FEDERAL PAY FREEZE TO BE ANNOUNCED SOON

[SplinterMatic319]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by leothegod

Originally Posted by rashi

Why don't we just dissolve our government while we're at it.

 

what's a real job?

Produce something, be innovative.  Be produictive for society, not a talentless government bean counter who produce nothing.

I agree, we should let some other country over run our land, lose our freedom and become slaves

. Awesome plan.

 

Who would invade us and why would they?

are you serious?

if so

 
WHO WOULD INVADE US AND WHY? Have you ever seen a foreign country invade a country with 300 million people with the having the most guns per capita?

Who fights wars with guns still. What are we gonna use our glocks and shotguns to stop an invading country with a military and WMD? We stick our chest out at the world because of our military.   

Ok and? Who do you think makes the fighter jets, tanks, drones, ect., the bueracracy called the United States military? The Defense Department? 

 The military contracts with private companies in order to produce the planes, guns, tanks, ect. You think if we didn't have a standing army that people from foeriegn countries would just try to come here and occupy 300 million people?

 You act like the United States is like Tibet or something. How's that war in Afghanistan going against people who live in caves and shacks with our big bad military technology?  Think man, think.
First off, we are not invading Afghanistan and are trying (notice I say trying) not to kill everyone. If a country trys to invade us there will be no one spared. How can you compare the war on Terror to a country trying to invade another country.

  

We are not invading Afghanistan? We only have 100,000 troops over their that forcefully replaced their entire government, we have 100,000 American troops running their streets, we support their economy with tax payer money, and we dictate policy to their president.

invade |inˈv

 

[SplinterMatic319]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by leothegod

Originally Posted by rashi

Why don't we just dissolve our government while we're at it.

 

what's a real job?

Produce something, be innovative.  Be produictive for society, not a talentless government bean counter who produce nothing.

I agree, we should let some other country over run our land, lose our freedom and become slaves

. Awesome plan.

 

Who would invade us and why would they?

are you serious?

if so

 
WHO WOULD INVADE US AND WHY? Have you ever seen a foreign country invade a country with 300 million people with the having the most guns per capita?

Who fights wars with guns still. What are we gonna use our glocks and shotguns to stop an invading country with a military and WMD? We stick our chest out at the world because of our military.   

Ok and? Who do you think makes the fighter jets, tanks, drones, ect., the bueracracy called the United States military? The Defense Department? 

 The military contracts with private companies in order to produce the planes, guns, tanks, ect. You think if we didn't have a standing army that people from foeriegn countries would just try to come here and occupy 300 million people?

 You act like the United States is like Tibet or something. How's that war in Afghanistan going against people who live in caves and shacks with our big bad military technology?  Think man, think.
First off, we are not invading Afghanistan and are trying (notice I say trying) not to kill everyone. If a country trys to invade us there will be no one spared. How can you compare the war on Terror to a country trying to invade another country.

  

We are not invading Afghanistan? We only have 100,000 troops over their that forcefully replaced their entire government, we have 100,000 American troops running their streets, we support their economy with tax payer money, and we dictate policy to their president.

invade |inˈv

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by blacktopking319

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by leothegod

Originally Posted by rashi

Why don't we just dissolve our government while we're at it.

 

what's a real job?

Produce something, be innovative.  Be produictive for society, not a talentless government bean counter who produce nothing.

I agree, we should let some other country over run our land, lose our freedom and become slaves

. Awesome plan.

 

Who would invade us and why would they?

are you serious?

if so

 
WHO WOULD INVADE US AND WHY? Have you ever seen a foreign country invade a country with 300 million people with the having the most guns per capita?

Who fights wars with guns still. What are we gonna use our glocks and shotguns to stop an invading country with a military and WMD? We stick our chest out at the world because of our military.   

Ok and? Who do you think makes the fighter jets, tanks, drones, ect., the bueracracy called the United States military? The Defense Department? 

