Steep Drop for Americans' Standard of Living

I think much of the drop in standard of living came from folks moving to Florida.

more bud light less micro brew

Thank the liberal government policies of the last ten years.

Liberals ran the govt. for the past 10 years?

The Failed GOP Policies of Nevada:

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/nevada-the-republican-promised-land-132035853.html

Lower standard of living is a function of
1)gov't favoring consumption and borrowing over saving
2)gov't being inefficient and spending too much
3)Country not investing in infrastructure(no this does not conflict with point 2)
4)Failing Education and Vocational system
5)A financial system that effectively taxes the greater economy
6)Inefficient Tax system(we need a flat tax)

not: lower income?

are you sure it isn't because jobs have been exported?

Now that they can't borrow, Americans are waking up to the reality of declining incomes. Wages have been declining for 30 years, with few bumps here and there, but the last 10 years have just accelerated the trend, with the government aggressively reversing tax policies to favor the very wealthy.
Flat-taxers and flat-earthers unite! you guys are like 17th century "doctors." Patient not feeling well: bleed him. Still not feeling well: bleed him again and apply mercury poultice. Still breathing? just a tiny more bloodletting, and there will be an end to the whining. Dead? Ah, God just didn't love you. Better luck next time.

"Liberals ran the govt. for the past 10 years?

ABSOLUTELY! Anal Greenspan (I mean Alan), Ben Bernake, George II and Dicklet Cheeney are LIBERALS ALL!

Perhaps for several decades Americans benefited because Europe and Asia were blown up from World War II. Now that we have competition things are different. Add to that the end of the Gold Standard under Nixon.

Maly-

Where do you live?

Let's get Glass-Steagall reinstated, and repeal the Bush tax cuts, cut Wall street to size so Main street can breathe again. Even in 1950, wars and tax cuts didn't mix. The math is still the same: you want it, you pay for it.

"Add to that the end of the Gold Standard under Nixon."

Uhm, the gold standard "ended" because DeGaulle called our bluff, and demanded gold in exchange for France's dollar reserves. In other words, it ended because it's stupid and doesn't work - just like it didn't work in the 1800's, or when it was dropped during the Depression and WWII....

Until the next star explodes, there's not enough gold in the solar system to support the money supply. It doesn't work because - yes, RS, it's true! - because BANKS CREATE MONEY, not G-d.

Banks create money by taking in deposits and lending them out again. You deposit $5, I borrow $4 of them, now there's $9.

See how easy?

>Wages have been declining for 30 years, with few bumps here and there, but the last 10 years have just accelerated the trend,

Total costs for employers isn't down. Wages have been eaten up by increasing health care costs.

So where do you live Maly?

Living standards decline is bound to happen as we are living longer but working the same or fewer number of years and are enjoying far better quality of healthcare in forms of treatments which did not exist before.

A flat tax is a horrible idea. It means a tax cut for the rich and a tax increase for the poor.

Socialist

I think most people understand what it means

9-9-9: 9 for you, 91 for me; 9 for you, 91 for me; 9 for you, 91 for me.

Makes perfect sense.

I prefer a pure flat tax. 9/9/9 with a sales tax exclusion for used products will really kill consumption of new goods in favor of used products. If we did this sales of New Cars and other products would take a hit.

A pure flat tax without sales tax component would have to run about 22-25% to have balanced budgets. The bottom third of Americans do not earn sufficient income to pay a Federal tax on it. I'd like to see that proposal, just to see the look of pain and anguish on the really wealthy fat cats who currently pay about 16-18%, because they have had lobbyists poke holes in the tax code for the last 25 years. So you'd double the tax burden of working Americans, just to save a few thousands for 9% and a few millions for the .01%? That's daft.
Are you channeling retail Barbie? "Math is hard! Let's go shopping."

taxes, shmaxes - where are the jobs?
manufacturing - outsourced
the '80s "service economy" - outsourced
"high-tech" i.e., software - outsourced
pensions killing us taxpayers? how do institutions holding investments pay out pensions when interest rates are zero?

Here's a plan: let's pay people to eat right and stay fit. let's pay kids to stay in school and study hard. let's award everyone excellent medical care from conception to grave. let's send money to old people and everyone else who might need it. let's force our ideas on others through the use of our mighty military regardless of the cost.

