AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → The Economy

36 5451
7432200
offline
7432200
134 posts
Nomad

The world has just had the worst economic collapse in 100 years. I personally think that after all the shit we went though we are finally on the other side. Who agrees!
P.S don't reply if you are just going to yell at me.

  • 36 Replies
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

Obama is the man who claims that he believes in sharing the wealth. So why doesn't he share his and get rid of that large mass of money sitting around doing nothing?

This is barely true in the US.
Money hasn't been distributed as much as he's said yet because the economy hasn't allowed it to yet. Simply being a good public speaker doesn't reverse the economy (not long term, at least).
Once the economy gets better, firms will have the ability to showcase the trickle-down economic system, and jobs will appear, and money will be easier distributed.
As I said before, this does not apply to "Christmas crunch"
The only reason we feel like we aren't doing well is because we don't know how to save money. We always spend, spend, spend until we have no money to work with anymore. People have to learn to control their spending impulses a little more.

The reason we're not doing well right now is the economy.

The economic downturn (I liked one report calling the the Great Recession, I hope it sticks...) has near to nothing to do with people not saving money, it has near to everything to do with unregulated markets. I can explain in great detail, if anyone wishes to contend.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Nomad

The rich may hold a large percentage of wealth, but never in history has this not been the case. NEVER


Exhibit A: 5000 BC

Money hasn't been distributed as much as he's said yet because the economy hasn't allowed it to yet.


I am talking about his own fortune. Don't see how that could be misconstrued.

Great Recession is a great name, however any recession that is great becomes a minor depression at least.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Maybe in China and other places with strict government control, but in America almost everyone has a car, a computer, a TV (and cable), internet, and a cell phone. All of these things are expensive, and when you add in taxes, the middle class in America is doing very well.


Actually, the two countries where levels of social mobility have dropped most significantly in the past 30 years have been the US and the UK, probably down to the neo liberal economic policies instigated in the 80s by Thatcher and Reagan.

Back to your point about prosperity, the richest the world has ever been in terms of real spending power was the 1960s. The average American family would only need one salary earner per family, which would be sufficient to provide a car and a house and a decent standard of living for the children. Now real spending power has halved, as most households would need ta least two salaries to support such a lifestyle.

In addition to his, many Americans are prosperous, however there are a very large proportion of Americans who do not own property or a car or can even afford basic healthcare. That to me doesn't seem to be the mark of a wealthy society.

The only reason why it's "hard" for Americans today is because it's harder to find a job, and we have to lower our living standards some. Even after lowering our living standards to compensate for the money problems we have, our living standards are still very high.


It's not harder to find a job if you are rich enough to afford higher education. There are so many more opportunities to find work now due to the evolution of the tertiary sector. The fact is people from poorer backgrounds don't have access to the training that makes them eligible for these jobs, thus the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer.

The rich may hold a large percentage of wealth, but never in history has this not been the case. NEVER


Obviously not, otherwise there wouldn't be a 'rich' or a 'oor' however I am just pointing out that inequality is rising not falling. I think the perceptions held by rich members of society with regards to social mobility are so contradicted by the facts. I guess it's morally convenient to believe that anyone can rise to the top if you are born rich. It justifies your unearned wealth.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

In addition to his, many Americans are prosperous, however there are a very large proportion of Americans who do not own property or a car or can even afford basic healthcare. That to me doesn't seem to be the mark of a wealthy society.

There's still a relatively large amount of prosperity in the US.
It's not that bad, really. The majority of US citizens have the ability to save enough money for retirement.
It's not harder to find a job if you are rich enough to afford higher education. There are so many more opportunities to find work now due to the evolution of the tertiary sector. The fact is people from poorer backgrounds don't have access to the training that makes them eligible for these jobs, thus the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer.

His point was that right now there aren't jobs.
Also, there are plenty classes and semester to three year, cheap education systems designed at getting people caught up with technology. Lots of mid to low class people are taking advantage of them, but not every single person is. Low class people have the resources to get training in office job fields and work.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

Sorry for the dub-post, forgot to address this.

I am talking about his own fortune. Don't see how that could be misconstrued

I've thought about the President giving money to those who need it before.
Then I thought about the huge stampede of people there would be trying to fill every crevice of every room he ever entered. There aren't enough people for him to help out, and we don't need every single press conference overrun with "i'm terribly poor and dying, HELP MMMMEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!" comments.
That's slightly over exaggerated but in reality, not much.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Nomad

You don't have to announce to the world you are doing it.

German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

Really, like the media isn't going to find out that a bunch of people going into foreclosure are randomly becoming upper-middle class, and that their checks are being cashed by the President.

Someone would find out eventually, and then there would be terribly annoying consequences.

Either way, presidents usually need their large incomes later on -- they barely ever get other jobs (Former President Clinton lives off of payments for speeches he makes) and usually have large lives ahead of them, not to mention whatever security they feel as if they need later on which may or may not be provided by the Secret Service (usually not after too long). I've read a couple articles before on how most presidents have to find jobs later on, and I don't think we should make them search for a job right after their term. It's a tough job and we shouldn't be making them do something like that.

