- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 1, 2011 at 5:26 pm #738366
kootchmanMemberCollege costs soared a wee bit over 250% in the last two decades… Heavily unionized states, increased the most. To make the sham work, college loans went up 598% …. yep 598 per cent. Just like the no credit score, no credit history, easy to get home loans…who got indebted? Yale, Princeton, are all doing just fine.they have multi-billion dollar endowments and take in a few token economically challenged or minority students.chump change from those endowments. .state colleges like UW are jacking prices. fastest rising compensation rates. Why the poor become indebted..and credit stressed…of course, like the housing bubble. So, now that the loans have reached a trillion dollars… here come the bail outs… you are being put on the hook for student loans now. Who picks up the education bubble when it bursts? It can’t go on forever. Another sucking drain on the economy waiting to blossom.
November 1, 2011 at 7:12 pm #738367
TDeParticipantSpeaking of the European debt mess, did you read the Sunday Times editorials? I found this editorial about Iceland fascinating, although conservatives will probably not read or believe it just because of the author… :)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2016635914_krugman30.html
November 1, 2011 at 7:27 pm #738368
datamuseParticipantKootch, the state Us are jacking prices because of reduced state support. The numbers are right there.
That, and higher ed doesn’t scale–just like any other personalized service that requires a highly-trained cadre of professionals (see also: doctors, lawyers). Paradoxically, increased enrollment has contributed toward an increased price. You want to see this go down? Fund education properly and don’t make a college degree an arbitrary requirement for jobs that don’t really need it.
Yale and Harvard may take token numbers of poor students, but I work for a private university right here in the Northwest and most of our students are on financial aid. We don’t have a large endowment; our operations are primarily tuition-funded. But we don’t have lecture halls crammed with 600+ students, either.
November 1, 2011 at 9:05 pm #738369
thansenMemberFrom a Smitty post at the beginning:
Smitty1) They are concerned about the costs of Obamacare and increased regulation. Lots of uncertainty in both big ans small biz communities.
The BUSH tax breaks are in their TENTH year. So why were there no jobs created BEFORE the easy excuse of “Obamacare” passed 1 year ago?
November 1, 2011 at 9:52 pm #738370
BostonmanMemberBush created about 3 million jobs while he was in office. Very crappy compared to other presidents. Reagan, Bush and Clinton far surpassed Bush Jr. I am willing to bed some money that Bush struggled creating more jobs because of NAFTA signed in 1994. I don’t have the statistics on it and this is merely a reasonable assumption but it would make sense it would take 5 to 10 years for the effect of NAFTA to be felt. So Bush probably needed to deal with a mass export of jobs. I am not for or against Bush and I think he could have done things a lot better.
Now, with Clinton recording 23.1 million in new jobs over his tenure an arguement could also be made that is because of Reagans trickle down economics. Because of tarrifs companies didn’t move jobs to other countries until the effect of Nafta was realized so we had a huge spike in jobs from 1980 to 2000 and now we are trying to recover manufacturing jobs that went away.
November 1, 2011 at 9:54 pm #738371
BostonmanMemberAgain, not for or against any president. I didn’t include anything about Obama in here because honestly things are in such rough shape across the globe I don’t think I can fault him for not getting unemployment to 4% but again I think he could have done some things better.
Its nice to realize that legislation passed by prior presidents sometimes are not felt until that administration has left the building.
November 2, 2011 at 4:17 am #738372
redblackParticipantbut being entitled to the rewards of the people who do… no. You aren’t. They do pay taxes here. Lots of taxes.
i’m not talking about sellen. they pay taxes here, and they gladly employ union labor.
i’m talking about boeing. they’d put hundreds of thousands of americans out of work and move to mexico if they could, just to save money on labor and reduce their tax burden.
small business employs the vast majority of local workers and they have no choice but to pay their taxes. they do, and they should.
big business, on the other hand, threatens workers and communities with layoffs and factory closings if communities don’t relent to extortion and reduce their tax burden.
and sorry, kootch, but you’re wrong. i am entitled to a piece of that capital, and i aim to get it.
don’t like it? open your next business in iraq.
November 2, 2011 at 4:47 am #738373
kootchmanMemberRight. Funny how every other business that reaches an economies of scale with until they reach the point of equilibrium, is maximizing profits… UW loses money? State aid was NOT cut $ 9,000 per pupil…at UW. It’s the cost of elaborate wages. You say UW justified $16,000 ? Take a look at other University systems around the country… the most unionized states have the highest tuition and fees increases. It’s an education “bubble”… UW has no incentive to budget and contain costs…. long as you pick up the tab of the student loan programs. You can’t raise prices when your customers can’t pay for the goods.
November 2, 2011 at 4:54 am #738374
kootchmanMemberGood luck and go for it redblack. Based upon the state of things as they are… your aim is low and off to the left. Cause’ the state gets it’s share… business gets it share… sounds like you ae a little light. State is getting your share too.
November 2, 2011 at 12:32 pm #738375
redblackParticipanti know who has my share, and it isn’t the government(s).
November 2, 2011 at 5:32 pm #738376
JoBParticipanti read an interesting article recently…
where CEOs complained that they couldn’t get qualified labor any more…
i won’t bother looking for it to link because i don’t get my news from conservative sites.. although the actual complaint was aired in a very conservative financial rag…
I got it second hand in the commentary section of some more liberal site…
and yes.. i followed the link to verify the source..
time consuming:( but a hard habit to break
it seems that even foreigners educated in American Universities have grasped the concept of a living wage…
CEOs are having a difficult time attracting qualified applicants while keeping their labor costs low enough to justify their multi-million dollar salaries.
