DescentBB

....for a couple weeks of surf fishing(as noted in another thread), when I saw this. I had to share:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... /18640031/


I don't pretend to know what the fix is, but THIS is income inequality in a global economy. Further, it isn't static- it is
like two economic clusters hurtling away from each other at increasing speed, and the poorer clump is picking up
stragglers from the affluent clump along the way. We, in the US, are just STARTING to awake to this effect of globalization,
and that awakening probably underlies a great deal of our societal unease. How should the nation approach this, either
politically or otherwise? Can this ever be addressed or made more equitable a world economy without a central world
governance(which I would not wish to have in place, for a host of reasons)?

I'll check in, when I return, and look forward to this group pondering this one.

Considering American corp. are the highest taxed in the world...maybe we could start there.

"How should the nation approach this"?
How should the Dallas Cowboys approach the record of the Manchester United football team?

Why should the nation think that the gap between the world's poorest and the the world's wealthiest is something it needs to 'approach'? There should be a gap in between them. That gap will always be remarkable from the perspective of a dirt poor peasant in Ethiopia looking upon the Warren Buffets of the world. That gap isnt inherantly wrong and it represents as much hope and opportunity as it does doom and despair.

We (our nation) should try to maintain a minimum standard of living for our citizens that rivals other nations because that serves us well and by extension the rest of the world and not try to form policy based on irrelevant statistics.

woodchip wrote:Considering American corp. are the highest taxed in the world...maybe we could start there.

That's popular rhetoric and not actually true. US corporate taxes are on the high side (but not the highest) legislatively, but in a practical sense they are competitive because of how many loopholes and exceptions there are. These exceptions and loopholes are the reason why many big businesses stay here. They wouldn't have the same freedom in another country's tax code.

Politicians selling those loopholes is a big part of the problem.

Also, if you want cite the net results of a loophole reducing the rate to a level you think makes our rate as good wouldn't removing the need to 'qualify' for a loophole make the rates truly good instead of sometimes good for some people?

Seems like you are really reaching to come up with a disqualification of woodchips point.

Will Robinson wrote:Also, if you want cite the net results of a loophole reducing the rate to a level you think makes our rate as good wouldn't removing the need to 'qualify' for a loophole make the rates truly good instead of sometimes good for some people?

I wish it was that simple. There are a lot of things that determine what makes for a good place to run a business. Move the a smaller, cheaper country? Sure! But then you have to consider their laws (not just corporate taxes), their labor availability, the ease of moving resources, whether or not that country is politically and economically stable, etc... It's like buying a house. Price is one thing, the neighborhood and commute to work are another.

There was a great line from the business report on the radio today stating that, over the past few years, the income growth of 99.9% of Americans has stagnated, or even reversed, when compared to inflation. As for the other 0.1%...they've enjoyed 10% growth. To hell with eating them: ★■◆● the rich.

You have to understand something about wage growth…right now businesses are adding jobs at a very high rate, therefore wages will as a result tend to lag behind.

Imagine any given business adding jobs, and what that does to the payroll…if things continue to improve, and some kind of stable economy can be reached, wages should (theoretically) begin to rise again.

Of course there are many other factors at work these days to keep wages down, such as global competition, so I would imagine will never again see the kind of wages we saw a few decades ago.

Unless of course people wise up and begin to spend their money in a selfish way (not the way you think) but in a way that keeps the money in the family…so to speak.

BUY AMERICAN damn it!

Spidey wrote:BUY AMERICAN damn it!

Doing it as much as possible. But it's not the same for our workers. First, corporations moved offshore to get cheaper wages and break the unions. Now that those pesky unions are mostly gone, they can come back here and force cheaper wages on American workers......... because they can. It's either that for those workers, or starve.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Also, if you want cite the net results of a loophole reducing the rate to a level you think makes our rate as good wouldn't removing the need to 'qualify' for a loophole make the rates truly good instead of sometimes good for some people?

I wish it was that simple. There are a lot of things that determine what makes for a good place to run a business. Move the a smaller, cheaper country? Sure! But then you have to consider their laws (not just corporate taxes), their labor availability, the ease of moving resources, whether or not that country is politically and economically stable, etc... It's like buying a house. Price is one thing, the neighborhood and commute to work are another.

I think you are still dancing around the issue since it has been proven that many many jobs have been moving offshore for decades!

If we had no, or very low, corporate tax we would see a resurgence in jobs, GDP, etc. ...which would bring more tax revenue....more money staying here...more jobs/commerce created to support the money and production that returns here instead of all that benefiting the other countries/people working for the american company that moved to one of many places that offer the more profitable locations, etc. And if we structured the taxes correctly we would make America the prefered market for investment which also brings with it more, more, more...