I would have no problem with a program designed to pay off a certain amount of mortgages, but definitely a problem with the President himself paying them off. How is he supposed to decide which get help anyways? He'd have to look at each case separately, and presidents don't really have time for that.

A program would be much better.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

There's still a relatively large amount of prosperity in the US.
It's not that bad, really. The majority of US citizens have the ability to save enough money for retirement.


Try telling someone who has to choose between food and medicine it's 'not that bad'.

His point was that right now there aren't jobs.


We are looking at things in the long term. Of course there is a recession right now, but over the course of the past 100 years, there have generally been plenty of jobs on offer - just not for people from poorer backgrounds. In any post Industrial economy, low/unskilled occupations are exported with the new jobs being based more on technology and services - occupations which poor people do not have the means to train for (ie., money for university fees).

In any case, if we assume what you say is true, that poor people do have access to this kind of work, kindly explain the low level of social mobility that exists in America.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

Try telling someone who has to choose between food and medicine it's 'not that bad'.

I know people like that.
It's not perfect, but we're not in a socialistic setting here, and it's not a model system of equality, but we don't shoot for a model system of equality.
There are poor people, but the very large majority of people in this country can get by through life just fine if they manage their money correctly.
In any post Industrial economy, low/unskilled occupations are exported with the new jobs being based more on technology and services - occupations which poor people do not have the means to train for (ie., money for university fees).

Basic computer classes here aren't very expensive at all -- 300-1000 dollars at the very most.
If one were to have a menial or waitering job and have roommates which helped pay rent, after a few months they could most likely pay for a basic (maybe, 5- or 10-class) technology course.
In any case, if we assume what you say is true, that poor people do have access to this kind of work, kindly explain the low level of social mobility that exists in America.

Speaking long-run, it will (very most likely) be shown that more lower-middle class and perhaps even low class (there are only some jobs you can get when you're homeless or close to such) are working office jobs.
Mainly, the whole technology education hasn't hit everywhere yet, and certainly not a prevalent amount in places like Michigan. It hasn't picked up in popularity very much, but I believe people will see that more office jobs are showing up (and most office jobs don't need too much practice) and people will take more technology courses and have more technology-related jobs.

Basically, if you're poor, you can't get a great job, you can't get much more than decent pay, and things don't always work out. We don't have a perfect society, and someone has to clean toilets -- usually the poor, uneducated people.
If one is decently high enough in lower-middle class and is smart about their money, they can make it to upper-middle class by the time they're dead.
This usually isn't true for lower class people, but shit. It has to happen to someone in our type of economy and it's usually them.
woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

I know people like that.
It's not perfect, but we're not in a socialistic setting here, and it's not a model system of equality, but we don't shoot for a model system of equality.


you don't have to be a utopian socialist to believe in basic living standards like healthcare and whatnot, nor do u have 2 believe in absolute equality to want things like that.

Basic computer classes here aren't very expensive at all -- 300-1000 dollars at the very most.


if u come from a low income household with only one person working, you wont be able to afford even that. if it gets to the point where u have 2 choose between food and healthcare, you wont be able to afford $300 per month. thats actually quite a lot of money if you have to pay rent taxes, water bills, gas bills etc

Speaking long-run, it will (very most likely) be shown that more lower-middle class and perhaps even low class (there are only some jobs you can get when you're homeless or close to such) are working office jobs.


anyone can say ''very most likely''. marx believed it was ''very most lkely'' there would be an international proletariat revolution. it doesn't mean he's right. give evidence for your claims.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

you don't have to be a utopian socialist to believe in basic living standards like healthcare and whatnot, nor do u have 2 believe in absolute equality to want things like that.

We try to stay away from socialist things like health care. It doesn't allow the market to be as free as is can be, and Republicans have heavily stonewalled against it.
I don't have anything against a public option, for it would get some reform in the health care industry (which we DESPERATELY need), but we have to be very careful with such because we're terrible at creating government programs.
if u come from a low income household with only one person working, you wont be able to afford even that. if it gets to the point where u have 2 choose between food and healthcare, you wont be able to afford $300 per month. thats actually quite a lot of money if you have to pay rent taxes, water bills, gas bills etc

I meant 300-1000 dollars per set of classes, as in a semester-like fee. Total amount for a basic to advanced technology class.

I know that it's not an easy amount to come up with out of one month's pay, I'm currently trying to make figures for my near future for two part time workers living together/with roommates. I'm saying that if you save money, it's definitely not impossible to get that amount to pay for that class. It'd take several months but it would easily be possible.
anyone can say ''very most likely''. marx believed it was ''very most lkely'' there would be an international proletariat revolution. it doesn't mean he's right. give evidence for your claims.

