bbauska wrote:Just going by the fact provided...

huh? you calculated based on children paying taxes, Brad? They aren't counted as being earners in these stats, so shouldn't have been in your calculations.

bbauska wrote:Just going by the fact provided...

Right, taxes are not a per capita measurement, typically, they are based on tax forms. In my family one tax form, 4 people. I don't know what it is exactly but the 100m number I threw out is a little low, but not entirely out of line.

Brad, I'm not 'kicking' children, just pointing out that the won't be included in the figures, so applying your figure of 300 million is incorrect.

Steve,

Here are some ideas on how to deter U.S companies from going overseas:

1. Put tariffs on goods imported from U.S companies or their subsidiaries by a factor related to the difference in median wage between our country and where the goods come from . In other words, US companies that go overseas must compete with native US companies on a basis other than labor costs

2. Eliminate tax breaks for taking jobs overseas

3. Tax US companies for at least some of their profits made overseas

4. Eliminate tax subsidies and tax breaks for U.S. companies that have overseas operations or subsidiaries that sell products back to the US

As far as increasing wages, I recommend the following:

1. Modify rules to make it easier for workers to unionize (I still think this the best way to counter-balance corporate power. If you think workers have the power by themselves to bargain effectively with corporations, just ask the worker who goes to Wal-Mart to get drug tested before getting his minimum wage job with no benefits..)

2. I think tax policy has something to do with workers wages not going up. The more likely high-level executives can make an unlimited amount of money without paying a high tax rate, the more likely companies will not want to reward low-level workers when the company is doing well

3. Of course, making sure that we have a well-educated and skilled work force is essential and may allow our workers to compete against low wage labor because our workers are more productive.

4. Another idea that I have is to simply to obtain a consensus about what ia a reasonable cost of labor (within a certain range) versus overall corporate revenue and then sort of let business figure out the best way to meet that figure (kind of similar to agreements in professional sports where players get a certain percentage of revenue). When labor costs get below a certain minimum then additional taxes will kick in equal to the violation to deter businesses from getting too greedy.

5. Far more intense enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. When there are a large number of small companies in an industry, then workers and consumers benefit from the intense competition by businesses to obtain marker share. Now, with little enforcement, businesses have tended to concentrate and when there are only a few businesses they really don’t compete to pay higher salaries for workers or to cut prices for consumers.

freeman2 wrote:1. Put tariffs on goods imported from U.S companies or their subsidiaries by a factor related to the difference in median wage between our country and where the goods come from . In other words, US companies that go overseas must compete with native US companies on a basis other than labor costs

Ok so how would you define this? What if a company makes widgets. Some of it's widgets are manufactured in Canada and some are manufactured in the US. How do you decide which widgets are taxable?

Also are you prepared for damage to other aspects of the economy such a plan would have. After all, I can see China slapping a huge tariff on U.S. products thereby depressing their sales.

freeman2 wrote:1. Modify rules to make it easier for workers to unionize (I still think this the best way to counter-balance corporate power. If you think workers have the power by themselves to bargain effectively with corporations, just ask the worker who goes to Wal-Mart to get drug tested before getting his minimum wage job with no benefits..)

First off, it is already pretty easy to unionize. Second off, just being unionized doesn't guarantee Wal-mart employees better salaries and benefits. I worked for a company called Kiddie City about 20+ years ago. It was a CWA union shop. My salary and benefits were comparable to the current Wal-Mart employees when adjust for inflation.

Also do not a number of studies show that employees in right to work states have a higher real earnings (salary to cost of living comparison) then non-right to work states? For example

freeman2 wrote:3. Of course, making sure that we have a well-educated and skilled work force is essential and may allow our workers to compete against low wage labor because our workers are more productive.

again not always true. Computer programmers in the US make more then computer programmers in India. Therefore, computer programing jobs go to India. It has nothing to do with worker education.

Freeman, thank you for posting them. I think there are many more problems than what the Archduke chose to take on, but anything like this would get Nancy Pelosi and about 20 other liberal Democrats to vote for it.

Archduke,

In answer to your comment/s/questions:

1. I think as long as the product was 51% or made up of component parts made in the U.S then it would be insulated from the tariff I'm not sure China would retaliate if we focused our tariff on U.S companies and their subsidiaries.

