Wage Deflation

This will be a brief diary on an economic issue that should be a topic of growing concern.

One of the bad things that is coming out of an economy of long term systemic underemployment and unemployment is the potential for wage deflation at the same time that the cost of benefits like health care insurance will rise steeply for employees that have jobs are or are obtaining them.

The wages are still climbing, but the potential is there:

"For now, pay is still rising--a little less than 2% for the year through June 2008, according to the government's employment cost index. But the weak job market is creating the perfect conditions for a decline in pay: low inflation and high unemployment (9.7% in August). With a huge reserve army of unemployed--more than 2 million of them college-educated--it would be easy for many employers to demand concessions."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/con tent/09_40/b4149032652510.htm

There are already signs:

"Colorado plans to lower its minimum wage next year because of falling inflation rates, becoming the first state in the nation do so.

The state's Department of Labor and Employment said Tuesday that it planned to lower the minimum wage to $7.24 from $7.28, after an August federal consumer price index report showed that the cost of living had fallen in the state. A public hearing on the issue is set for next month."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/us/14c olorado.html?_r=1

There is also this:

"In recent decades, layoffs were the standard procedure for shrinking labor costs. Reducing the wages of those who remained on the job was considered demoralizing and risky: the best workers would jump to another employer. But now pay cuts, sometimes the result of downgrades in rank or shortened workweeks, are occurring more frequently than at any time since the Great Depression...

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not track pay cuts, but it suggests they are reflected in the steep decline of another statistic: total weekly pay for production workers, pilots among them, representing 80 percent of the work force. That index has fallen for nine consecutive months, an unprecedented string over the 44 years the bureau has calculated weekly pay, capturing the large number of people out of work, those working fewer hours and those whose wages have been cut. The old record was a two-month decline, during the 1981-1982 recession."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/busine ss/economy/14income.html

Nor is the unemployment outlook likely to help anytime soon:

"Job losses are expected to continue at least into the middle of next year, likely driving the unemployment rate above 10 percent from 9.8 percent last month. It could take three or four more years for it to fall to normal levels."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti cle/ALeqM5jcSmCrlwyfg6Ryv_S_ZnzazNnaSgD9 B9M3480

The issue is not simply limited to wages. As wages are deflating, other costs for workers like health insurance are set to rise. Regarding health care,  one paper writes:

"Such price increases have become a fact of life during open-enrollment season, when workers sign up for their health plans. But the jump is expected to be steeper in 2010 than this year, as employers struggle with the impact of the recession and continually rising insurance costs. Employees will pay $4,023 on average in premiums and out-of-pocket charges next year, up 10% from 2009, according to a projection from Hewitt Associates, a benefits-consulting firm. In dollar terms, it's the biggest boost since the firm started keeping track of the data a decade ago.

For workers, that will mean larger payroll deductions, as well as spending more on co-payments and other fees tied to care. Companies also are expected to prod more employees into cheaper coverage by getting them to sign up for high-deductible health plans. And many employers are trying to rein in the expense of covering workers' families, sometimes by making insurance for kids and spouses pricier."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424 052748703790404574471290259603238.html

Thus, leaving the American worker falling potentially even further behind considering wages were already stagnant before the Great Recession. Employment, including under employment, is a potential economic crisis that President Obama and the Democrats must tackle soon.

Update [2009-10-14 10:57:35 by bruh3]: Two additional points: a) This potential deflation is happening at a time when the top 1 percent earned two thirds of all income growth in the the last year. It also occurs as Wall Street continues to provide bonuses and incentives unabated by any regulation by DC.

Tags: Wage Deflation (all tags)

Comments

114 Comments

Re: Wage Deflation

i took a 20% paycut in April. Today I earn 50% less than I did during the "Clinton Years".

by nikkid 2009-10-14 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

I am sorry to hear that. Is there a sense of downward pressure in your industry overall or this is particular to your job and company?

by bruh3 2009-10-14 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

the industry (travel and tourism).

by nikkid 2009-10-14 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

. Do you love what you are doing now? Have you considered looking for work in a different industry?

by bruh3 2009-10-15 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Problem Defined

Employment, including under employment, is a potential economic crisis that President Obama and the Democrats must tackle soon.