 The military contracts with private companies in order to produce the planes, guns, tanks, ect. You think if we didn't have a standing army that people from foeriegn countries would just try to come here and occupy 300 million people?

 You act like the United States is like Tibet or something. How's that war in Afghanistan going against people who live in caves and shacks with our big bad military technology?  Think man, think.

First off, we are not invading Afghanistan and are trying (notice I say trying) not to kill everyone. If a country trys to invade us there will be no one spared. How can you compare the war on Terror to a country trying to invade another country.

  

We are not invading Afghanistan? We only have 100,000 troops over their that forcefully replaced their entire government, we have 100,000 American troops running their streets, we support their economy with tax payer money, and we dictate policy to their president.

invade |inˈv

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by blacktopking319

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by juggy4805

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by leothegod

Originally Posted by rashi

Why don't we just dissolve our government while we're at it.

 

what's a real job?

Produce something, be innovative.  Be produictive for society, not a talentless government bean counter who produce nothing.

I agree, we should let some other country over run our land, lose our freedom and become slaves

. Awesome plan.

 

Who would invade us and why would they?

are you serious?

if so

 
WHO WOULD INVADE US AND WHY? Have you ever seen a foreign country invade a country with 300 million people with the having the most guns per capita?

Who fights wars with guns still. What are we gonna use our glocks and shotguns to stop an invading country with a military and WMD? We stick our chest out at the world because of our military.   

Ok and? Who do you think makes the fighter jets, tanks, drones, ect., the bueracracy called the United States military? The Defense Department? 

 The military contracts with private companies in order to produce the planes, guns, tanks, ect. You think if we didn't have a standing army that people from foeriegn countries would just try to come here and occupy 300 million people?

 You act like the United States is like Tibet or something. How's that war in Afghanistan going against people who live in caves and shacks with our big bad military technology?  Think man, think.

First off, we are not invading Afghanistan and are trying (notice I say trying) not to kill everyone. If a country trys to invade us there will be no one spared. How can you compare the war on Terror to a country trying to invade another country.

  

We are not invading Afghanistan? We only have 100,000 troops over their that forcefully replaced their entire government, we have 100,000 American troops running their streets, we support their economy with tax payer money, and we dictate policy to their president.

invade |inˈv

 

[northmiamiboi]

everything changed since 9/11 happened i mean everything

bush<<<<<<<<

 

[northmiamiboi]

everything changed since 9/11 happened i mean everything

bush<<<<<<<<

 

[martin and co]

It's about time...

I have a friend in Virginia who works for a small govt agency there that handles internal testing of govt software and processes error/bug reports. He made 68k when we spoke about his job 3 years ago, and he said after a year he could be making up to 80k. He has full benefits, ie pension, full medical, and also membership in a smaller govt employee credit union that gives super low rate on car loans, mortages etc. The kicker is he does almost no work! The actual analyzing of error reports is done by a private company that has a contract with them, and they have workers in the Philippines that read the reports and categorize them by type of error. The testing of internal software is automated, he just reads a report every 2 hours, and submits them to his boss. He literally sits around all day. Prior to working for the govt agency he worked for the private contractor doing work for them, working 60hrs a week for 40k and paying for 50% of his medical with no other benefits.

I think those making salaries in the 30k range should have some more breathing room, but honestly the DMV economy is unlike any I have ever seen, in its size and in that everyone has the same employer, essentially. The problem is it's taxpayers underwriting their lifestyle.

Using taxes to help the poor, I would be perfectly fine with. I'd be happy paying taxes knowing that they actually go towards helping people. However, when it goes to financing a war that is morally against every fiber of my being, and creating cushy jobs for people that are not subject to trials and tribulations of market fluctuations and performance reviews as private sector employees are, then it really goes against what this country supposedly stands for.

The government could effectively function with an 80% less employees, provided it hired like the private sector does by attracting the best and the brightest who would otherwise work for the private sector.

As far as the army goes, the only thing you need an army as large as ours is for invading other countries. When Osama was supposedly almost grabbed in Tora Bora, all we needed for that were a few air force squadrons and a couple SF teams.