2. If it's easy to unionize why was Obama's attempt to make it easier to unionize defeated? Also there were recent federeal rules proposed that would give companies less time to react to the vote to unionize--you think business is going to go along with that?

3. I;m sure anecdotal evidence cane be found, as in your example, where unions have been ineffective. However, there is a long history of unions obtaining higher wages and benefits for their employees. Because of Wal-mart, thousands of jobs that used to provide a middle-class living now don't (at an anecdotal level that is what happened to the grocery market in Southern California which has heavily consolidated and obtained lower wages for new hires). A union that has power can negotiate with companies to force them to allow workers to benefit when the company is doing well. Right now, labor is seen as a cost to be avoided

4. On your right-to-work example, it appears the argument is that although in not right-to-work states the workers make higher wages it is more than offset by higher cost-of-living. With low levels of unionzation, how is cause and effect shown between unionzatoin and higher living expenses? The south is where right-to-work laws have been passed for the most part and those states are generally somewhat poorer than in non right-to-work states--might that explain the difference in livnig expenses? And if the argument is that unions should cause the wages to be so much higher to account for the higher living expenses, hmm, what about the fact that those companies if the wages get too high in unionized states can go to the non-uninoized states? In other words, the unions' bargaining power is affected by the fact that businesses can leave unionized states and go elsewhere once the difference in wages gets too great. Alll that study has shown is that right-to-work states have hurt unions in non right-to-work states.

5.My point about spending money to educate and train U.S workers is that we know that few constraints are going to be put on U.S companies given the national political consensus that theycan set up show whenever they want and sell back to the U.S.. If we are going to follow this Friedman/Hayek economic philosophy to allows capital to travel freely across borders and find the most efficient source of labor to make the maxiimum return on capital, then the only hope for American workers to be the most skilled and productive workers in the world. So yeah companies will hire Indian programmers if they are just as good for lower prices, but not if U.S programmers are significantly better. I see only two soluttions to preserve the standard of livioing for U.S. workers: (1) protect them in some fashion from competition from low-wage workers in other countries, or (2) focus on producting American workers in high-wage industries that can significantly outproduce workers in low-wage countries (this will require a lot of money and national focus, because clearly right now an unfocused approach is not working) The third option, do nothing and let U.S companies reap huge profits while most workers have a lower standard of living, is going to lead to social strife.

freeman2 wrote:1. I think as long as the product was 51% or made up of component parts made in the U.S then it would be insulated from the tariff I'm not sure China would retaliate if we focused our tariff on U.S companies and their subsidiaries.

You are misunderstanding my questions. Some Ford Taurus are assembled in the United States and some Ford Taurus are assembled in Canada. How do determine which to tax.

Other Countries won't retaliate? Let's say we tax bras that are made in China by a U.S. company thereby making them more expensive. The consumer will have the option of purchasing a expense cheap bra or an expensive nice bra. Of course consumers will pick the better value. Meaning the company will cut it's workforce in China. You think China will not react to an increase in unemployment and lower salaries caused by an American tariff by imposing tariffs on something like American grain or cars or anything else sold in China.

You are either screamingly niave or do not understand international relations.

freeman2 wrote:2. If it's easy to unionize why was Obama's attempt to make it easier to unionize defeated? Also there were recent federeal rules proposed that would give companies less time to react to the vote to unionize--you think business is going to go along with that?

Because while it is easy to Unionize the majority of workers are voting not to. Under the current rules Unions need to have interest cards signed by 30% of the EEs in the bargaining unit. Then an election is scheduled to held a couple of months from confirmation of the appropriate amount of signed interest cards.

What is happening is the Unions are getting the interest cards signed but are then losing the certification elections. see here Obama is trying to eliminate this phenomena by eliminationg the election process. Basically say that as soon as the Union gets 50% signed interest cards, the company is Unionized.