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs!

BOO!

Made you see red!

happy halloween!

I want LICC to explain his "liberal economic policy" nonsense. You know, how all of a sudden deregulation is a "liberal" cause.

steve continues his butchering of economics.

Massive government spending and borrowing, artificial lowering of interest rates, central government intrusion in the private economy- all liberal policies from the last ten years (Democrat and Republican) that have led to this mess.

Thankfully conservatism is finding its way back into the Republican party to hopefully get better policies in place to fix this mess.

What's your degree in, LICC?

"Massive government spending" = George II

"borrowing" = St. Ronald & George II

"artificial lowering of interest rates" = Bernake & Greenspan = George I, George II

"central government intrusion in the private economy" = I'm not sure what that means.

You're a Tea-Partier! YAY! YAY!

Watch those policies REALLY blow the world up.

""Massive government spending" = George II"

It must be nice to be completely divorced from reality and live in a dream world. There have been no large deficits under Obama, right? LMAO.

"White House Expects Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703361904576143253522341850.html

"A new analysis says the 2012 U.S. budget as proposed by President Barack Obama would produce deficits of $9.5 trillion over the next 10 years - trillions more than if Obama's proposals are not adopted"

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/CBO-Analysis-Obamas-2012-Budget-Increases-Deficit-118293374.html

What about Clinton? forget that today he is everyone's cool uncle. What about when he was in office?

deficits shmeficits
liberals shmiberals
conservatives shmervatives
where have the jobs gone?

"Thankfully conservatism is finding its way back into the Republican party to hopefully get better policies in place to fix this mess."

What policies would those be? Be specific. How many times do I have to tell you: NO MORE TALKING POINTS! Now tell me, without talking points, what conservative policies are you referring to? Cutting taxes?

"White House Expects Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion"

Who would ever have imagined that the deficit would spike when defense spending is $1 trillion a year and taxes are at historic lows?

Las Vegas has low taxes and few regulations. For goodness sake, prostitution there is legal. But they have the highest unemployment rate in the country. Certainly there should be no unemployment considering all of their conservative policies. Instead, unemployment is lowest in North Dakota, a Red state with Blue state policies and home to the nation's only Socialist bank.

Alaska also has lower unemployment that the national average (7.7%). It's a Red state with Blue state policies. They actually pay you to live in Alaska, making it the country's only true welfare state!

Too bad they don't pay you to live in LIC. Maybe then I would consder living there 1 day a month.

I've been hearing and reading all this argument for aeons, and sometime over a decade ago I stopped hearing arguments about why all the jobs have gone overseas. This is not even rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; this is shipwreck survivors squabbling about who sunk the ship when they're about to freeze to death.

"There have been no large deficits under Obama, right?"

Of course there have been. And there had to have been. First, they were inherented from George II. Second, they would be impossible to stanch in the short-term, given that. Third - cutting the deficit right now is the ABSOLUTE WORST thing the government could do, with growth at about 0%, real unemployment around 17%, and monetary policy causing huge inflation in the US and the world.

What SHOULD happen, under proven economic science, is that the federal government should MAKE jobs and borrow to do it, things such as roads and bridges and the like. And the Federal Reserve should stop trying the reflate the asset bubble that got us here in the first place. You can't have 4% inflation with 17% unemployment, because it causes a depression.

1970's Nixon policy all over again: STAGFLATION.

The truth is, it was the Democrats (Carter and Volcker) who cured inflation and set the stage for 20 years of economic growth, and the Democrats (Clinton) who balanced the budget and even had an operating surplus.

The rest if from the Republican Myth Machine.

Thak you, steve--your succinctness is impressive, as is your patience with soundbite-spewing morons

It's amazing how readily some parrot the rove-koch-tea party script, and have no interest in verifying anything--it's packaged well for their psychology, feels right, and they are quite lazy; so they spew moronically--and the one percenters who wrote the script laugh heartily all the way to the bank

"Thankfully conservatism is finding its way back into the Republican party to hopefully get better policies in place to fix this mess."

LIC, you do seem confused here... "conservatives" are traditionally conservative on social values, but economically liberal. Liberal, as in free trade.

I'm so glad no one listens to steve's mindless ramblings anymore.