Governments like Russia, China, etc are basically "openly corrupt", but honestly the US Govt is the most corrupt democratic government in the world. Speaking with people from Scandinavia and Germany and asking them how the public would react if most generals started working for defense contractors right after their military duty, or if people leading the treasury were all from private banks, really shows you how corrupt the US govt is on all levels.

 

[martin and co]

It's about time...

I have a friend in Virginia who works for a small govt agency there that handles internal testing of govt software and processes error/bug reports. He made 68k when we spoke about his job 3 years ago, and he said after a year he could be making up to 80k. He has full benefits, ie pension, full medical, and also membership in a smaller govt employee credit union that gives super low rate on car loans, mortages etc. The kicker is he does almost no work! The actual analyzing of error reports is done by a private company that has a contract with them, and they have workers in the Philippines that read the reports and categorize them by type of error. The testing of internal software is automated, he just reads a report every 2 hours, and submits them to his boss. He literally sits around all day. Prior to working for the govt agency he worked for the private contractor doing work for them, working 60hrs a week for 40k and paying for 50% of his medical with no other benefits.

I think those making salaries in the 30k range should have some more breathing room, but honestly the DMV economy is unlike any I have ever seen, in its size and in that everyone has the same employer, essentially. The problem is it's taxpayers underwriting their lifestyle.

Using taxes to help the poor, I would be perfectly fine with. I'd be happy paying taxes knowing that they actually go towards helping people. However, when it goes to financing a war that is morally against every fiber of my being, and creating cushy jobs for people that are not subject to trials and tribulations of market fluctuations and performance reviews as private sector employees are, then it really goes against what this country supposedly stands for.

The government could effectively function with an 80% less employees, provided it hired like the private sector does by attracting the best and the brightest who would otherwise work for the private sector.

As far as the army goes, the only thing you need an army as large as ours is for invading other countries. When Osama was supposedly almost grabbed in Tora Bora, all we needed for that were a few air force squadrons and a couple SF teams.

Governments like Russia, China, etc are basically "openly corrupt", but honestly the US Govt is the most corrupt democratic government in the world. Speaking with people from Scandinavia and Germany and asking them how the public would react if most generals started working for defense contractors right after their military duty, or if people leading the treasury were all from private banks, really shows you how corrupt the US govt is on all levels.

 

[goukiteg]

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

it's about time... my company did this a long time ago and they made us take 2 furlough days each month without pay

federal workers should suffer the same consequences of the recession as the rest of us

You sound bitter.

 

[goukiteg]

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

it's about time... my company did this a long time ago and they made us take 2 furlough days each month without pay

federal workers should suffer the same consequences of the recession as the rest of us

You sound bitter.

 

[jking0821]

Originally Posted by DownyBoy

^Its called risk vs. reward. Federal workers might not reap the benefits of a robust economy (although I find that point extremely debatable), they also don't get fired all that easily. You give up certain things for job security and other perks of being a Federal employee.

Too many people feel entitled to everything good but none of the bad.

Please look at the federal pay scale.  It's available to the public.  I make 46k a year and I am on the phone doing a contract extension for a satellite talking to the PI who makes 250k a year and I'm explaining to him burdened vs unburdened material cost for subcontractors. 

We work for way less the private industry but we do so knowing we have job security and as well as not suffering from the repercussions of the market.  When (IF) we bounce back and CEO's go back to making millions (I know they still do now) our head scientist will still never see 300k being employed by the US Government.

The government could effectively function with an 80% less employees, provided it hired like the private sector does by attracting the best and the brightest who would otherwise work for the private sector.
I wouldn't go as far as saying 80% but this is partially true.  But the government is supposed to generate jobs to help the economy, and you know why the best and the brightest don't go to the gov't and go private?  Because private pays more pure and simple. 

 

[jking0821]

Originally Posted by DownyBoy

^Its called risk vs. reward. Federal workers might not reap the benefits of a robust economy (although I find that point extremely debatable), they also don't get fired all that easily. You give up certain things for job security and other perks of being a Federal employee.