So much for the basic concept of supply and demand that they have been selling as justification for their salaries…
when demand increases and supply shrinks
everyone knows services are more valuable
everyone that is
except those CEOS
who are paid the big bucks to figure those things out:)
November 2, 2011 at 5:43 pm #738377
JVMemberJoB, you should go visit our public school system and see why there is a lack of qualified labor.
Instead of learning math, science, and reading, they are watching global warming movies, and putting condoms on bananas! And the unions don’t let them fire bad teachers.
Just another example of big-union devistation. Or like Government Motors. It’s the parasite that keeps sucking until the host is dead. Or in this case, until Obama spends our tax money to revive a dead host that is sure to die later.
On a side note, you could all learn a lot from Koochman. Simple logic just eludes so many people.
November 2, 2011 at 6:09 pm #738378
JoBParticipantJV…
ROFLOL..
I have grandkids in our school systems
but they aren’t ready for a full time job yet
and they certainly don’t have the educations that would make them the qualified applicants the CEOs were whining about.
However, my contemporaries and our children do.
if they are female they take a 20-30% paycut because their biology dictates that they could possibly take time out from their career paths to have children.
Odds are their employer will downsize them before that happens.. but you never know.
that paycut is on top of the one ushered in a decade or so ago when the floodgates were opened to admit qualified foreign labor …
for the most part applicants with American University educations and work visas that limited their ability to bargain.
and the one that the current “downswing” in our economy ushered in…
that is.. if they have jobs.
November 2, 2011 at 6:13 pm #738379
JVMemberTotally coherent and well thought-out argument. Thank you for that.
November 2, 2011 at 6:31 pm #738380
dobroParticipant“On a side note, you could all learn a lot from Koochman. Simple logic just eludes so many people.”
Thanks for that. Makes it easier to know who to ignore.
November 2, 2011 at 6:38 pm #738381
JVMemberI’d advise ignoring the voices that keep telling you that anybody with a different point of view should be ignored.
November 2, 2011 at 8:28 pm #738382
BostonmanMemberWhy are you even arguing JV? Resistance is futile you will be assimilated. Dobro rarely has a response with more depth than what you see above. Around here you get used to the insults.
November 3, 2011 at 1:52 am #738383
JoBParticipantJV..
the different point of view isn’t a problem for me.
and unsupported point of view is.
November 3, 2011 at 5:33 am #738384
DBPMemberHi, JV! Always good to see another perspective here.
I consider some of your points valid. Yeah, unions DO sometimes coddle underperforming (or just plain awful) members. That’s wrong.
And yeah, SOME of Obama’s spending has been wasteful. That’s wrong, too.
But are unions + govt spending the ONLY things going wrong with our system in your opinion? Or are you willing to consider that there might be some other big-business-related stuff causing problems, too?
Whatever answer you give is ok by me. I just want everyone – including myself — to consider opposing points of view.
Oh, and JoB is right too, in the sense that the more strongly you can support your opinions, the more influence you’ll have here, regardless of which side you take.
In any case, welcome!!!!
November 3, 2011 at 8:42 am #738385
JanSParticipantNovember 3, 2011 at 3:04 pm #738386
JoBParticipantJanS..
shhh.. don’t burst their bubble…
Taxes on corporations won’t be equitable until we pay them to do business here
oh wait.. we already do …
i can’t think what is worse than us paying them to do business…
but i am sure there is something…
kootch.. what is that next step to “equity” ?
debtors prison and forced slavery?
November 3, 2011 at 3:08 pm #738387
jamminjMemberthe real kicker, ” that two-thirds of the American companies with significant profits overseas actually paid more in taxes to foreign governments than they did in the United States. “
November 3, 2011 at 3:19 pm #738388
JoBParticipantjamminj..
yes, that is the real kicker
The same American corporations by which economists measure our economic health
aren’t investing in America’s future
they are investing elsewhere
that should be a wake up call
i wish it was
November 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm #738389
BostonmanMemberI see 3 possibilities with making them pay US taxes on profits earned overseas just because the headquarters is in the US. Please add on or amend or whatever if you can think of more.
1. The company sucks it up and it eats into the bottom line reducing cash on hand and reducing cash available for shareholders. Shareholders see a lower distribution and the stock takes a hit in value. Eventually the company raises prices to being more cash back in so they are back where they started.
2. The company picks up and moves the headquarters overseas resulting in more lost jobs in the US. Product is shipped to the US tarrif free. If Tarrifs are imposed a tarrif tradewar starts the other country starts imposing tarrifs on our exports.
3. The company liquidates or becomes a takeover target of a bigger competitor because they know the company doesn’t have sufficient cash to either pay additional taxes or move operations over seas. Smaller company closes up shop and people lose jobs.
Now suppose we lower the tax rates on coporate income and impose tax changes so they need to pay US taxes on overseas money. But, the amount they pay is still cheaper than the option of packing up shop. Now the US benefits at least in some way which is better than not benefiting at all. Its also better than companies picking up shop.
They don’t need to move far. They could just go to Mexico. I am sure they would love to have some nice high paying US workers living there to boost the economy.
November 3, 2011 at 8:09 pm #738390
DBPMember4. The company (or the company that takes it over) closes out all US holdings and relocates to Chin-exico to make maximum profit. The US government then imposes a steep import tariff on that company’s goods, forcing them out of the US market.
Another US-based company picks up the slack.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.