Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

travelinman67 wrote:ECB imposes NEGATIVE interest rates in an attempt to force banks into lending...

http://m.bbc.com/news/business-27717594



(...maybe they oughta try correcting the underlying problems... )

travelinman67 wrote:Remarkable the lack of interest by CSers.

Europe's solution is to punish.
Yellen's solution is to reward.

While the Asian and Emirate banks ignore the politics and flood the markets with funding.

This effects every American's long term plannng.

CitadelGrad wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Remarkable the lack of interest by CSers.

Europe's solution is to punish.
Yellen's solution is to reward.

While the Asian and Emirate banks ignore the politics and flood the markets with funding.

This effects every American's long term plannng.

I suspect that Americans who live on fixed income financial instruments haven't been feeling very rewarded for quite some time.

How does your cat food taste, grandma?

CitadelGrad wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Remarkable the lack of interest by CSers.

Europe's solution is to punish.
Yellen's solution is to reward.

While the Asian and Emirate banks ignore the politics and flood the markets with funding.

This effects every American's long term plannng.

I suspect that Americans who live on fixed income financial instruments haven't been feeling very rewarded for quite some time.

How does your cat food taste, grandma?

travelinman67 wrote:Remarkable the lack of interest by CSers.

Europe's solution is to punish.
Yellen's solution is to reward.

While the Asian and Emirate banks ignore the politics and flood the markets with funding.

This effects every American's long term plannng.

GannonFan wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Remarkable the lack of interest by CSers.

Europe's solution is to punish.
Yellen's solution is to reward.

While the Asian and Emirate banks ignore the politics and flood the markets with funding.

This effects every American's long term plannng.

I'm not sure it's lack of interest versus lack of ability to do anything to correct it. The problems that plague Europe aren't things that America can save - labor rates are way too high in Europe, regulations are overwhelming, the population is way too old, government expenditures as part of the economy are so high they are almost stifling, and so on. Why would anyone invest in Europe? That's what's not solved by this move by the ECB - it's not like Europe is a great place to invest and investors just need a little push to start doing so. And that's why this move by the ECB will result in likely deflationary pressures like Japan has seen but on a larger scale because of the size of the countries affected. I'm not sure how American policy one way or the other can fix what ails Europe - their problems are mostly of their own making and it's going to need a solution coming from them to fix it. And yes, this does indirectly impact Americans as it's just one more bloated drain on the world economy, but again, what could America do to solve it?

travelinman67 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I'm not sure it's lack of interest versus lack of ability to do anything to correct it. The problems that plague Europe aren't things that America can save - labor rates are way too high in Europe, regulations are overwhelming, the population is way too old, government expenditures as part of the economy are so high they are almost stifling, and so on. Why would anyone invest in Europe? That's what's not solved by this move by the ECB - it's not like Europe is a great place to invest and investors just need a little push to start doing so. And that's why this move by the ECB will result in likely deflationary pressures like Japan has seen but on a larger scale because of the size of the countries affected. I'm not sure how American policy one way or the other can fix what ails Europe - their problems are mostly of their own making and it's going to need a solution coming from them to fix it. And yes, this does indirectly impact Americans as it's just one more bloated drain on the world economy, but again, what could America do to solve it?

Re-industrialize.

America and Europe are on the same track. Increasing govt size, raising taxes to pay for swelling social support programs, while simultaneously systematically targeting GDP foundation industries with the intent of driving raw manufacturing to third world or developing nations. IS NOT AN ECONOMICALLY SURVIVABLE POLICY.

Money goes where industry grows.

Smirking, denial and obstructionism are not policies, they're mental illness.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Re-industrialize.

America and Europe are on the same track. Increasing govt size, raising taxes to pay for swelling social support programs, while simultaneously systematically targeting GDP foundation industries with the intent of driving raw manufacturing to third world or developing nations. IS NOT AN ECONOMICALLY SURVIVABLE POLICY.

Money goes where industry grows.

Smirking, denial and obstructionism are not policies, they're mental illness.

