[WellSpyder]

onoway, on 2016-September-05, 14:30, said:

what constitutes contributing?

Winstonm, on 2016-September-05, 15:26, said:

Everyone who is a consumer is part of capitalism.

Is this intended as an answer to the question above? If so, I'm not sure it is likely to be very acceptable politically.

[Winstonm]

WellSpyder, on 2016-September-06, 08:36, said:

Is this intended as an answer to the question above? If so, I'm not sure it is likely to be very acceptable politically.

Perhaps it can be put another way. Imagine a world divided between owners and slaves. The owners create a factory that makes lallywankers. With no one but other owners to whom their product can be sold, there is never a need to expand production capabilities.

It is consumerism that drives output. Consumers=demand.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-06, 09:08, said:

Perhaps it can be put another way. Imagine a world divided between owners and slaves. The owners create a factory that makes lallywankers. With no one but other owners to whom their product can be sold, there is never a need to expand production capabilities.

It is consumerism that drives output. Consumers=demand.

I can't speak for WS, but I think this needs further work.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-06, 09:08, said:

Perhaps it can be put another way. Imagine a world divided between owners and slaves. The owners create a factory that makes lallywankers. With no one but other owners to whom their product can be sold, there is never a need to expand production capabilities.

It is consumerism that drives output. Consumers=demand.

That's not technically true. The owners might need lallywankers for their slaves. This is still the same thing, to some degree, but the purchaser is different. I mean, communism is somewhat a matter of the owners (central government) buying and then disbursing lallywankers to the slaves who need them, all on an equitable basis, of course.

If the slaves, however, were not working, just sitting at home waiting for the owners to buy them lallywankers, then there would be a problem, because the owners could not by themselves make enough lallywankers. The only real solution for this problem is either automation, forcing the slaves to work, or invading the next village to make the slaves owned by the neighbor owners work.

Now, if the slaves thought about this, they might just make the lallywankers themselves, force the owners to pay them a fair wage for lallywanker manufacturing, and then buy the lallywankers from themselves. The only real job for the owners would be to make sure everything was organized.

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on 2016-September-06, 13:48, said:

That's not technically true. The owners might need lallywankers for their slaves. This is still the same thing, to some degree, but the purchaser is different. I mean, communism is somewhat a matter of the owners (central government) buying and then disbursing lallywankers to the slaves who need them, all on an equitable basis, of course.

If the slaves, however, were not working, just sitting at home waiting for the owners to buy them lallywankers, then there would be a problem, because the owners could not by themselves make enough lallywankers. The only real solution for this problem is either automation, forcing the slaves to work, or invading the next village to make the slaves owned by the neighbor owners work.

Now, if the slaves thought about this, they might just make the lallywankers themselves, force the owners to pay them a fair wage for lallywanker manufacturing, and then buy the lallywankers from themselves. The only real job for the owners would be to make sure everything was organized.

Point 1) If the owners make harnesses for their horses, they are not purchasing harnesses. There is no economic activity, which at its essence is an exchange. If a central government is the "owner", the same rules apply.

Point 2) The only "need" there can be for a good or service is an intrinsic one. Wanting a softer life is not the same as needing a softer life. Unless the control is total of food and water there is no "need" to provide products. There can only be a longing for.

Point 3) This is realistic as long as the workers retain the ability to organize and approach the owners through collective bargaining.

[mike777]

FelicityR, on 2016-September-03, 02:39, said:

My son, who is now 48, now works in two part-time jobs (20 hours + 12 hours) and one other zero hour contract, and his wife works part-time (24 hours) too, to keep a roof over their family's head (3 teenage children). Both have degrees, and both are now working for less than £2 above the minimum wage. They have a mortgage, one car, a cat and a dog. They have just one yearly two week camping holiday in the UK - the last time they had a family holiday abroad (Spain) was 7 years ago. My son sold the second small car and now cycles 10 miles to one job (and 10 miles back too.) They are not wasteful with money, shop economically, and do not have all the luxuries (big TVs, latest phones, free housing) that people on social benefits seem to possess. I admire their fortitude, but things would be easier if both still had full-time jobs that paid well. Both have suffered redundancies over the past 15 years, and now have to tailor their lives to what work is available. That's the reality of living in the UK, as some of his friends have suffered similar hardships, one ending up homeless through no fault of his own. Bringing in cheap labour from European countries has made some people very wealthy at the expense of the indigenous population. If that how capitalism works, and I confess I don't take much interest in politics, then I doubt if I'll ever vote Conservative again. I always believed the Conservative Party were there to support decent, hard-working families: how wrong I was!