And the job to fix it has been assigned to Obama and the Democrats!? WTF? Based on their performance on HCR, LGBT rights, Wall Street, and Afghanistan, etc... I think you'll agree, this is a recipe for Epic FAIL.

While I agree the Federal Government has a big role in fixing the economy, the real solution has to include innovation, organization, sacrifice, investment, hard choices at the local and State Gov't levels and must include the Private sector as well as volunteer efforts. Systemic solutions will require hard work, shared sacrifice and optimism from the bottom up.

I find it interesting that those who criticize Obama and elected Democrats are the ones who put the onus on them. If they are doomed to fail because of their shortcomings and corruption, then let's talk about solutions that end-run them and shoulder some responsibility to find our own solutions and impliment them. Let's get to work!

PS. An easy solution like 'taxing the Rich' should be a part of the solution, but will not solve the problem. Doing away with Capitalism and building a truly egalitarian Utopia might take a while longer.

by QTG 2009-10-14 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Problem Defined

Please stop hijacking diaries about economic issues. Thank you.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Problem Defined

Well Bruh3, I agree with most of the premises of your diary...however, I don't think pointing out what can appear as a certain level of cognitive dissonance to be hijacking a diary.

All of that aside, you are pointing out a very important problem we are facing right now so bravo to you on that point.

To expand on what I said below, I am making roughtly 50% of what I was making last year- albeit at a different job than I was at last year-but performing the same functions.

I remain hopeful that as the economy completes its slow turn around this will improve, but it does definitely need attention.

by JDF 2009-10-14 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

I agree with at least parts of this diary, and you know how that makes me crazy.

I know a lot of people, including myself, who are making significantly less money than they were in the recent past.

by JDF 2009-10-14 06:47AM | 0 recs
I also have lots of

friends, relatives and acquaintances earning less this year. Not good in an economy that relies so much on consumer spending.

by desmoinesdem 2009-10-14 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I also have lots of

What I have also found disconcerting is how honest potential employers have been with me. When I was offered one job they basically admitted they were offering me less than the job was worth and that they can afford to pay me more. They also knew that if I wouldn't take the lowball offer someone else would.

by JDF 2009-10-14 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I also have lots of

The structural problem this creates is not just with consumer spending but with the long term viability of the middle class in America. This creates a downward rather than upward mobility.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

I've been accused (once again) of hijacking a Bruh3 diary, but I'm the only one so far who has actually suggested a framework for actually solving the problem.

If this is only a diary for griping and blaming the Democrats, I guess my response could justifiably be called a hijack.

Here, let me contribute:

My pay sucks! OBAMA SUCKS!!!

by QTG 2009-10-14 08:26AM | 0 recs
*dies laughing*

Over the top perhaps, but kinda funny anyway.

by JDF 2009-10-14 10:55AM | 0 recs
Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

What policies are being developed to address this?  Include in your response how I am wrong through factual assertions that include links to policies either being proposed or in effect that will address the specific issues of a) stagnation of wages or b) deflation of wages.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/9/26/1647 38/888#commenttop

When responding please don't ask me to prove a negative like "prove DC is not pursuing policies to address social mobility and income inequality."

This task for you, considering your behavior here, should be fairly easy to do since you are so certain that my assertions are absurd.

I will be honest- I don't expect you to do any of this. I expect you keep doing the exact same thing you are  doing because it is easy to vaguely attack others than to make substantive arguments backed by evidence.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

The Administration and Democratic Congress has done and is doing its job, which includes restoring confidence to markets, educing the crazy rate of job losses, and stabilizing banks. The DOW closed over 10,000 today which is evidence and real comfort to prudent investors and panicked retirees. You don't need to agree. These are just facts.

There is no role for the Federal Government in giving relief in the form of pay raises to the individuals who have contributed their sad anecdotes on pay cuts here. I'm sorry, that is also a fact. But the government has passed laws to attempt to save homes from foreclosure, including a moratorium on foreclosures and other measures. The interest rate is being kept low, and although Banks may not be lending freely, it's not the job of the Legislative Branch or the Executive to make loans in the regular market.

We are not in a Global Depression. We were very close as Obama and the New Congress took office.

