Thread: Chavez snubs US

Originally Posted by Judy

neese, crocketsghost and 2ndamendsis ... I noticed you all hadn't signed the petition to say no to guest worker program.

Thought you might have missed it.

So here it is for your convenience.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... c&p=256302

Nope, didn't miss it.

Your Point?

.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... L&summ2=m&

Scroll halfway through the document. Look for Section 407 ... paragraph 1) requiring employers to attest they have have posted a job at a PREVAILING WAGE LEVEL ... in order to qualify to hire the H2C workers let into the country under Guest Worker Program. This is SB 2611 .. the Senate Immigration Bill.

This would require that the employers either hire/offer Americans the jobs at prevailing wages or if no one takes the job then presumably hire the illegal or guest worker at prevailing wages.

Prevailing wage on federal issues is defined by the David Bacon Act.

I assumed this is what they want taken out of this bill if it progresses or some other bill they are referring to that I'm not aware of.

I don't object to that since I'm opposed to the Senate immigration bill in its entirety. It should be market wages not prevailing wage or be defined differently.

Originally Posted by Judy

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:@@@L&summ2=m&

Scroll halfway through the document. Look for Section 407 ... paragraph 1) requiring employers to attest they have have posted a job at a PREVAILING WAGE LEVEL ... in order to qualify to hire the H2C workers let into the country under Guest Worker Program. This is SB 2611 .. the Senate Immigration Bill.

This would require that the employers either hire/offer Americans the jobs at prevailing wages or if no one takes the job then presumably hire the illegal or guest worker at prevailing wages.

Prevailing wage on federal issues is defined by the David Bacon Act.

I assumed this is what they want taken out of this bill if it progresses or some other bill they are referring to that I'm not aware of.

I don't object to that since I'm opposed to the Senate immigration bill in its entirety. It should be market wages not prevailing wage or be defined differently.

Well, then the verbiage of the petition should be changed. The Davis-Bacon Act is an important check on the federal government and should not simply be abandoned because there is a potential for some bureaucrat screw with its intent.

There's a reason those people are making only $10,000/year, and it's related to growth being sucked from the economy by the tax burden. To be honest though, it is very difficult for me to fathom anyone without a serious disability earning that little. We're talking about $27.50 a day with a five-day week. You can make more than that mowing lawns or cleaning toilets. A paper route pays at least that much.

I perceive that you have little grasp of macroeconomics. I don't believe that you even begin to comprehend how much wealth is being sucked from this nation by the government in the name of its creditors. Wealth creates wealth, it is not static. There's a thing called the sevenfold principle, that says that a dollar in circulation changes hands seven times on average in the course of a year. Each time it changes hands it either generates profit directly or indirectly when goods or services change hands. When that dollar is sucked from the economy, it generates nothing. It doesn't gain anything for the government because the government is so busy going into debt that it generates only more debt. It's a black hole.

I'll give you an example of how less taxes and less money to the government equates to more and better jobs. Let's take the example of a guy making $50,000/year. He probably has enough earnings to have a decent place to live and to buy a new car. But he probably can't affort a maid, lawn care, original artwork, etc. Reduce his tax burden by half and suddenly he's taking home about $20,000 more. He can probably afford some artwork or a maid or a lawn care service. A job that did not exist now does. What's more, if enough people get that sort of a boost to their take-home pay, there is competition for those jobs. the law of supply and demand drives up the wages.

Let's focus on the artisans. I know plenty of people in the art and entertainment fields. I have seen firsthand how good jobs for artisans and technicians dry up when the economy gets tight and the market then explodes when things get better. We're not just talking about low-end jobs here. We're talking about skilled jobs that may pay six figures. Those guys can then employ their own gardeners and maids.

Well ... I minored in economics and have spent my whole career actually making a lot of money based upon my knowledge of "macros" ... so now that we have that out of the way ... lets get you up to date on the facts of our economy.

Per capita income of the United States - $25,000 a year.

That's $12.50 a hour ... gross.

Largest US Employer = Walmart.

Average pay = $9.75 per hour.

Average Entry level - $7 an hour.

Average hours per week 28 to 35 hours per worker.

28 x $7 = $196 per week x 50 weeks = $9,800 per year. You have to purchase your health insurance.

Minimum wage in the US is $5.15 an hour at the present time.

$5.15 x 40 hours a week x 50 weeks = $10,300 per year. Insurance may or not be available .. probably ... NOT.