He actually said "proven economic science". How simple-minded.

Stagflation is a liberal Keynesian result.

Bush's liberal spending policies led to deficits, which Obama then doubled in half the time with a failed Keynesian stimulus approach. Reagan's supply side policies in the 1980s and the Republican Congress' spending controls in the 1990s led to excellent economic results. These conservative principles are what we need to fix the current mess.

>I want LICC to explain his "liberal economic policy" nonsense. You know, how all of a sudden deregulation is a "liberal" cause.

Here we have the starting point to a proper recovery, and for those of us who see through 'blue' and 'red' lenses both, which is required for 3 dimensional viewing, deregulation of the banks in the 90s by both Democratic Clinton and Republican Congress was a mistake. Whoever we want to blame more is mute.
The crime is not FIXING it NOW. Reinstall the regulations and give the the too big to fails 3 years to break up. Confidence is our system, this will restore confidence, this is what will get the machine moving again.
I'd have more respect for the Wall street occupiers if they didnt keep revoting in the same perpetual thieves, Schumer, Rangel,etc. Their hypocrisy is no less damning.
Our president apparantly got a peak at some X files and has developed a hawkish foreign policy which is fine by me, I have no problem with him video gaming out jihadis on the run. But after 3 years he's proven he hasn't learned a thing on the art of negotiation. Domestically this is a disaster and regardless of whether he is 'blue,' 'red,'or none of the above, you cannot be color blind to gray.
Right now Id vote for ANYBODY else.

And when I see foreign doctors and engineers stop coming here to drive cabs for a living, then I'll be concerned with Americans' "standard of living."

"Reagan's supply side policies in the 1980s and the Republican Congress' spending controls in the 1990s led to excellent economic results."

Really? All they actually led to was nonstop deficits through till Clinton.

"the Republican Congress' spending controls in the 1990s"

As I recall, the Democrats were in control for the majority of that time.

There have been no empirical studies EVER that support "supply side" economics, except at the very margins when tax rates are like 90%.

wait...reagan....didnt he dereg the s&l's?...that went beautifully

actually my refcorp 40 year strips have done quite well, despite the fork job done the taxpayer..really though, the gop's ongoing, ingenius trickle up disaster has been their coup de gras

fruits of middle class productivity have been wrung very effectively by a privileged few--and not based on any great innovative initiative that betters our world--based on bought political manipulation via lobbyist/lawyers

Very true, WB: too bad Long Island City Denizens don't understand that if wealth were actually trickling up, they wouldn't be living in Long Island City.

All of the dereg and Milton Friedman Free Money still has us in Bubble Mode, all asset classes behaving alike, never-before-seen volatility, and an impending crash that they keep on trying to put off. Oil was finally down to about $75 a barrel - great relief for the middle class - but the speculators have it back up to about $90 again.

Ditto food. Apart from housing - conveniently factored out of inflation - food and energy is all the middle class really spends money on. There's a trickle-up right there into the hands of commodities traders...

...until it - again - breaks the middle class's back as it did in 2008, and then the Fed can try to prop it back up again.

Unless someone cares to make the argument that Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugual, Italy can actually pay their bills, or that the ECB can print enough money to buy their way out of it, or that surging prices at a time of record unemployment a) makes any sense; or b) is sustainable.

Buying Ben Bernake cost the banks and hedge funds a lot of money, and they're reaping a handsome reward.

Steep Drop for Americans' Standard of Living

Look at me!
I'm eating at food trucks and trying to convince myself it's cool.
Yeah, waiters, table cloths, hygiene....all over rated.
Extra napkin? not on your life.

Hi Gene! howse it going?

Word to the wise: Buffett: "There's No Way You Can Bet Against America & Win".

Listen to Buffett; ignore the naysayers. Nuff said. Over and out - for good. GLTA...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3R5bHqGF1I

no such thing as "over and out" you dope.. It's just "out"!

Funny, steve's posts get longer the more he loses. I've always said he is excellent at explaining why he loses so much.

10,300 is 1500 points in the rear view mirror...

swe, at least we've been spared the "technical analysis" nonsense this time around. I totally just jinxed it though, I'm sure.

Uhm, Eddie - I assume you're referring to the Dow, and if you are, 10,300 was LAST WEEK.