Thank you Felicity for taking the time to reply. The answer to your basic question is yes that is how capitalism works. Capitalism destroys jobs, it destroys companies, in rare moments it destroys an entire industry. Many dislike even hate this part of capitalism and demand the government step in and protect their job or their loved ones job.

I found your post to be eloquent. It raises so many issues we could discuss them for years but the main point remains that is how capitalism works and many many people hate this destructive power that is a key element of capitalism. Capitalism is a great creator of jobs and a great destroyer of jobs. Capitalism helped them own a house and a car and take a few vacations over the years. It can also destroy the jobs that helped them afford all of the above. I can understand many demanding that the government step in and protect their home, car and ability to take vacations abroad.


I can only offer my own personal experience. I did not grow up living in a house, my Mom did not own a car and we did not take vacations abroad outside of a trip to Mexico City where i was hit by a bus and pinned up against a department store window. Capitalism did create enough wealth to tax people and provide me a job throughout college, college loan and various grants that I was lucky enough to get. At some point I was lucky enough to buy my family a home to live in and a home for myself.


I have been lucky enough to visit the UK many times and love the place. I hope you and your family are in good health and prosper with your government making laws that work for your loved ones.

[mike777]

I have presented for discussion the theory that many of these full time jobs in the USA/UK are not coming back.
That more than 50% of us do not have full time jobs and this number is going to increase significantly over our lives and the lives of our children. I hope to prod the discussion towards what will we humans do with our lives if we are not working outside the home, if we are having fewer and fewer children to raise in the home.

Robots/computers are going to become intelligent in a way that is measurable and comparable to humans. At some point, some say a million years, others say in 40 a computer will become so intelligent humans will not be able to predict what it does.



Cell phones are nothing more than a giant computer. IN just a few years many seem to have become addicted to them. Having never owned a cell phone I will let those who actually own/use and pay for them discuss this issue.

I have not owned a car for years. I look forward to the day when robots drive me around while I nap in the back seat.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2016-September-06, 22:23, said:

That more than 50% of us do not have full time jobs

Care to back that up? For the UK at least, the official statistics show that 23.22 million are in full-time work, compared with ~42.6 million people aged between 16 and 64. I suppose you might be including children and pensioners (and perhaps pets) in "us" but that would be disingenuous without comment so I would hope not. If you are going to post things here as fact, please try to check whether they are actually true.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2016-September-07, 02:14, said:

Care to back that up? For the UK at least, the official statistics show that 23.22 million are in full-time work, compared with ~42.6 million people aged between 16 and 64. I suppose you might be including children and pensioners (and perhaps pets) in "us" but that would be disingenuous without comment so I would hope not. If you are going to post things here as fact, please try to check whether they are actually true.

How many of those 23.22 million are over 64 ? a not insignificant number, so it may be true.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-07, 02:38, said:

How many of those 23.22 million are over 64 ? a not insignificant number, so it may be true.

30.543 million of the 31.75 million employed are between 16 and 64. If you drill down into the report you might find the specific figure for full-time workers but it is certain that the result for FTEs is over 50% of the work force.

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2016-September-07, 02:14, said:

Care to back that up? For the UK at least, the official statistics show that 23.22 million are in full-time work, compared with ~42.6 million people aged between 16 and 64. I suppose you might be including children and pensioners (and perhaps pets) in "us" but that would be disingenuous without comment so I would hope not. If you are going to post things here as fact, please try to check whether they are actually true.

yes 50% of people includes all people. btw I started working outside the home around 8 and many people work past 64 so not sure why you pick 16-64, clearly that is some form of bias in the stats, I mean I was living on my own at 16. If I meant only 16-64 I would have said so. It looks as if roughly 65 million live in the UK so you failed to count 22 million or so but you may have better numbers.