Employees working in manufacturing plants like Smithfield earn $12.00 an hour stunning hogs and have health insurance and paid benefits. This is a blood and guts business; difficult; undesireable and 5,000 Americans do it every day for $24,000 a year at one plant in my state .... that's right at our average per capita income and in my state a satisfactory non-professional non-college degree job. Not the top but not the bottom. Many earn far less than that.

What do you CrocketsGhost?

Well, then the verbiage of the petition should be changed. The Davis-Bacon Act is an important check on the federal government and should not simply be abandoned because there is a potential for some bureaucrat screw with its intent.

The Davis-Bacon Act does several things. One it requires that prevailing wages be paid on all federally funded construction projects. Another is that prevailing wages be paid on all federal service projects. Another is that it defines prevailing wages.

I'll give you an example of how less taxes and less money to the government equates to more and better jobs. Let's take the example of a guy making $50,000/year. He probably has enough earnings to have a decent place to live and to buy a new car. But he probably can't affort a maid, lawn care, original artwork, etc. Reduce his tax burden by half and suddenly he's taking home about $20,000 more. He can probably afford some artwork or a maid or a lawn care service. A job that did not exist now does. What's more, if enough people get that sort of a boost to their take-home pay, there is competition for those jobs. the law of supply and demand drives up the wages.

Your scenario:

Gross earning $50,000 a year

Tax Burden $20,000 x 2 or $40,000 a year?

Current Net $10,000 a year?

Reduce tax burden by half to $20,000 a year

Take home pay $30,000 a year net.

And he's going to hire a maid or buy some art?

Oooh okay.

Originally Posted by Judy

There's a reason those people are making only $10,000/year, and it's related to growth being sucked from the economy by the tax burden. To be honest though, it is very difficult for me to fathom anyone without a serious disability earning that little. We're talking about $27.50 a day with a five-day week. You can make more than that mowing lawns or cleaning toilets. A paper route pays at least that much.

I perceive that you have little grasp of macroeconomics. I don't believe that you even begin to comprehend how much wealth is being sucked from this nation by the government in the name of its creditors. Wealth creates wealth, it is not static. There's a thing called the sevenfold principle, that says that a dollar in circulation changes hands seven times on average in the course of a year. Each time it changes hands it either generates profit directly or indirectly when goods or services change hands. When that dollar is sucked from the economy, it generates nothing. It doesn't gain anything for the government because the government is so busy going into debt that it generates only more debt. It's a black hole.

I'll give you an example of how less taxes and less money to the government equates to more and better jobs. Let's take the example of a guy making $50,000/year. He probably has enough earnings to have a decent place to live and to buy a new car. But he probably can't affort a maid, lawn care, original artwork, etc. Reduce his tax burden by half and suddenly he's taking home about $20,000 more. He can probably afford some artwork or a maid or a lawn care service. A job that did not exist now does. What's more, if enough people get that sort of a boost to their take-home pay, there is competition for those jobs. the law of supply and demand drives up the wages.

Let's focus on the artisans. I know plenty of people in the art and entertainment fields. I have seen firsthand how good jobs for artisans and technicians dry up when the economy gets tight and the market then explodes when things get better. We're not just talking about low-end jobs here. We're talking about skilled jobs that may pay six figures. Those guys can then employ their own gardeners and maids.

Well ... I minored in economics and have spent my whole career actually making a lot of money based upon my knowledge of "macros" ... so now that we have that out of the way ... lets get you up to date on the facts of our economy.

Per capita income of the United States - $25,000 a year.

That's $12.50 a hour ... gross.

Largest US Employer = Walmart.

Average pay = $9.75 per hour.

Average Entry level - $7 an hour.

Average hours per week 28 to 35 hours per worker.

28 x $7 = $196 per week x 50 weeks = $9,800 per year. You have to purchase your health insurance.

Minimum wage in the US is $5.15 an hour at the present time.

$5.15 x 40 hours a week x 50 weeks = $10,300 per year. Insurance may or not be available .. probably ... NOT.

Employees working in manufacturing plants like Smithfield earn $12.00 an hour stunning hogs and have health insurance and paid benefits. This is a blood and guts business; difficult; undesireable and 5,000 Americans do it every day for $24,000 a year at one plant in my state .... that's right at our average per capita income and in my state a satisfactory non-professional non-college degree job. Not the top but not the bottom. Many earn far less than that.

What do you CrocketsGhost?