And if wages increase, there is less need for safety nets.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:


And if wages increase, there is less need for safety nets.

Ask Europe how that theory worked out...

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Ask Europe how that theory worked out...

Perhaps growth reduces poverty and the need for safety nets?

http://gawker.com/america-is-richer-tha ... 1587041395" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/up ... &referrer=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Perhaps growth reduces poverty and the need for safety nets?

http://gawker.com/america-is-richer-tha ... 1587041395" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/up ... &referrer=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Come on, kalm, those articles blew. The idea that we can tax poverty and inequality away (the main premise of the gawker piece, basically tax the rich enough until there is no inequality) is just plain goofy. Not to mention the fact that it's just plain unworkable as well. Again, Europe is a prefect laboratory of that kind of thinking and look where they are now and where they are headed to. Taxation is never going to be the main vehicle, or even a contributing one, to fixing inequality. It's what people resort to when they realize they don't have any other ideas.

The scary thing is, poverty is going to be very hard to tackle. A lot of the gap of inequality is from the rapid rise of productivity gains over the past two or three decades - technology and innovation means a single person can do the work of many people, especially compared to the past. And now the people who thrive and gain wealth are often those that are able to master the technology and innovation improvements in whatever field they are in. Unfortunately, there are some people who just aren't ever going to be good at that, for whatever reason - bad education, bad upbringing, bad environment, etc. I don't have the answer for what to do with them because there is no easy solution for that. What do you do with people that don't have the talents to succeed in a sophisticated and technical world and who don't have the education or wherewithall to overcome that?

The 1950's are fools gold to look at, and yet you keep coming back to it over and over again - anybody could stumble into a decent living then because jobs that required no skills or talents and paid decently were plentiful. But then the '50's ended and the rest of the world was basically fully recovered from the devastation of war, and some places finally decided they wanted to do more than just find their next meal, and the competition got harder. But the reality is, the only easy answer to this is to compete more - that's the only way to keep moving forward. Innovate more, work more (or harder), and get better at whatever it is you do, as an employee or a business. Because if you don't, someone else will. Europe's problems are that they thought they were at the finish line - no need to keep progressing and improving, they had it all and could now sit back and enjoy the fruits of their parents labors. Unfortunately for their kids, there is no finish line and they'll have to get back in the race, now from behind.

travelinman67 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Come on, kalm, those articles blew. The idea that we can tax poverty and inequality away (the main premise of the gawker piece, basically tax the rich enough until there is no inequality) is just plain goofy. Not to mention the fact that it's just plain unworkable as well. Again, Europe is a prefect laboratory of that kind of thinking and look where they are now and where they are headed to. Taxation is never going to be the main vehicle, or even a contributing one, to fixing inequality. It's what people resort to when they realize they don't have any other ideas.

The scary thing is, poverty is going to be very hard to tackle. A lot of the gap of inequality is from the rapid rise of productivity gains over the past two or three decades - technology and innovation means a single person can do the work of many people, especially compared to the past. And now the people who thrive and gain wealth are often those that are able to master the technology and innovation improvements in whatever field they are in. Unfortunately, there are some people who just aren't ever going to be good at that, for whatever reason - bad education, bad upbringing, bad environment, etc. I don't have the answer for what to do with them because there is no easy solution for that. What do you do with people that don't have the talents to succeed in a sophisticated and technical world and who don't have the education or wherewithall to overcome that?

The 1950's are fools gold to look at, and yet you keep coming back to it over and over again - anybody could stumble into a decent living then because jobs that required no skills or talents and paid decently were plentiful. But then the '50's ended and the rest of the world was basically fully recovered from the devastation of war, and some places finally decided they wanted to do more than just find their next meal, and the competition got harder. But the reality is, the only easy answer to this is to compete more - that's the only way to keep moving forward. Innovate more, work more (or harder), and get better at whatever it is you do, as an employee or a business. Because if you don't, someone else will. Europe's problems are that they thought they were at the finish line - no need to keep progressing and improving, they had it all and could now sit back and enjoy the fruits of their parents labors. Unfortunately for their kids, there is no finish line and they'll have to get back in the race, now from behind.