There are many thoughts on why Unions are falling this badly. . Some believe it is because Unions strong arm and bully EE into signing the interest cards but then vote against it in the secret ballot elections. Others say it is because the EE's really want to unionize but the ERs bully and intimidate the EEs into voting no. Based on the things I have read, seen and experienced, I lean to the former over the latter.

freeman2 wrote:3. I;m sure anecdotal evidence cane be found, as in your example, where unions have been ineffective. However, there is a long history of unions obtaining higher wages and benefits for their employees.

The problem here is that I have actually provided a documented study that shows non-union right to work states have a higher realized income then unionized states.

freeman2 wrote: A union that has power can negotiate with companies to force them to allow workers to benefit when the company is doing well.

Untrue. They can try to do that but it doesn't actually have to happen if the ER decides to stick to their guns. Examples - a company in a neighboring town asked the union for some givebacks in the most recent contract negotiations. The company told the Union if they didn't accept the deal they were offering the company would close and relocate. The union voted the offer down. The next morning the company announced they were closing that location and consolidating to a pre-existing location in another state.

Another example, Camden, NJ City Council made an offer to the Police union. Council told they union the offer was the only way to avoid massive layoffs. The union refused. A week later something like 1/3 of the police force was laid off.

I can go on if you would like. Unions are only effective if they are powerful and ER's are afraid of them. That hasn't been the case in decades.

freeman2 wrote:5.My point about spending money to educate and train U.S workers is that we know that few constraints are going to be put on U.S companies given the national political consensus that theycan set up show whenever they want and sell back to the U.S.. If we are going to follow this Friedman/Hayek economic philosophy to allows capital to travel freely across borders and find the most efficient source of labor to make the maxiimum return on capital, then the only hope for American workers to be the most skilled and productive workers in the world. So yeah companies will hire Indian programmers if they are just as good for lower prices, but not if U.S programmers are significantly better. I see only two soluttions to preserve the standard of livioing for U.S. workers: (1) protect them in some fashion from competition from low-wage workers in other countries, or (2) focus on producting American workers in high-wage industries that can significantly outproduce workers in low-wage countries (this will require a lot of money and national focus, because clearly right now an unfocused approach is not working) The third option, do nothing and let U.S companies reap huge profits while most workers have a lower standard of living, is going to lead to social strife.

Because spending more money has pretty much been proven to have limited effect on results.

Archduke,

Well, the Ford Taurus that are made in Canada would be subject to a tariff when they are shipped into the U.S.

Yeah, countries can always retaliate whenever we can put a trade barrier. If China retaliates we can tell them (1) we are not preventing their companies from selling to the U.S. but only US based companies, and (2) if they want to retaliate we can certainly start looking at retaliating against Chinese companies. Oh, by the way, you know the Chinese like American companies to form joint ventures when they sell in China. Why? So American companies hire Chinese workers. One of the ways that Japanese automakers reacted to the U.S. being upset over the trade deficit in the 1980s was to build factories in the U.S. and hire U.S. workers That would not happen today, because they would not need to do it.

I am not naive about international relations--our trade policy is dominated by U.S companies who want to do well overseas, but there is no concern for what happens to American workers by the effect of huge trade deficits. It makes no sense for A Chinese government to risk access to the U.S. market because we want to limit U.S companies from going overseas and selling back to the U.S., except they know we roll over on any trade dispute. The minute we said no they would cave (because they have a lot more to lose in a trade war than we do).

Unions faced a turning point when Ronald Reagan fired air traffic controllers. Union membership is down to 7.5%. What do you know--as union membership has gone done average wages have gone flat while the U.S. economy has expanded significantly in the past 30 years.

Anyway, I don't see much point in arguing about these details. The point is that our current economic policies are not working. The idea that more tax breaks for the rich or for U.S companies is going to create jobs is laughable. So Archduke what are your ideas on how to fix our economy on a long-term basis? The middle-class was able to get even though their incomes were stagnant over the past 30 years because of cheap credit card money and money from the equity in their house. That free ride is over so we need a different solution. What is your solution to raise the wages of the average worker? Again, if you argue tax cuts and less regulations then see the results of the past 30 years--these policies have not worked for the past 30 years (whereas by the way the high-tax high level of unionization, spending on infrastructure and heavily subsidized public colleges worked very well for the middle-class from the late 1940s to the early 1970s).

