was projected to be a short term decline & that we (the gov't) would need to take steps to make the necessary corrections to further the deficit reduction long term.

SO, the article is simply strongly wording the CBO report?
2013-05-22 06:30:33 PM  
1 votes:
Goddamit, they still haven't fixed the Y-axis on this farking chart!   The deficit is not nearly 80% of GDP now!

www.washingtonpost.com
2013-05-22 06:27:45 PM  
1 votes:
This is what I am getting from the comments after the article...

The so called president is bla, so everything is wrong. Nothing can possibly go right when we have bla in the WHITE House. Bring back America, put an old rich WHITE guy back in the WHITE House.
2013-05-22 06:21:06 PM  
1 votes:
Who cares if millions of people are out of work and suffering? Our 80 year time horizon improved in a totally unreliable way!
2013-05-22 06:19:14 PM  
1 votes:

themindiswatching: We're just not doing austerity hard enough!!!!1!!1!


I'M SO AUSTERE I SHIAT NOTHING
 
Displayed 92 of 92 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report