I haven't lost a penny and nothing has changed - except the economy is getting worse, inflation is going higher, unemployment is rising, Europe is crashing and so is China.

My money is in cash, and lots of it, and staying that way. I'm doing more business than I've ever done in my life. I've said on more than one occasion - and it's posted - that this could very well happen in a volatile environment like this: it's precisely what happened in 2008.

Which is why I wouldn't touch the stock market for anything right now, and I've said that before, too. Tomorrow it could go up 500 points, the next day it could go down a thousand. It's not stable, and the volume is extremely thin: today on the Dow average, an options expiration day, volume was 264 million shares. Normally it is 3x that on an options expiration day. Stocks and gold do not normally follow the same pattern, nor do stocks and commodities in general, or stocks and bonds, yet that is EXACTLY what is happening.

Only in a bubble and a crash do they behave like that.

Not an inspiring bear-market rally - and I'm staying very far away from it.

And the analysis stays the same: as long as food and energy prices stay so high, the economy will continue to stall. It is a monetarist policy gone amuk, and nothing I want to be any part of.

Here is EXACTLY my opinion, Eddie:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2011/10/21/is-another-financial-panic-coming/

We're clearly moving into a recession, and one that is self-induced. That is my point, bear-market rallys notwithstanding.

Here's an interesting chart, Eddie Wilson:

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=spx&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=13

The 10-year SPX.

We are precisely where we were in 2002 - 0% return in ten years. Not in 10 years has the stock market been this volatile, with the exception of 2008. In the short-term the market may, in fact, surge from this level, or it may collapse. I have no idea, and I don't want to be part of it.

I don't think that we'll see the sort of panic we saw in 2008, but I do think - and my point was - that we are headed right back into another recession, caused by inflated asset prices and falling wages. The European problem is real, and it has no easy solution. Banks are not lending - just look at their earnings; they have no operating earnings, just accounting entries. Companies are not hiring.

The "wealth effect" is just another term for "trickle up," and it doesn't work. Never did, never will.

But in the meantime I have no debts, all cash and I don't count myself among the 99%. That said, I do know what they are going through and why, and I don't think it's good for the future.

"Reagan's supply side policies in the 1980s and the Republican Congress' spending controls in the 1990s led to excellent economic results."

I like how you conveniently left out the part where Clinton raised taxes in 1993 without a single Republican vote. So let's see: Clinton raised taxes, and then there was a surplus. I wonder if the two had anything to do with each other...

Socialist, though I'm not a socialist, the truth is that the economic policies since George II have been abysmal, and have led to this. Granted, Billy Bob Clinton had a hand in it, but the deregulation of the banking industry coupled with massive amounts of free money and leverage have led us to where we are today.

I've never been a doom-and-gloomer, though I did see the Internet and housing bubbles coming. I did misjudge exactly how all asset classes would behave together under QEII - a hard and painful lesson, but one well learned. That said, I see no other way out of the current situation but deflation and a further recession. I do not see how 17% unemployment can support soaring commodity prices. I don't see how real inflation - not the "core" crap - can run at 4% while household incomes are falling at -.1%.

I don't see how it's possible, and given the recent volatility in the market it can be due to only one thing: speculation. No one who NEEDS oil or corn or copper or anything would be bidding the prices up and down like this. They just wouldn't, because it makes their jobs impossible.

New rule: you can only buy a commodity if you can take physical delivery of it, and prove it.

How much better would the world be?

Then, the footnote: a tax on placing stock market orders. Doesn't have to be much, just a penny per share, charged whether cancelled or not. Makes good money, and watch the death of high-speed trading.

>I've never been a doom-and-gloomer, though I did see the Internet and housing bubbles coming.

But I've also read that you've said to sell gold a couple years ago, and decried the decline in the stock market as wrong because Lehman shouldn't have been allowed to fail and Jim Cramer should have been banned. Within the housing bubble you saw coming, you maintained your ownership of a summer place on Long Island.

Additionally, you talk of volatility, but the Dow ended last year at 11,578 and is now at 11,809. The volatility you speak of doesn't matter to the person who is holding for the longer term.

Your opinions are more than fair, but don't hold yourself out as being all right, all the time.

So dumb berg.

No volatility in stocks?