Holy cow!

Could you boil that down to less than eight words?

Klam needs to fit that into Huffpo's search engine to find an "approved" response.




Interesting comments GF. I call it the Trust Fund Syndrome: When old money wakes up one day and realizes SOMEBODY still has to produce goods...the unskilled can't all be servants. Crass, but true.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Holy cow!

Could you boil that down to less than eight words?

Klam needs to fit that into Huffpo's search engine to find an "approved" response.




Interesting comments GF. I call it the Trust Fund Syndrome: When old money wakes up one day and realizes SOMEBODY still has to produce goods...the unskilled can't all be servants. Crass, but true.

I knew you'd like the first article, Ganny. I linked to it simply for the reason that it mentioned the rising wealth of the nation as a whole. You make some good points, but I'd also like to point out that productivity has also risen due to two income families and increased hours worked (as one of the articles points out).

The fact remains that our economy is largely based on consumption and our economic success is based on an every increasing standard of living and wealth compared to our parents generation. Those are marginally sustainable at best if the wealth doesn't trickle down enough.

travelinman67 wrote:Remarkable the lack of interest by CSers.


This effects every American's long term plannng.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:


I knew you'd like the first article, Ganny. I linked to it simply for the reason that it mentioned the rising wealth of the nation as a whole. You make some good points, but I'd also like to point out that productivity has also risen due to two income families and increased hours worked (as one of the articles points out).

The fact remains that our economy is largely based on consumption and our economic success is based on an every increasing standard of living and wealth compared to our parents generation. Those are marginally sustainable at best if the wealth doesn't trickle down enough.

Huh? Productivity has risen "due to two income families and increased hours worked"? First of all, I don't see any mention in the NY Time article to productivity - it mentions working more hours and more people working, but only as it relates to the incomes that are being brought it. It never, as far as I see, mentions productivity. And frankly, working more hours or adding more people does nothing to help productivity - on the contrary, they would work against productivity gains. Productivity is measured as the output of whatever is made divided by the labor input needed to make whatever it is. If you add more hours and more people, you just make the denominator larger and hence, productivity decreases. I think you're confusing the term.

This paper argues that broad-based wage growth is necessary to address a constellation of economic challenges the United States faces: boosting income growth for low- and moderate-income Americans, checking or reversing the rise of income inequality, enhancing social mobility, reducing poverty, and aiding asset-building and retirement security. The paper also points out that strong wage growth for the vast majority can boost macroeconomic growth and stability in the medium run by closing the chronic shortfall in aggregate demand (a problem sometimes referred to as “secular stagnation”). Finally, the paper argues that any analyses of the causes of rising inequality and wage stagnation must consider the role of changes in labor market policies and business practices, which are given far too little attention by researchers and policymakers.

The paper’s key data findings include:

Despite increasing economy-wide productivity, wages for the vast majority of American workers have either stagnated or declined since 1979, and this weak wage growth extends even to those with a college degree.