Too many people feel entitled to everything good but none of the bad.

Please look at the federal pay scale.  It's available to the public.  I make 46k a year and I am on the phone doing a contract extension for a satellite talking to the PI who makes 250k a year and I'm explaining to him burdened vs unburdened material cost for subcontractors. 

We work for way less the private industry but we do so knowing we have job security and as well as not suffering from the repercussions of the market.  When (IF) we bounce back and CEO's go back to making millions (I know they still do now) our head scientist will still never see 300k being employed by the US Government.

The government could effectively function with an 80% less employees, provided it hired like the private sector does by attracting the best and the brightest who would otherwise work for the private sector.
I wouldn't go as far as saying 80% but this is partially true.  But the government is supposed to generate jobs to help the economy, and you know why the best and the brightest don't go to the gov't and go private?  Because private pays more pure and simple. 

 

[Betonblck]

Aside from the deficit, why should federal workers take pay cuts? We've had deficits before. Just because corporations don't want to hire people with their record profits? 

The recession is over, corporations are doing well. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce reported last week that American companies just had their best quarter ever, earning profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter. The next-highest annual corporate profits level on record—$1.655 trillion—was in the third quarter of 2006. In fact, American corporate profits have grown for seven straight quarters at some of the fastest rates in history.

Economists says the record profits can be attributed to strong productivity growth—companies making more with fewer people—and to companies spending the money in—and sending jobs to—fast-growing countries such as China and India. As a result of the Federal Reserve’s consistent long-term lowering of interest rates, corporations have rarely had it better, they say.

 

[Betonblck]

Aside from the deficit, why should federal workers take pay cuts? We've had deficits before. Just because corporations don't want to hire people with their record profits? 

The recession is over, corporations are doing well. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce reported last week that American companies just had their best quarter ever, earning profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter. The next-highest annual corporate profits level on record—$1.655 trillion—was in the third quarter of 2006. In fact, American corporate profits have grown for seven straight quarters at some of the fastest rates in history.

Economists says the record profits can be attributed to strong productivity growth—companies making more with fewer people—and to companies spending the money in—and sending jobs to—fast-growing countries such as China and India. As a result of the Federal Reserve’s consistent long-term lowering of interest rates, corporations have rarely had it better, they say.

 

[gambit215]

Originally Posted by rdon27

Originally Posted by gambit215

I dont usually agree with rashi on most things but he has a point..........700 Billion dollars, thousands of troops overseas for NO reason (Japan, Germany, Vietnam), and we outsource most of the dirty work to private security firms who charge WAY more............. Armed Forces is way too big, you could literally balance the budget if you cut defense by 1/3......Its always unpopular but a lot of unpopular things have to be done to ever see progression.........

Dumbest comment I've read in this thread. So should the police station be 40 miles from your house and the cops all be there? Or better yet should the fire station? If you've ever servered in the military or some other gov't branches you would know the reason we have agreements with other countries.
  

your problem, you try to insult people but at the same time come off as a blind, spineless idiot who thinks people outside of these country can actually tolerate Americans and their "safety" Instead of name calling, try growing up and read a book once in a while, NONE OF THESE COUNTRIES WANT AMERICAN TROOPS ON THEIR LAND. United States Armed Forces should not or attempt to police the rest of the world. Matter of fact, since you are the big genius on this board, WHY do our troops occupy other countries but there isnt a Chinese, German, or Vietnamese base on US Soil? We have this "agreement" right? 

P.S. The only Army capable of doing any damage to the US is China, as far as Tech and manpower they got us beat, but guess what, they have no INCENTIVE to destroy America as they pretty much own us............Its like the guy with 500 guns in the crib and hes never been robbed..............America needs to get over itself.