Gutting the enormous tax code and making it attractive to business instead of constantly growing to enable politicians to trade new loopholes for power/donations would only hurt politicians. It wouldn't hurt the country.
Too bad the politicians get to have the only say in the matter!
If the voters were more savvy instead of easily herded like cattle onto the two political plantations by scary slogans they would have forced the politicians to do the right thing long ago.

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:BUY AMERICAN damn it!

Doing it as much as possible. But it's not the same for our workers. First, corporations moved offshore to get cheaper wages and break the unions. Now that those pesky unions are mostly gone, they can come back here and force cheaper wages on American workers......... because they can. It's either that for those workers, or starve.

For a large number of businesses it was do that or perish, you should be thankful if they come back.

It was and is the merchant class and dumb consumers that forced many companies to go offshore. The merchants imported the goods, and people bought them…the rest is history.

……………………….

vision wrote:I wish it was that simple. There are a lot of things that determine what makes for a good place to run a business. Move the a smaller, cheaper country? Sure! But then you have to consider their laws (not just corporate taxes), their labor availability, the ease of moving resources, whether or not that country is politically and economically stable, etc... It's like buying a house. Price is one thing, the neighborhood and commute to work are another.

Funny thing…it must sound different when you say the exact same thing I do…

I have been saying this in response to the idea that it’s just a piece of cake to move overseas in pursuit of a bit more coin. Trying to explain the economic pressures that virtually force companies to take such drastic actions…is a little like pulling teeth.

Will Robinson wrote:I think you are still dancing around the issue since it has been proven that many many jobs have been moving offshore for decades!

Will, you have to remember that part of that is an artifact of globalization and the effects of corporate taxes are just one of many factors, some of which no one has any control over.

Spidey wrote:Trying to explain the economic pressures that virtually force companies to take such drastic actions…

Of course. But it is important for everyone to remember these pressures are incredibly uneven. Some companies have a harder time making it here than others depending on the type of business and how it is affected by our laws (which are always in flux). Even if we lowered the corporate tax rate there it is not likely to generate significant job growth since any tax breaks would simply go into the pockets of CEOs or lobbying -- and those tax dollars would be lost.

Spidey wrote:Unless of course people wise up and begin to spend their money in a selfish way (not the way you think) but in a way that keeps the money in the family…so to speak.

BUY AMERICAN damn it!

That's right! And buying American will cost us more, but if our own economy isn't worth supporting with an eye to the future, what is? Personally I buy things which are made even more locally whenever I have the choice (my state or the neighboring state(s), or nearest locality). I suspect "buy American" is a relatively weak movement compared to what could be started if organizations would scrutinize where even the American companies we buy from were putting their money...

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I think you are still dancing around the issue since it has been proven that many many jobs have been moving offshore for decades!

Will, you have to remember that part of that is an artifact of globalization and the effects of corporate taxes are just one of many factors, some of which no one has any control over.

No, control over it is exactly what I'm suggesting. Or at least effecting a counter to the culmination of the effects you are pointing to.
Purposefully lowering the rate which, at least for now, a change we DO have sole control over.
We lower ours and it becomes a more attractive rate on the global scale.

"Globalization", in the context you used it, is just a euphamism for the very scenario I described that you were trying to reject. The tax aspect of those global effects...
Globalization is a two way street, not an inevitable path to decline. We need to make more use the other side of the street.

Will Robinson wrote:Globalization is a two way street, not an inevitable path to decline.

At no point have I ever equated globalization with decline. The positive effects of globalism far outweigh any negative effects.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Globalization is a two way street, not an inevitable path to decline.

At no point have I ever equated globalization with decline. The positive effects of globalism far outweigh any negative effects.

Not suggesting you said it but you cited the negative aspects of globalization on our relative position and I'm suggesting that we too can have an effect on the global market. We dont have to just accept the reason other places steal away our potential. We can lure some of it right back and give ourselves a nice long term boost in the economy.

Trading a few points of corporate tax revenue in the short term for an increase on many levels for the long term is a good investment. Only the politicians who need that revenue for their personal slush funds to buy votes with next cycle or two will be harmed by it...
Thats the kind of pain I embrace wholeheartedly.

Spidey wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:BUY AMERICAN damn it!

Doing it as much as possible. But it's not the same for our workers. First, corporations moved offshore to get cheaper wages and break the unions. Now that those pesky unions are mostly gone, they can come back here and force cheaper wages on American workers......... because they can. It's either that for those workers, or starve.

For a large number of businesses it was do that or perish, you should be thankful if they come back.

It was and is the merchant class and dumb consumers that forced many companies to go offshore. The merchants imported the goods, and people bought them…the rest is history.

Well, that may be the case for businesses, but this is the new reality for most service and manufacturing workers in America, crooked employers. So when workers don't make as much money, they consequently don't have as much left over to spend at other businesses, and those businesses won't make as money as they'd like.