Again I expect that number to increase to 60-70% here in America and if people live longer we get back to my main point.

[WellSpyder]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-06, 09:08, said:

Perhaps it can be put another way. Imagine a world divided between owners and slaves. The owners create a factory that makes lallywankers. With no one but other owners to whom their product can be sold, there is never a need to expand production capabilities.

It is consumerism that drives output. Consumers=demand.

I think you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I have no problems with the idea that capitalism needs consumers, and that workers typically create the bulk of demand.

But does that also mean that you should give the same money to those who don't work as to those who do, so that they also generate additional demand?

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2016-September-07, 07:39, said:

yes 50% of people includes all people. btw I started working outside the home around 8 and many people work past 64 so not sure why you pick 16-64, clearly that is some form of bias in the stats,

16 is chosen because it is the school leaving age and there are special rules about children younger than this working. 64 is chosen because 65 is the traditional retirement age. YOu might regard it as a bias in the stats not to expect 8 year olds (or indeed 2 year olds) to work but I think sensible people will regard this as a perfectly reasonable position from the ONS. I have not gone into the statistics any more than looking at the first page or so. You might find some interesting and useful tidbits if you peruse deeper but I see it as the job of the person stating a "fact" to prove it rather than everyone else to disprove it and am not willing to put any effort into it. That was simply the obvious first place to look to test the validity of the claim.

[Winstonm]

WellSpyder, on 2016-September-07, 07:49, said:

I think you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I have no problems with the idea that capitalism needs consumers, and that workers typically create the bulk of demand.

But does that also mean that you should give the same money to those who don't work as to those who do, so that they also generate additional demand?

No, I simply mean that taxes should not be regressive, that it makes more sense to slightly reduce tha amount of investment capital and savings by progressive taxing in order to help fund demand. If there were no cap on social security payments or if people like Warren Buffet had to pay a 40% tax rate their lives would change little, but it could mean that those in the working class would not have to carry the load of paying taxes.

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2016-September-07, 08:00, said:

16 is chosen because it is the school leaving age and there are special rules about children younger than this working. 64 is chosen because 65 is the traditional retirement age. YOu might regard it as a bias in the stats not to expect 8 year olds (or indeed 2 year olds) to work but I think sensible people will regard this as a perfectly reasonable position from the ONS. I have not gone into the statistics any more than looking at the first page or so. You might find some interesting and useful tidbits if you peruse deeper but I see it as the job of the person stating a "fact" to prove it rather than everyone else to disprove it and am not willing to put any effort into it. That was simply the obvious first place to look to test the validity of the claim.

Zel first off thank you for taking the time to reply. If you disagree with my posts, great but please stop editing out my full comments. Clearly I have provided evidence of my 50% number. If you dont want to count 22 million people or so as part of the economy that need to be supported and provided for, so be it.

If you read on to my main point or thesis I think the confusion will end. A larger portion of the population will come to depend on a decreasing percentage of the population working full time. These full time jobs are not coming back for us. Some blame immigrants, others globalization or whatever. My best guess is tech.

Now what will this world look like where most of us will not be working full time jobs outside the home?

[Winstonm]

Is there any way to explain this without coming to the conclusion that the News is vying for a "Best New Reality Show" Emmy?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-07, 08:10, said:

No, I simply mean that taxes should not be regressive, that it makes more sense to slightly reduce tha amount of investment capital and savings by progressive taxing in order to help fund demand. If there were no cap on social security payments or if people like Warren Buffet had to pay a 40% tax rate their lives would change little, but it could mean that those in the working class would not have to carry the load of paying taxes.