 

[gambit215]

Originally Posted by rdon27

Originally Posted by gambit215

I dont usually agree with rashi on most things but he has a point..........700 Billion dollars, thousands of troops overseas for NO reason (Japan, Germany, Vietnam), and we outsource most of the dirty work to private security firms who charge WAY more............. Armed Forces is way too big, you could literally balance the budget if you cut defense by 1/3......Its always unpopular but a lot of unpopular things have to be done to ever see progression.........

Dumbest comment I've read in this thread. So should the police station be 40 miles from your house and the cops all be there? Or better yet should the fire station? If you've ever servered in the military or some other gov't branches you would know the reason we have agreements with other countries.
  

your problem, you try to insult people but at the same time come off as a blind, spineless idiot who thinks people outside of these country can actually tolerate Americans and their "safety" Instead of name calling, try growing up and read a book once in a while, NONE OF THESE COUNTRIES WANT AMERICAN TROOPS ON THEIR LAND. United States Armed Forces should not or attempt to police the rest of the world. Matter of fact, since you are the big genius on this board, WHY do our troops occupy other countries but there isnt a Chinese, German, or Vietnamese base on US Soil? We have this "agreement" right? 

P.S. The only Army capable of doing any damage to the US is China, as far as Tech and manpower they got us beat, but guess what, they have no INCENTIVE to destroy America as they pretty much own us............Its like the guy with 500 guns in the crib and hes never been robbed..............America needs to get over itself.

 

[lil cardiac]

Originally Posted by cguy610

While the way you expressed yourself made you look like a fool, you do bring up a legitimate point regarding the state of our economy.  We do have too many people in non-value adding positions and services.  For example, the money spent on prisons and inmates is way more than is spent on public education.  The drug war needs to be ended.  The military spending needs to be reduced.

Take this money that is wasted on these things and then invest it in better education and alternative energy. 


Been spouting this point of view for years.  
The United States has the largest defense budget in the world. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Defense has a base budget of $533.8 billion. An additional $130.0 billion was requested for "Overseas Contingency Operations" in the War on Terrorism, and over the course of the year, an additional $33 billion in supplemental spending was added to Overseas Contingency Operations funding.[sup][4][/sup][sup][6][/sup][sup][7][/sup] Outside of direct Department of Defense spending, the United States spends another $218–262 billion each year on other defense-related programs, such as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, nuclear weapons maintenance, and the State Department.

That comes to ~900 billion.  Tell me we couldn't use an extra 3 or 400 billion in our school systems.

 

[lil cardiac]

Originally Posted by cguy610

While the way you expressed yourself made you look like a fool, you do bring up a legitimate point regarding the state of our economy.  We do have too many people in non-value adding positions and services.  For example, the money spent on prisons and inmates is way more than is spent on public education.  The drug war needs to be ended.  The military spending needs to be reduced.

Take this money that is wasted on these things and then invest it in better education and alternative energy. 


Been spouting this point of view for years.  
The United States has the largest defense budget in the world. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Defense has a base budget of $533.8 billion. An additional $130.0 billion was requested for "Overseas Contingency Operations" in the War on Terrorism, and over the course of the year, an additional $33 billion in supplemental spending was added to Overseas Contingency Operations funding.[sup][4][/sup][sup][6][/sup][sup][7][/sup] Outside of direct Department of Defense spending, the United States spends another $218–262 billion each year on other defense-related programs, such as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, nuclear weapons maintenance, and the State Department.

That comes to ~900 billion.  Tell me we couldn't use an extra 3 or 400 billion in our school systems.

 

[georgehimself]

A pay freeze was done in order to avoid layoffs. I think its better to have more people with jobs on a pay freeze, then to cut some jobs altogether.

 

[georgehimself]

A pay freeze was done in order to avoid layoffs. I think its better to have more people with jobs on a pay freeze, then to cut some jobs altogether.

 

[theta]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Theta

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by AquaGrape2345

The U.S. needs to stop adding to its deficit as well as outsourcing jobs so that our economy can get back up and running.