Since 1979, hourly pay for the vast majority of American workers has diverged from economy-wide productivity, and this divergence is at the root of numerous American economic challenges.
Between 1979 and 2013, productivity grew 64.9 percent, while hourly compensation of production and nonsupervisory workers, who comprise 80 percent of the private-sector workforce, grew just 8.2 percent. Productivity thus grew eight times faster than typical worker compensation.
Much of this productivity growth accrued to those with the very highest wages. The top 1 percent of earners saw cumulative gains in annual wages of 153.6 percent between 1979 and 2012—far in excess of economy-wide productivity.
Hourly wages of the vast majority of American workers have either stagnated or declined since 1979, with the exception of a period of strong across-the-board wage growth in the late 1990s.
Median hourly wages rose just 0.2 percent annually between 1979 and 2013, compared with an annual decline of 0.2 percent for the 10th percentile worker (i.e., the worker who earns more than only 10 percent of workers) and an annual gain of 1 percent for the 95th percentile worker.
Between 2000 and 2013, hourly wages of the vast majority of workers either fell (bottom 30 percent) or were essentially flat (next 40 percent), and only the 95th percentile saw wage growth closely approaching 1 percent annually.
The late 1990s was the only period between 1979 and 2013 when wage growth was robust and broadly shared; in fact, wage growth was actually strongest for the bottom 40 percent.
While wage disparities by gender have gradually narrowed over the last three-and-a-half decades, wage disparities by race and ethnicity have not narrowed.
Gaps between women’s and men’s hourly wages have been slowly narrowing since 1979. However, the higher up the wage distribution one looks, the slower the progress has been. Among women workers, the hourly wage at the 10th percentile was 91.8 percent of men’s 10th percentile wage in 2013, while women’s median wage was 83.4 percent of men’s median wage, and women’s 95th percentile wage was 76.1 percent of men’s 95th percentile wage.
Gaps between hourly wages of black and Hispanic workers relative to white workers have not closed over time. These gaps have remained essentially unchanged at the low end of the wage distribution, and have actually been widening at higher levels.
Weak wage growth extends even to those with a four-year college degree, while those with a high school degree and no further education have fared even worse.
The vast majority of college graduates have seen only small wage gains since 2000. Even at the 90th percentile, college graduates’ hourly wages only increased 4.4 percent cumulatively from 2000 to 2013.
Entry-level hourly wages fell on average for both female and male college graduates from 2000 to 2013 (8.1 percent among women and 6.7 percent among men).
Workers without a four-year degree have fared even worse over the entire 1979 to 2013 period, as the ratio of wages for college-educated workers relative to this group expanded rapidly in the 1980s and early 1990s, and has grown (albeit much more slowly) since.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Huh? Productivity has risen "due to two income families and increased hours worked"? First of all, I don't see any mention in the NY Time article to productivity - it mentions working more hours and more people working, but only as it relates to the incomes that are being brought it. It never, as far as I see, mentions productivity. And frankly, working more hours or adding more people does nothing to help productivity - on the contrary, they would work against productivity gains. Productivity is measured as the output of whatever is made divided by the labor input needed to make whatever it is. If you add more hours and more people, you just make the denominator larger and hence, productivity decreases. I think you're confusing the term.

Overall productivity can also simply be measured by GDP. The more people working would theoretically increase the amount of production.

Loads of interesting research here including the relationship between poverty reduction and stagnant wages, I hope JSO can break it down for me…

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Overall productivity can also simply be measured by GDP. The more people working would theoretically increase the amount of production.

Loads of interesting research here including the relationship between poverty reduction and stagnant wages, I hope JSO can break it down for me…

You're still confusing the term productivity with output, and no, the GDP by itself is not a productivity measurement. Productivity is the efficiency measurement for how much output there is per unit worked. A person working 30 years ago could make x amount of output. A person today can make 3x the amount in the same time worked. That's productivity improvement, he can do 3 times the output with the same input. If you had 3 people today and they only made 3x amount in output, there's no productivity improvement. You've made more stuff, but you had to put the same proportion of input into it so there's no improvement in poductivity even though the output, i.e. GDP, is greater.

As for poverty reduction and stagnant wages, I don't know who you're arguing with - of course stagnant wages would lead to an increase in the poverty rate. But your solution of just increase the wages is a naive approach that ignores the real problem, which is the jobs we have just aren't worth the extra wages you want to pay. There needs to be real value in the work done for it to warrant higher wages. That's why it's always painful to see someone like ABC News do a whole year's worth of made in America campaigns and try to convince people that it helps America if we repatriated the business of making the little wooden sticks that are used in those little umbrella's that get put into various cocktails. That's not the type of jobs we want, because no one is ever going to pay a lot of money for that. It's menial, low tech, and anyone anywhere in the world can do that, and that's what drives down wages to make that. Instead, it would be better for everyone, and for growing wages, if we made something unique and valuable and something that can't be easily made in some third world country. That way, after we're done work for the day, we can have people spend those much more lucrative wages in a bar where they can casually toss those little dinky umbrellas away. That's a much better approach and much more meaningful that "just raise the wages".