It was a different way of saying something like 95% likely. It means that under logical circumstances and most of the possibly illogical circumstances
There's no evidence because we've never had a technology advance like this in this type of society (one which seems as it will be the sole determination of whether you get a menial labor shit-pay job and a job which allows one to be in the middle class or upper middle class), and so we have to use logic circumstances.

If factory jobs continue to depreciate and office jobs continue to become more prevalent (and it's easy to assume that will be true), it is logical to assume that people will notice this and then strive for these jobs, probably searching for cheap education to help them achieve higher status in office job searches.
That education is out there right now, and once people notice that they need more training in technology, more of those classes will show up.
woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

We try to stay away from socialist things like health care. It doesn't allow the market to be as free as is can be, and Republicans have heavily stonewalled against it.


the funny thing is that US privatised health care is one of the least efficient in the world. theres an incentive for drs to recommend expensive treatments because they know insurance companies will cover it, and they will get pad more by their hospital if they do. other systems are by no means perfect, but they're way better than the US system.

I meant 300-1000 dollars per set of classes, as in a semester-like fee. Total amount for a basic to advanced technology class.


i know. when you earn less than $100 a week, as lots of people do thats too much money to be able to save up. not to mention the time they woul dhave to spend off work doing a course like that which would lose them tons of working hours.

There's no evidence because we've never had a technology advance like this in this type of society (one which seems as it will be the sole determination of whether you get a menial labor ****-pay job and a job which allows one to be in the middle class or upper middle class), and so we have to use logic circumstances.


there are economc indicators if you can be bothered to look them up. economies have been relying on technology and services in the west for the past 20 years. thats easily enough time to collate data and research hypothesis.

That education is out there right now, and once people notice that they need more training in technology, more of those classes will show up.


why not just get the government to organise free at the point of delivery? it would educate your workforce which would reap dividends in the future. o yea, this is the US. how silly of me to assume they'd make an effort to help the poor.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

the funny thing is that US privatised health care is one of the least efficient in the world. theres an incentive for drs to recommend expensive treatments because they know insurance companies will cover it, and they will get pad more by their hospital if they do. other systems are by no means perfect, but they're way better than the US system.

We passed reform bills earlier this week which will help.
Our system isn't the greatest, and other countries are much better, but if we can barely control privatized healthcare how do we expect not to see horrible corruption in public? My point is that historically, we're not good at being socialistic -- so we don't pass very much socialistic bills. Also, since we're the country of "freedom", and our economy

less than $100 a week

Assuming you're not underemployed, you make 175 a week after taxes here. That's being heavily taxed under minimum wage. (30 hrs/week * 7.25 = 215, minus 15% tax = 185).
If you're going to use numbers, don't make them up, thankya.
So no, absolutely no employed workers with a check-issuing job makes less than 100/week here.
there are economc indicators if you can be bothered to look them up. economies have been relying on technology and services in the west for the past 20 years. thats easily enough time to collate data and research hypothesis.

Not in the sense of all jobs other than construction and services being office jobs. That's completely different. Ten years ago, if you didn't know how to work modern technology you had little to no problem finding a job. We're talking about how lower class people aren't gaining enough social mobility nowadays because they don't have the qualifications for tertiary jobs.

I'm talking about how in the long run, when more of them notice this/are further convinced of this, there will be higher demand for technology education and therefore more technology education, and more of them will be able to go into those jobs and (probably) have more social mobility. Moreover, I'm talking about how they could do that right now in anticipation of and have better social mobility.
why not just get the government to organise free at the point of delivery? it would educate your workforce which would reap dividends in the future. o yea, this is the US. how silly of me to assume they'd make an effort to help the poor.

Force people to go to school? That would hardly ever pass Congress.

Also, it would be heavily bombarded against for the fact that it would cost 21 billion dollars simply for paying the teachers, if each class cost 400 dollars.
Logically, 500 dollars is more likely, so it would cost over 26 billion dollars then.

My math: 15% poverty (halfway between 13 and 17) times 350 million people (easily the population by the time it was passed) = 52,500,000 people in poverty * 400/person/class = 21,000,000,000
or 500 = 26,250,000,000.

That's being very generous for cost.
That definitely wouldn't get passed right now, and loading it with earmarks won't help at all.

So no. We won't do that. Sorry to tell you that our country is deathly broke.
DDX
offline
DDX
3,562 posts
Nomad

Try telling someone who has to choose between food and medicine it's 'not that bad'.


well it depends who you tell >_> if you tell someone who has to do that ^^ then ofcourse it is bad, but tell someone who is tremendously well off, then ofcourse the answer will be different.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

i realize a huge amount of errors in the post.

the first paragraph i forgot to finish, so...

Also, since we're the country of "freedom", and our economy

Since we're the country of "freedom, and economies highly reflect that, the government tries to allow as much freedom in the economy for as many business changes as possible.
the medical system is an exception, yes.

The point here is that we aren't a society with equality because that's simply not our type of economy.
--------------
Got some typos too but they're not very hard to understand.
Showing 16-30 of 36