Sorry columbiaidiot, someone else used "dumb" to make fun of another poster. Try something else.

Also try reading my statement - I didn't say there wasn't volatility. I said that despite volatility, the market is still up - for long-term holders, short-term volatility matters less.

Except for you, who acknowledged your humiliation by having to sell in March 2009.

On top of your family's humiliation, your professional humiliation, and that awful experience when you were taken by a broker to see an apartment with a ... horrible window in the shower.

so there is volatility?

It is amazing how steve can be so wrong so often.

Maintaining long-term low interest rates is a decidedly Keynesian position. Monetarists call for a steady supply of money tied to the rate of read GDP growth.

For steve's sake I hope he doesn't screw up his translations the way he screws up everything he tries to discuss on these boards.

show me the jobs - any of you - I don't mean mortgage brokers and real estate brokers - how do you reverse the outflow of bread-and-butter jobs that used to employ millions of Americans? couldn't care less about the price of stocks and gold and oil

"Monetarists call for a steady supply of money tied to the rate of rea[l] GDP growth."

Hmm.

a) Which comes first, LICC, the steady supply of money or the rate of real GDP growth?

b) How to you go about increasing the supply of money without affecting its cost (interest rates)?

"Maintaining long-term low interest rates is a decidedly Keynesian position."

Wrong again. Straight out of Milton Friedman.

so now we are leaving Iraq.
our experiment with Mercantilism has failed.
georgieboy, who promised that the adventure would pay for itself, is nowhere to be seen.
he's probably working on the Bush 2.0 presidential library. I heard there going to buy a shed at costco to house the intelectual collection.
Going to be paying for this party for lifetimes to come.
Iraqies are goning to be selling us oil at unheard of prices and it's just too bad.
Great Plan!

Yes, Iraq was brilliant!

Undoing Glass Steagall caused the first financial panic since 1929. The Fed's solution: more of the medicine - leverage - that caused the financial panic in the first place.

Great idea!

lowery is right, and that's my point: there are no JOBS, and without JOBS this reflating the economy business is bound to fail (again). You can have all the money in the world, but if no one is spending it because they're afraid of losing their JOBS, or they don't have a JOB, it will do absolutely nothing but raise prices, which will cause more people to lose their JOBS.

"you maintained your ownership of a summer place on Long Island"

Wrong. I bought it after the crash.

"you talk of volatility, but the Dow ended last year at 11,578 and is now at 11,809. The volatility you speak of doesn't matter to the person who is holding for the longer term."

No question - but it depends on how long: see the long-term return on the SPX: 0%.

The Dow ended 2 weeks ago at 10,400 - it is now at 11,809 as you say. Normal? Has that much changed since then? Are things 14% better than they were 2 weeks ago?

I would say that, in fact, NOTHING has changed since then.

But it's not stocks that I was discussing: it was commodity prices, which happen to be moving in tandem with stock prices. Stock prices - high or low - don't have a direct effect on the real economy, though they might have a psychological effect. Commodity prices have a direct effect.

Which is why the Fed's current policy is absolutely asinine: hoping for a psychological "wealth effect," they are ignoring the "real effect" of rising prices at a time of unemployment.

It is magical thinking?

You bought a place on Fire Island after the crash? 2008? 2009?
And why - you thought the market would go up after 2008 or 2009?

>No question - but it depends on how long: see the long-term return on the SPX: 0%.
Not true at all. Long term return on the S&P is about 8% per year.

But you pointed to "recent volatility" and the record recently is that the market is up too this year.

>The Dow ended 2 weeks ago at 10,400 - it is now at 11,809 as you say. Normal? Has that much changed since then? Are things 14% better than they were 2 weeks ago?

The market closed at 11,613 on August 31. Things are only 1.7% better in less than 60 days. So what? What is the point of measuring daily volatility?

>Which is why the Fed's current policy is absolutely asinine: hoping for a psychological "wealth effect," they are ignoring the "real effect" of rising prices at a time of unemployment.

This country is importing illegal immigrants to do jobs. Do we really have unemployment, or is our population spoiled?

immigrants do jobs that american's won't do.

like what?
landscaping for less than minimum wage?
house cleaning for below minimum wage?
construction below minimum wage with no benifits?
child or elderly adult care?
Americans won't do those jobs under those conditions because....they are not illegal trying to support folks back in their home country where the cost of living is much different.
If we made them legal or kicked them out the labor costs associated with these services would escalate beyond the fiscal means of most americans.