Winston to not have any regressive taxes is a nice goal but one that seems almost impossible to achieve in a practical sense. There are so many different types of taxes. Not sure how the working class get away with paying no taxes of any kind but ok. As far as reducing the income taxes of working class people, one idea is to reduce their income, taxable income. Another rather old idea is a negative income tax for all of us. I suppose we could raise regressive taxes on such items as cars and cell phones for those of you rich enough to own one.

With that said you do present a start.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-September-07, 08:28, said:

Winston to not have any regressive taxes is a nice goal but one that seems almost impossible to achieve in a practical sense. There are so many different types of taxes. Not sure how the working class get away with paying no taxes of any kind but ok.
With that said you do present a start.

All it takes is a working Congress....hmmmm....maybe it is impossible.

On a more serious note, the really big problem we face is wealth inequality, and our present structure of wealth inequality means the benefits of productivity gains go almost entirely to the top 5%.

Tax restructuring, especially capital gains taxes, could go a long way toward correcting this problem by diverting productivity gains in the guise of capital gains from the benefit of the few to the benefit of the many. If billionaires and millionaires were helping to fund city colleges so higher education could be free to all, then not only do the wealthier classes gain admiration but he also gain from a higher quality workforce and a more vibrant demand from increased spending.

At least, that is a start, IMHO. Social Security taxes uncapped would be second. Now, at least the taxes aren't as punitive as they are now.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-07, 08:31, said:

All it takes is a working Congress....hmmmm....maybe it is impossible.

On a more serious note, the really big problem we face is wealth inequality, and our present structure of wealth inequality means the benefits of productivity gains go almost entirely to the top 5%.

Tax restructuring, especially capital gains taxes, could go a long way toward correcting this problem by diverting productivity gains in the guise of capital gains from the benefit of the few to the benefit of the many. If billionaires and millionaires were helping to fund city colleges so higher education could be free to all, then not only do the wealthier classes gain admiration but he also gain from a higher quality workforce and a more vibrant demand from increased spending.

At least, that is a start, IMHO. Social Security taxes uncapped would be second. Now, at least the taxes aren't as punitive as they are now.

A lot of this money avoids taxes by going into foundations and endowments. Start taxing them to get at this money. If you want to divert it to support the poor or working class or free college for all ages, great. I would love to move to Wilmington and live and sign up for college for free.

------


As far as buffet and gates their local city or county can tax them. We dont need to wait for Congress.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2016-September-07, 08:24, said:

Zel first off thank you for taking the time to reply. If you disagree with my posts, great but please stop editing out my full comments. Clearly I have provided evidence of my 50% number. If you dont want to count 22 million people or so as part of the economy that need to be supported and provided for, so be it.

I have been using the internet a long time, Mike, longer than has been called the internet in fact. In the early days it was considered extremely rude to quote an entire message when you wee only replying to a small part of it. Therefore I still take the time to edit a quoted text in most cases. I often take the first few words of a paragraph for example to represent the entire thing. This is simply good netiquette and not designed to provide a quote out of context.

My answer to the unquoted text was in the section about not having read deeply into the report. I do not know the reason for the discrepancy. I took the figures they gave for workers and proportion and multiplied them together to work out the base population. There is probably a section that will locate the extra 20 million but you will have to do the work to find them. I could of course also have mentioned that I also did not live at home at 16. It is not that I did not read your post or register what was in it but rather that I did not find the rest of the content relevant to my answer.

mike777, on 2016-September-07, 08:24, said:

If you read on to my main point or thesis I think the confusion will end. A larger portion of the population will come to depend on a decreasing percentage of the population working full time.

Which has been the case for some time due to the aging population. Back when pension rates were first set there were approximately 20 workers for every pensioner. The last I heard it was about 6 but that was so long ago it is possible even fewer now. This is indeed a serious issue. Back in 1994 I was asked for a job interview what the most important socio-economic issue of the next 20 years would be and that was my answer. I still think it was a fairly good one, particularly as the company's primary area of expertise was insurance and financial services.

And yes, I am not quoting you in full in this post either. If you do not like it then you will just need to put me on ignore.