Conservatives are out of ideas. Their policies have failed. This why they are focused on the budget deficit, because they cannot defend against criticism that the economic policies that they favor only helped a few. From my perspective, if the conservative policies of low taxes, deregulation, and free trade policies had worked liberals would not only have no arguments but they would probably be jumping on the conservative bandwagon. I mean, if wages for the average worker had increased a significant amount then that would be great. The problem is we tried your Friedman/Hayek/Ayn Rand economic policies and they have not worked for the average Joe. But you insist on denying that truth. Or rather you do not even address it (however, it was priceles when Alan Greenspan was forced to admit at a Congressional hearing that his belief that the market was self-correcting without regulation was wrong).

I was reading this book on how early societies were set up once human being started to being able to grow crops and domesticate animals . What they found in (lets just say in some of these early societies) that 5% of the society was the ruling class, about 10%-15% were artiisans and merchants, and 80% were peasants. When I read that I thought well that seems similar to what happened in the past 30 years. Five percent of the country has done great, the next 15% has been doing ok, and the rest have been peasants. What are we are in right is what is called the counter-revolution (after the New Deal actually helped out the majority of the country and not just the elite)

I love to hear teachers complain about unions, given that the supply of available teachers so far outstrips what are needed. We could probably pay teachers $20,000 a year. I'm sure we could pay police officers and firefighters that amount, too. Teachers are at least not necessarily conservative, but it hard to listen to conservative police officers and firefighters complain about liberals, when that if it wasn't for liberals they would never had gotten the pay and benefits that they get. And believe me, if conservative police officers and firefighters don't fight for other workers to get decent pay and benefits, their wages and benefits are next on the chopping block. And for you all teachers who think your teacher's union is so bad, just wait until your pay is cut to $30K a year, you have to work year-round, and you don't have tenure. Isn't freedom of contract, great?

Federal light bulb standards

?

Why not? Standardization was brought into being by industrialists, and corporations to generally improve trade and commerce. There are literally hundreds of thousands of standards in existence and they allow commerce to flow more smoothly.
The move to international standards over the last 30 years is primarily to enhance international trade and commerce.
To be against standards is to be against business.
Standards are almost entirely a creation of 20t century business.
http://www.ansi.org/about_ansi/introduc ... x?menuid=1
Whether the standard that eliminates the incandescent light bulb is right or not I'm not sure.I suspect that it was oringinally intended only to reduce energy use. Incandescent bulbs are energy inefificent in that they provide more heat than light for the energy used. In cold climates that's not such a bad thing, and its been calculated that the energy used to heat that is required becasue of the absence of heat from incandescent bulbs is cutting into any energy savings..
But in warm climes the need to save energy and not create heat is doubly rewarded in energy savings. Less cooling required... Warm in the US lately?
I don't know all the details of the bulb debate but i do know that spewing about standards belies an ignorance of their importance in a modern complicated world. Without standards and the enforcement of standards our modern world would not exist.We'd still be a hodgepodge of communities unable to communicate, trade, and travel so freely.
For all the Civil War historians on this site: The lack of standardization in the Confederate SA is often cited as an example where it contributed to the inability to conduct modern warfare. (CSA had 5 or six different rail standards and trains could not travel through the entire country. Troop transfers were difficult to manage over great distances.)

rickyp wrote:

Federal light bulb standards

?

I don't know all the details of the bulb debate but i do know that spewing about standards belies an ignorance of their importance in a modern complicated world.

When you start a sentence with "I don't know," accusing someone else of ignorance is, at best, well, ah, ironic.

Guess where the jobs went for the new CFL light bulbs? Hint: think China.

Have you compared the cost? The quality to read by? The clean up instructions are also fun. This is from the beloved EPA:

Before cleanup

Have people and pets leave the room.
Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
stiff paper or cardboard;
sticky tape;
damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.

During cleanup

Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

After cleanup

Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

Hey, here's a nutty idea: how about we let people who want to risk their lives to save the planet use these things and the rest of us can use incandescent bulbs? It's called "freedom of choice." Give it a shot!

Without standards and the enforcement of standards our modern world would not exist.We'd still be a hodgepodge of communities unable to communicate, trade, and travel so freely.