That's why we need the 9-9-9 plan.
9 seconds to review the plan
9 people that understand the plan
9 months to completly financially destroy the country (what's left of it).
What a book tour! Go Cain Go!

let us not forget the great improvment in the city's Mexican food.
the speed of food delivery has improved dramaticlly as well.
could I live without these improvements?
sure, but why go on?

Yup, landscaping, cleaning, construction, child care, elderly care. Why won't Americans do these jobs? 40 years ago they did. Why not today? If you are unemployed, why not do landscaping or clean houses?

the pay scale is unacceptable.
to work under ANY conditions would be quite a throw back to say............cannery row?
Should auto workers accept any wage the market will bare?

A balance between job protection and the price of production needs to be reestablished in the US.
Many speak of breaking Unions. Teachers take a lot of heat on account of the UFT. Can you imagine the teaching profession without job protection? You think it might be better? You think such a job will attract the best and brightest? It's hard enough to find people willing to become educators and folks want to make the job less attractive.
The answer: for teachers, if you want better preformance you're going to have to pay for it. Want to also end job protection...going to really cost you.
Personally, I think we should throw a ton of money at education. We should turn up the heat of poorly preforming educators and demand far greater results. We need to root out the dead wood and send it packing. We need to put the fear of G-d into educator but, we also have to untie their hands and let them do the job. We also must demand parental preformance.

steve, you need to read a book on economics before you keep making dumb comments. Educate yourself before you open your mouth. For years now you make the most fundamentally incorrect statements and make a fool of yourself.

Government manipulation to keep long-term interests rates artificially low is pure Keynesianism, and is NOT what monetarists advocate. Learn before you speak, please.

>the pay scale is unacceptable.

No employment vs low wage employment ...

>Should auto workers accept any wage the market will bare?

Why not? And why are older union workers ok with having younger union workers subsidize them?

>A balance between job protection and the price of production needs to be reestablished in the US.

Ok, inflation

>Teachers take a lot of heat on account of the UFT. Can you imagine the teaching profession without job protection? You think it might be better? You think such a job will attract the best and brightest?
Does it now? Has it in the past? How much better teachers do we need?

>Personally, I think we should throw a ton of money at education.
For what? What results do you expect to be better?

>We also must demand parental preformance.
How will you demand it? Do they need money too?

"Government manipulation to keep long-term interests rates artificially low is pure Keynesianism"

Show us some evidence of that, LICC. I happen to think that the current Fed policy is extremely damaging so - I assume - I agree with you on the theory. But it's quite plain that both Friedman and Bernake have argued that the way out of the Depression would have been to print more money.

And it is impossible to print more money without lowering interest rates - as the supply of money goes up, the price (interest rates) goes down.

Pure monetarism, so learn before you speak.

You will also note, LICC, when you read up on the history of the Fed as I'm sure you will, the only Fed governor ever to espouse and implement direct control of the money supply - rather than interest rates - was Paul Volcker.

You can only do one or the other: either you manage the money supply, OR you manage interest rates, and "Helicopter Ben" didn't get his name because he was afraid to throw money at a problem to keep interest rates low.

>because he was afraid to throw money at a problem to keep interest rates low.

Thought you can only do one or the other?

"Thought you can only do one or the other?"

That's right - if you want to lower interest rates, you throw money at the problem, no matter how much money it takes to get the interest rate you want. If you want to control the money supply, you have to let interest rates do what they want, no matter how high or low they go.

Directly, the Fed only controls short-term interest rates through the discount rate. If it wants to affect interest rates in any other way, it must intervene in the market by throwing money at it. Ergo, QE-Stupid.

"Yup, landscaping, cleaning, construction, child care, elderly care. Why won't Americans do these jobs? 40 years ago they did. Why not today? If you are unemployed, why not do landscaping or clean houses?"

Can we please put an end to this "jobs that Americans won't do" nonsense? When your only paying an electrician $10 an hour with no benefits vs. $46 an hour for an American IBEW electrician, it should be no surprise that you cannot find an American to do the job.