Realistically very little the government can do for outsourcing. It's the burden of consumers to stop outsourcing. Instead of buying the cheap made in China product spend extra for the made in USA product.

One of the best thing that can happen to this economy is having jobs outsourced. If you can answer phones and want $10/hour and a guy in India can answer phones for $2/hour, WHY ON EARTH would you say that you should get paid more? You dont deserve to get paid $10 because theres somebody else that can do your job just as well for less money. The implication that it has on the domestic economy is clear: cheaper things. Yes thats right, EVERYBODY gets cheaper goods. Why? because the marginal cost of production has decreased. A chinese factory worker makes ~$1/hour where as the GM factory workers that were part of the UAW were making $74/hr once you factor in all benefits. Almost EVERYBODY in society is better off when the market is more efficient, and outsourcing does exactly that. Simply because theyre american, it doesnt oblige Private Companies to hire them.

Also, that guy thats stirring the pot has a really good view (although presented it poorly): There is a LOT of bureaucracy in the government. A lot of people are getting paid way too much for doing absolutely nothing of value. This isnt to say that we need to eliminate our military (and this seems to be the main focus of NT), but again, the Govnt has no incentive to be efficient, to pay people what theyre worth (whether its more or less than what they have now). Theyre using OUR tax dollars to pay for jobs that we dont need.

So what should be done? Drastically reduce the size of the govnt. The govnt fails terribly at almost everything it does (ie: schools, healthcare, minimum wage laws, etc etc) and its taking money from hardworking Americans to do it.

Wow, let me get this foolishness you just typed straight. 

 

1.  Outsource all the jobs
2.  Eliminate minimum wage
3.  Drastically reduce the size of government

Now, who is going to buy goods and services when unemployment is 50% and the other 50% that are working make $2/hr. 

Given what you already said, you probably also want to cut unemployment and welfare too, right?  So basically, half of the people in the US starve and die, while the others work for $2/hr. 

Listen, I know it sounds counter intuitive, but minimum wage is the SINGLE WORST policy measure for the poor ever. If you want, I can explain it more thoroughly, but for now just consider this simple line of reasoning: "when the price of something goes up, you can afford less of it". It makes sense right? Its really intuitive. Now lets apply this to the labor market. When the price of labor goes up (ie, an increase in minimum wage), you can afford less of it (hence, unemployment increases). This is all in real dollar terms of course. Again, if this doesnt make sense to you, I can provide a more detailed explination.

What this means, however, is that a cut in minimum wage will effectively raise employment levels. Also, you have to keep in mind that the number of jobs in an economy is not fixed. Once one job is outsourced, it doesnt mean that person is unemployed forever. He can get a different job. It happens all the time once an industry collapses (think of all the people that worked in a typewriter factory when computers became popular...). I am not advocating ALL JOBS getting outsourced, only the ones that can be done for cheaper.

Now addressing what you said. 1) Unemployment will not increase due to outsourcing since the cut in minimum wage will create more jobs than there were before. 2) I have no idea how you think that 50% of america will starve and die without a minimum wage while the other 50% will make $2 an hour. Thats ridiculous. You understand that minimum wage didnt always exist right? People werent dying everywhere - they were doing reasonably well. What will happen is that people get paid what they are worth. If you do your job really well, youll get paid much much more than $2/hour. Why? Because if you dont get paid more, somebody else will pay you that amount. Consider the following example:

Lebron James is really, really, really good at basketball. You own an NBA team and one day show up on his high school court in Cleveland and are like: wow, that dude is really, really good at basketball - i bet that a lot of people are willing to pay to watch him play and he will ultimately increase my profits by $20million/year. But since there is no minimum wage, I can pay him $2 an hour. Ok so you pay him $2/hour. I come along and see that Lebron is really valuable to my NBA team as well and will increase my profits by $20million as well. I decide to own you and pay him $10,000/year. You come back and pay him $50,000 a year (after all, he is increasing your profits 20M, you can pay him more). I come back and pay him $2M a year, and you own my by paying him $20M a year. This is how the market works, theres a back and forth until equilibrium is reached. The same thing happens with people making $10/hour. You get paid what youre worth in a capitalist society. The govnt will only mess things up by imposing a price floor (which is what min wage is).