Wage Theft

woodchip wrote:Considering American corp. are the highest taxed in the world...maybe we could start there.

where do you get that. I mean, real numbers, please? The rates on paper may be high, but the functional rate collected is pitiful in the US. I just read recently that several dozen companies here pay the CEO more than they pay in taxes.

OK, gang....color me disappointed. I tossed out data and a short writeup about GLOBAL income disparity, with the observation that we are just beginning full participation in the US, and somehow some of you think that US corporate tax policy, or consumer behavior really affects this long term? Seriously? How the feck did any of the above blather speak to income dispartity as a global issue, OR in any way have an impact on the US in a global economy? Even if you tried to tinker with US policy to stave off the trend within the US(which is sort of what we've been able to do thus far), how does that address the longterm effect. The US cannot separate from the global market, unless we wish to forego all economic clout and ultimately the military clout we have, too.
Sometimes, the perspective of being away for a while makes one look with fresh eyes at how truly disconnected we, as Americans,are from the greater world we live in.......

There is not a thing “I” can do to control the issue you raise.

Call it blather or whatever you want, when someone says something you don’t want to hear…but consumer habits CAN help to mitigate some of the effects of wage loss here in the states by keeping jobs and money here.

The only thing I can really say about GLOBAL income disparity is…I have seen some very scientific studies that seem to say, this is some kind of human condition…so I don’t know what you really wish to hear.

I can only give advice to people here, I can’t do a damn thing about the global economy, but I do see an analogy between what certain groups do with their money, and the US as a whole. (do I have to spell it out)

Spidey wrote:There is not a thing “I” can do to control the issue you raise.

true, this is a 'we' issue, as in all of us on the planet. My hopes were that someone could see a way or suggest a possible route to change the current economic trajectory, which is clearly heading towards a Nouveau Peasantry.

Call it blather or whatever you want, when someone says something you don’t want to hear…but consumer habits CAN help to mitigate some of the effects of wage loss here in the states by keeping jobs and money here.

sure, but the mitigation, over time, on this current global path, will be less and less.


I'll toss out the sort of thoughts I had:
1. without some sort of functional,united, world governance that is far more robust that the UN, those with the money will keep that money mobile toward places that benefit them most.
2. the nations who will, to use Spideys term, mitigate the effects of the disparity best, are those who sink MASSIVE resources
into the education of their populace. Knowledge is power, but ever more so in this sort of bi-level economic structure.
3. it really isn't about trade, it is about the global labor pool, manipulated by the economic elites into maintaining a system that
sends almost all the capital up to the top of the ladder

slick, we have diametrically opposed cultures in the world today. Some of those opposite us are relatively powerful and control large segments of global markets that affect economies worldwide..
You don't create a 'global authority' that shares your concern for income disparity by including those entities. They don't share your concerns. Their idea of improvements would move things backwards in many ways not forwards.

So creating/arming/authorizing a 'global authority' isn't the solution. First you need a 'common culture' to man the authority. That is what all this fighting is about.
For political purposes many like to spin it as merely some rich Texan trying to get some brown peoples oil but in truth it is all about a much bigger struggle. It is the establishment of the foundation that one day could sustain the 'global authority' you seek.

If some had their way the world would forever be like the Israeli/Islamic conflict. Artificially constrained to deadlock in the name of fairness. No one would be allowed to win so no common culture could evolve thus no global authority could have any 'legal' power.

So your question is flawed, you have not only suggested putting the horse before the cart but some of the players would tell you the cart is evil and those who suggest using it must be destroyed. Right now one mans income disparity is another radicals proper order of things so says 'god'. Fix that first, get some agreed upon metrics, then you can talk about defining common denominators.

If we were smart we (as in U.S. and her allies) would align ourselves with Russia and hammer out some common ground and from that alliance of relatively similar interests and powers the foundation for 'commonality' would be forged. That super alliance moving to develop the African continent would be the win. China would have to pick up a spot on the rear of the train or be buried in their resistance.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Considering American corp. are the highest taxed in the world...maybe we could start there.

where do you get that. I mean, real numbers, please? The rates on paper may be high, but the functional rate collected is pitiful in the US. I just read recently that several dozen companies here pay the CEO more than they pay in taxes.

What you read is irrelevant:

The United States currently lays claim to the second-highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the developed world.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/default/ ... /sr195.pdf

Will Robinson wrote:slick, we have diametrically opposed cultures in the world today. Some of those opposite us are relatively powerful and control large segments of global markets that affect economies worldwide..
You don't create a 'global authority' that shares your concern for income disparity by including those entities. They don't share your concerns. Their idea of improvements would move things backwards in many ways not forwards.

quite true. The status quo is anything but conducive. Perhaps, if working people around the world come to grasp that fact, and that some of the power players LIKE it that way, something will change.