I get it all the time - how come you won't translate this document for 2 cents a word? Uhm, because doing a million words a year I'd make $20,000, pay my own taxes and both sides of social security out of that. The remainder does not leave me enough to eat.

And check out my qualifications (latest one today - approved as a State Department service provider!): one postgraduate certification would cost me 6 months' wages at that rate.

Can't be done.

We might add that Milton Friedman proposed eliminating licenses for physicians to practice. WHAT A GOOD IDEA THAT IS!

Which electrician that you or I want working on the wiring in the apartment that houses my family works for only $10?
And we weren't talking about trained electricians. We were talking about jobs that are currently done by illegals that for some reason are too good for the unemployed. And someohow that got into a rant by falcogold by teachers which is an entirely different topic.

Stevejhx, I've always viewed you as more than commodity labor. Why are you throwing yourself into that bracket for these discussion purposes?

If someone wants a skilled translator with x,y,z credentials that you have that gives the party hiring you greater comfort regarding accuracy and reliability, then they'll hire you. And if they want something else, they'll hire someone else.

>That's right - if you want to lower interest rates, you throw money at the problem, no matter how much money it takes to get the interest rate you want. If you want to control the money supply, you have to let interest rates do what they want, no matter how high or low they go.

so basically you are saying that one (lower interest rates) works opposite the other (you throw money at the problem), but the other (control the money supply) doesn't work opposite the first (let interest rates do what they want).

I'm confused

How long until Google Translate puts you out of business?

"And we weren't talking about trained electricians. We were talking about jobs that are currently done by illegals that for some reason are too good for the unemployed."

You specifically stated construction.

I stated construction in the context that falcogold did.

"How long until Google Translate puts you out of business?"

Never.

"Why are you throwing yourself into that bracket for these discussion purposes?"

I don't - others do, because they don't understand it. Which is why some translators make $10,000 a year, and others $400,000.

The bottom line is New Yorkers are getting poor! When the life support of 0% money from fed stops, things will get worse. Can interest rate go negative?

Real interest rates all ready are negative!

In fact, the Big Players are PAYING banks to park their money.

More illogical contortions from steve. Shocking.

As for the failure of Keynesian theory, and the incontravertible fact that Keynes favored artificial downward manipulation of interest rates, let's quote from Keynes himself:

"The rate of interest is not self-adjusting at a level best suited to the social advantage but constantly tends to rise too high . . . It may appear extraordinary that a school of thought should exist which finds the solution for the trade cycle in checking the boom in its early stages [before problems arise] by a higher rate of interest. . . .20 The remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest! For that may enable the boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom"

And let's quote Milton Friedman, from 2006:

"I've always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and substituting a machine program that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate"

steve- open a textbook and learn basic economics before you speak about it again please.

I'd blame gov't policy which favors us getting into debt over allowing us to earn a return on our savings. How can one keep pace if the gov't insists on transferring our wealth to the banks. Add to that the countless sums lost after we're encouraged to by the Fed to jump into the stock market only to see the Fed walk away and take no responsibility after the run-up runs its course. And a third point is how the gov't looks the other way and prosecute after fraud is detected which is yet another way we lose out.

More from Friedman:

"But that's why what you want—if possible—is a mechanical system. If there was any virtue to the gold standard, it was that virtue. Maybe you could create the same thing now. My favorite proposal really is a little bit more sophisticated—or less sophisticated if you want to look at it that way—than a straight increase in the quantity of money. I would—if I had my choice—freeze the amount of high-powered money [i.e., currency plus bank reserves]. Not increase it. . . .

I would freeze that and hold it constant and have it as sort of a natural constant like gravity or something. Now, you would think that that's a bad idea because there would be no provision for expansion; however, high-powered money is a small fraction of total money and the ratio of total money to high-powered money has been going up over time. So the economy would create more money and on average, you would have a pretty stable money growth and a pretty stable monetary system.

That's what our Gov't policy was toward underdeveloped countries... why not Americans?

You want good read? try, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

Gold standard or some form of it, is the least worst way of fixing currencies. Thinking that 12 people at the Federal Reserve will always call it correctly is laughable and is contrary to past performance.

debt, mortgage=slavery

There's no financial freedom when one is shackled in debt.