 

[theta]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Theta

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by AquaGrape2345

The U.S. needs to stop adding to its deficit as well as outsourcing jobs so that our economy can get back up and running.

Realistically very little the government can do for outsourcing. It's the burden of consumers to stop outsourcing. Instead of buying the cheap made in China product spend extra for the made in USA product.

One of the best thing that can happen to this economy is having jobs outsourced. If you can answer phones and want $10/hour and a guy in India can answer phones for $2/hour, WHY ON EARTH would you say that you should get paid more? You dont deserve to get paid $10 because theres somebody else that can do your job just as well for less money. The implication that it has on the domestic economy is clear: cheaper things. Yes thats right, EVERYBODY gets cheaper goods. Why? because the marginal cost of production has decreased. A chinese factory worker makes ~$1/hour where as the GM factory workers that were part of the UAW were making $74/hr once you factor in all benefits. Almost EVERYBODY in society is better off when the market is more efficient, and outsourcing does exactly that. Simply because theyre american, it doesnt oblige Private Companies to hire them.

Also, that guy thats stirring the pot has a really good view (although presented it poorly): There is a LOT of bureaucracy in the government. A lot of people are getting paid way too much for doing absolutely nothing of value. This isnt to say that we need to eliminate our military (and this seems to be the main focus of NT), but again, the Govnt has no incentive to be efficient, to pay people what theyre worth (whether its more or less than what they have now). Theyre using OUR tax dollars to pay for jobs that we dont need.

So what should be done? Drastically reduce the size of the govnt. The govnt fails terribly at almost everything it does (ie: schools, healthcare, minimum wage laws, etc etc) and its taking money from hardworking Americans to do it.

Wow, let me get this foolishness you just typed straight. 

 

1.  Outsource all the jobs
2.  Eliminate minimum wage
3.  Drastically reduce the size of government

Now, who is going to buy goods and services when unemployment is 50% and the other 50% that are working make $2/hr. 

Given what you already said, you probably also want to cut unemployment and welfare too, right?  So basically, half of the people in the US starve and die, while the others work for $2/hr. 

Listen, I know it sounds counter intuitive, but minimum wage is the SINGLE WORST policy measure for the poor ever. If you want, I can explain it more thoroughly, but for now just consider this simple line of reasoning: "when the price of something goes up, you can afford less of it". It makes sense right? Its really intuitive. Now lets apply this to the labor market. When the price of labor goes up (ie, an increase in minimum wage), you can afford less of it (hence, unemployment increases). This is all in real dollar terms of course. Again, if this doesnt make sense to you, I can provide a more detailed explination.

What this means, however, is that a cut in minimum wage will effectively raise employment levels. Also, you have to keep in mind that the number of jobs in an economy is not fixed. Once one job is outsourced, it doesnt mean that person is unemployed forever. He can get a different job. It happens all the time once an industry collapses (think of all the people that worked in a typewriter factory when computers became popular...). I am not advocating ALL JOBS getting outsourced, only the ones that can be done for cheaper.

Now addressing what you said. 1) Unemployment will not increase due to outsourcing since the cut in minimum wage will create more jobs than there were before. 2) I have no idea how you think that 50% of america will starve and die without a minimum wage while the other 50% will make $2 an hour. Thats ridiculous. You understand that minimum wage didnt always exist right? People werent dying everywhere - they were doing reasonably well. What will happen is that people get paid what they are worth. If you do your job really well, youll get paid much much more than $2/hour. Why? Because if you dont get paid more, somebody else will pay you that amount. Consider the following example:

Lebron James is really, really, really good at basketball. You own an NBA team and one day show up on his high school court in Cleveland and are like: wow, that dude is really, really good at basketball - i bet that a lot of people are willing to pay to watch him play and he will ultimately increase my profits by $20million/year. But since there is no minimum wage, I can pay him $2 an hour. Ok so you pay him $2/hour. I come along and see that Lebron is really valuable to my NBA team as well and will increase my profits by $20million as well. I decide to own you and pay him $10,000/year. You come back and pay him $50,000 a year (after all, he is increasing your profits 20M, you can pay him more). I come back and pay him $2M a year, and you own my by paying him $20M a year. This is how the market works, theres a back and forth until equilibrium is reached. The same thing happens with people making $10/hour. You get paid what youre worth in a capitalist society. The govnt will only mess things up by imposing a price floor (which is what min wage is).

 

[juggy4805]

Originally Posted by georgehimself

A pay freeze was done in order to avoid layoffs. I think its better to have more people with jobs on a pay freeze, then to cut some jobs altogether.

Not really, they is still going to be a reduction of 10% of federal employees.

 

[juggy4805]

Originally Posted by georgehimself

A pay freeze was done in order to avoid layoffs. I think its better to have more people with jobs on a pay freeze, then to cut some jobs altogether.

Not really, they is still going to be a reduction of 10% of federal employees.

 

[wawaweewa]

Theta wrote:

Listen, I know it sounds counter intuitive, but minimum wage is the SINGLE WORST policy measure for the poor ever. If you want, I can explain it more thoroughly, but for now just consider this simple line of reasoning: "when the price of something goes up, you can afford less of it". It makes sense right? Its really intuitive. Now lets apply this to the labor market. When the price of labor goes up (ie, an increase in minimum wage), you can afford less of it (hence, unemployment increases). This is all in real dollar terms of course. Again, if this doesnt make sense to you, I can provide a more detailed explination.

What this means, however, is that a cut in minimum wage will effectively raise employment levels. Also, you have to keep in mind that the number of jobs in an economy is not fixed. Once one job is outsourced, it doesnt mean that person is unemployed forever. He can get a different job. It happens all the time once an industry collapses (think of all the people that worked in a typewriter factory when computers became popular...). I am not advocating ALL JOBS getting outsourced, only the ones that can be done for cheaper.

Now addressing what you said. 1) Unemployment will not increase due to outsourcing since the cut in minimum wage will create more jobs than there were before. 2) I have no idea how you think that 50% of america will starve and die without a minimum wage while the other 50% will make $2 an hour. Thats ridiculous. You understand that minimum wage didnt always exist right? People werent dying everywhere - they were doing reasonably well. What will happen is that people get paid what they are worth. If you do your job really well, youll get paid much much more than $2/hour. Why? Because if you dont get paid more, somebody else will pay you that amount. Consider the following example:

Lebron James is really, really, really good at basketball. You own an NBA team and one day show up on his high school court in Cleveland and are like: wow, that dude is really, really good at basketball - i bet that a lot of people are willing to pay to watch him play and he will ultimately increase my profits by $20million/year. But since there is no minimum wage, I can pay him $2 an hour. Ok so you pay him $2/hour. I come along and see that Lebron is really valuable to my NBA team as well and will increase my profits by $20million as well. I decide to own you and pay him $10,000/year. You come back and pay him $50,000 a year (after all, he is increasing your profits 20M, you can pay him more). I come back and pay him $2M a year, and you own my by paying him $20M a year. This is how the market works, theres a back and forth until equilibrium is reached. The same thing happens with people making $10/hour. You get paid what youre worth in a capitalist society. The govnt will only mess things up by imposing a price floor (which is what min wage is).



Dude, you're wrong when it comes to how things actually work. 
I know where you're getting this from. The world doesn't function like a textbook. 

My entire time through econ undergrad I sat there and had to listen to blatantly ridiculous theories based on equally ridiculous assumptions. 

Real world economies thrive on information asymmetry and closed/ non competitive markets. 

It irks me to no end having to listen to textbook %%!#$**! being spouted. 

Economics, as presented today, is so far removed from its original intention that it has become nothing more than a self perpetuating ++++ show.