In one sentence, you demonstrate you know nothing about the CFL situation. Regular old bulbs are cheap, non-hazardous, and the light is better for most purposes. The only "standard" the CFL raises is energy-efficiency. This is a bit like banning air-conditioning, forcing everyone to buy a Prius, or capping stereo power at 60w. It's not the end of life as we know it, but it's one small step in that direction.

There is an interesting story behind CFLs. The brain child of American engineer Ed Hammer and other GE engineers in the 1970’s, the team recognized that significant energy savings could be obtained by developing a new light bulb that replaces the incandescent bulb, an energy hog in which only ten percent of the electricity supplied to the bulb is actually turned into light with the remainder of the energy lost mainly as heat.

Unfortunately GE elected to not invest in solving the cost challenges associated with manufacturing the spiral bulb. Approximately 20 years passed when along came Mr. Ellis Yan, a Chinese immigrant to the USA, who started in the 1990′s his own lighting business in China based on the CFL spiral bulb design. Mr. Yan’s business grew and grew becoming the supplier of approximately 50 percent of the CFLs sold in the United States

By the way, most incandescent bulbs were imported too....
I expressed my incompete knowledge of the CFL/Incandescent bulb debate because i'm willing to understand that there are pros and cons and the debate is worthwhile. However, Steve, there is no doubt that the benfits of standrdization are fundamental to a modern economy. You can debate which standard makes the most sense, but that there shouldn't be standards but "let markets decide" doesn't always work. There are dozens of examples where standardization improves the economy. In the case of CFLs I'd think the national strategy of lowering energy use, and feeing the US from dependence on foreign energy is a pretty important byproduct. At one time, this kind of national act was a function of a nation willing to work together to solve problems...

But I learnt a little about the benfits of CFLs too...

Cost Savings. Energy Star encourages consumers to think long term. According to the Energy Star Web site, an Energy Star qualified-CFL bulb will pay for itself in six months and save about $30 in electricity over its lifetime.

Energy savings. A CFL bulb uses about 75 percent less energy than a traditional light bulb. Nationwide, a 60 percent to 70 percent decrease in light energy usage would save as much energy annually as the total amount of energy used by all the homes in Texas.

Here’s another statistic: The United States could eliminate greenhouse gas emissions equal to 800,000 cars if each household in the country replaced just one incandescent bulb with a CFL bulb, according to Energy Star. Energy Star is a program of the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designed to help consumers save money and protect the environment by using energy efficient products and practices.

Longevity. CFL bulbs last about 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs. It’s not unusual for a CFL bulb to last for five years, and even as long as nine years.

In addition, manufacturers that produce Energy Star-qualified bulbs are required to offer at least a two-year limited warranty. So if your CFL bulb burns out, you may be entitled to a refund or replacement.

Still, nothing's perfect as you point out, and the debate still seems worth having. By the way, CFLs are the only light that contains pollutants. So do LEDS.

rickyp wrote:However, Steve, there is no doubt that the benfits of standrdization are fundamental to a modern economy. You can debate which standard makes the most sense, but that there shouldn't be standards but "let markets decide" doesn't always work.

Why don't we force one car on people? One refrigerator? One television? One computer? One sofa? How about everyone wears surgical scrubs?

Why should those markets decide?

Here’s another statistic: The United States could eliminate greenhouse gas emissions equal to 800,000 cars if each household in the country replaced just one incandescent bulb with a CFL bulb, according to Energy Star. Energy Star is a program of the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designed to help consumers save money and protect the environment by using energy efficient products and practices.

Should the government be able to impose whatever it wants in the interest of energy efficiency? Again, is there any limit to the power of government?

Longevity. CFL bulbs last about 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs. It’s not unusual for a CFL bulb to last for five years, and even as long as nine years.

So what? If you don't like the light for reading, what good is 10x longer of bad light? How many people need to have the effects of mercury inflicted upon them?

Still, nothing's perfect as you point out, and the debate still seems worth having. By the way, CFLs are the only light that contains pollutants. So do LEDS.

I can promise you this: few municipalities are ready to handle recycling these bulbs. How many do you suppose will go in the trash and thus into the groundwater?

The unintended consequences and costs are going to be enormous.