First, you provide no source for these statistics. These look like propaganda stats to me. According to the BEA, US average per capita income for 2005 for the United States was $34,495. ( sources: www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-pci.htm - Bureau of Rusiness and Economic Research, UNM; www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/tables/fig101.asp - U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). It has not been as low as $25,000 since the late 1980s (it was $26,977 in 1990). All your breakdowns that follow are therefore worthless as well, as will happen when you misrepresent the per capita wage by almost $10,000/yr.

Please be sure you are presenting actual facts and not nonsense in your arguments here, Judy. If you are going to misrepresent fact after fact in those endless and rambling posts of yours, I am going to stop attempting to honestly debate you and will ask others to consider this and other false or inaccurate information you have provided as indicative of your level of discourse. The bogus stat you provide above is no small error, and the fact that you failed to provide any source for it is telling. That a person who allegedly "minored in economics" and spent a lifetime making "a lot of money" based on knowledge of it, the error and the lack of a cited source is all the more troubling.

I still am befuddled as to your angle here. You don't appear to have a desire to debate based upon fact. You have some specific agenda-driven points that you appear desperate to hammer regardless of how illogical or factually errant they are demonstrated to be. Your modus operandi appears to be to avoid debating fact, instead simply denying it time after time. And now you stoop to bogus "statistics" which I'm sure look good to any committed idealogue ready to accept any nonsense as fact, but are bogus nonetheless. Thankfully, the actual statistics are a mouse click away for any rational human being interested in honest debate.

One last point that seems to be lost on many people, including Judy. There is little excuse for making a lifetime choice of "stunning hogs" or other such menial and underpaid labor. Many of the jobs that factor into the average are held by teenagers and college kids as they are earning degrees or getting through apprenticeships to move on to higher paying jobs. Yet these bottom of the ladder jobs are factored into in the per capita average. Is there really any excuse for an adult with children to be flipping burgers at a fast food joint, unless he or she happens to be filling time between jobs? The lowest wage paid by my company is $12/hr., and those jobs don't require a degree or much anything else except a little common sense, a willingness to learn, and the ability to make it to work on time. A moderately motivated man can start a lawn care service with little more than a lawn mower and a willingness to sweat. The fact is that not every job out there that needs to be done is meant to be a career. Killing hogs for $12/hr. is something that people do while getting to the point of doing something better with better pay. The notion that every job must pay a living wage is absurd. I guess the best way to put it is that every job is not meant to be a career, and that if people are too lazy to expend the minimum effort necessary to move up to something better, then they deserve what they get. This is the element of personal accountability to which Neese referred.

Originally Posted by Judy

I'll give you an example of how less taxes and less money to the government equates to more and better jobs. Let's take the example of a guy making $50,000/year. He probably has enough earnings to have a decent place to live and to buy a new car. But he probably can't affort a maid, lawn care, original artwork, etc. Reduce his tax burden by half and suddenly he's taking home about $20,000 more. He can probably afford some artwork or a maid or a lawn care service. A job that did not exist now does. What's more, if enough people get that sort of a boost to their take-home pay, there is competition for those jobs. the law of supply and demand drives up the wages.

Your scenario:

Gross earning $50,000 a year

Tax Burden $20,000 x 2 or $40,000 a year?

Current Net $10,000 a year?

Reduce tax burden by half to $20,000 a year

Take home pay $30,000 a year net.

And he's going to hire a maid or buy some art?

Oooh okay.

I thought you said that you understood economics.

First off, I'm talking about a guy taking home $50,000/year. The total tax burden does not just include income tax and FICA. It also includes all the excises and imposts, fees and duties we pay, which are added to everything from our utility bills to the cost of gasoline to the cost of food and consumer items. The date by which the average American has earned enough to pay his taxes for the year is now mid-July. That's because the average total tax burden is around 55%. Taking a lowball, I estimated that the guy taking home $50,000 is paying a total of about $40,000 in taxes (probably more). Half of that is $20,000.

I used the model with his "earnings" at $50,000 that you described. So you're talking about a person who grosses $90,000 a year almost twice the national per capita income.

The question I posed to you was if you eliminate all social programs which you think are 50% or half the tax burden .. where does the $10,000 a year wage earner find a job that pays $30,000 and provides their health insurance?

Your position is that these people will be hired by people who earn $90,000 or more doing things for them and will spend their extra take home pay hiring these people to clean their house, mow their yards and other services and even sell them art.

Oooh okay.

Well then we should be in good shape because the federal tax burden has been reduced significantly over the past several years.

http://link.toolbot.com/courant.com/26432