Now. As a favor to me, would you point to a single other response to your Diary thatwas not a personal anecdote? You attacked me without cause and owe me an apology.

by QTG 2009-10-14 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

I have no idea how to respond to your post because it seems you are just string together subjects to argue "It's not Presidenet Obama's fault." For example, I have no idea why you think the DOW being up is an indicator that all is being done regarding wage deflation. The rest of your post is ideological points that you contradict yourself on with prior posts:

"Re: Record pay (none / 0)

Are there any lawyers in the house? What recourse exists in current law that could set, alter or rescind the pay of these bastards? If none exists, then I suggest that that Obama BREAK the law and have them arrested and there assets seized.

Just to please me.

1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.
by QTG on Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 01:10:25 PM EST
[ Reply to This | "

"Re: U.S. fell behind Europe in 1990 (none / 0)

Thanks, Charles. I really enjoyed reading that. I was prompted to learn more about the Gini co-efficient and found a table on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou ntries_by_income_equality

A cursory examination leads me to believe there are limits to what the Gini co-efficient can tell you, at least in a static snapshot. I'm looking for data that shows trends, the sort of doppler shift you speak of.
Some questions I have:
Are some countries with Ginis close to the USA's actually improving?
Are countries we have exported democracy to (in South America for instance) taking on the USA or European trend?
Do institutions like the World Bank exacerbate the problem?
Are you really going to judge Obama on the Gini number? How much influence can he have on this number from the Oval Office?

1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.
by QTG "

I think you need to make up in your own mind what you want to argue first before debating me. If you want to circle the wagons- at least do it in a way that's not contradictory from diary to diary to diary.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

Follow up-  I realize in reading your post that a) you really do not understand the issue  b) don't want to understand and c) are probably some kind conservative ideologue masquerading as something more than that. Your comments are just to odd.  

I think at this point the best bet is to ignore you because you reduced what are systemic issues to personal problems, and even funny enough attack one of the posters who was playing along to your behavior here. Ironic.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments


The President went to Virginia in October and spoke about the work that has been done through the Recovery Act in rebuilding infrastructure and putting Americans to work and money flowing in the economy. He also mentions some other relief which I have emphasized in bold type:

...But what makes these kinds of projects so important isn't just that we're creating so many jobs. It's that we're putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done. We're rebuilding our crumbling roads, our bridges, our waterways. We've already approved nearly a thousand transportation projects to upgrade airports, railroads, mass transit systems, and shipyards. We're strengthening our nation's infrastructure in ways that will leave lasting benefits to our communities, making them stronger, making them safer, and making them better places to live.

Now, this is just one part of what we're doing through the Recovery Act to create jobs and spur economic growth. We've also provided the middle class -- 95 percent of working families -- a tax cut, including nearly 3 million families here in Virginia. We've increased and extended unemployment insurance for 12 million Americans to help them weather this economic storm -- and that's benefited over 220,000 Virginians. We've made COBRA 65 percent cheaper, so if people are looking for work they still have health coverage. We've offered emergency relief to more than 1 million seniors, veterans, and other Virginians who need it most.

We've provided assistance to states like Virginia to help prevent police officers and teachers and firefighters from being laid off. And we've supported over $250 million in lending in Virginia -- and 30,000 loans to small businesses across America -- that have helped to create or save thousands of jobs. And every American can track how their dollars are being spent by going to Recovery.gov -- because I'm committed to upholding the highest standards of transparency and accountability for how we spend taxpayer money.

So here's the bottom line. We're moving forward on a number of different economic fronts. And we're going to continue to explore each and every avenue that I can think of that will lead to job creation and economic growth. But it all starts with projects like this. Because if we can put Americans to work rebuilding the Fairfax County Parkway, we can help get the economy moving again in Fairfax County. And if we get the economy moving in Fairfax County, we get it moving across Virginia. And if we get it moving across Virginia, we're getting it moving all across America. That's what we committed ourselves to doing when I took office; we are moving forward.

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option= com_content&view=article&id=1085 6:remarks-by-president-obama-on-the-reco very-act-october-14-2009&catid=88888 983:latest-national-news&Itemid=8888 9930

by QTG 2009-10-14 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

Do you understand that the passage you cite does not address the issues specifically raised in this diary? Or that you are arguing contradictory positions from diary to diary to diary?

Indeed, I am curious as to whether JDF agrees with your views about income inequality in America being something that Democrats can not help or affect or should try to affect.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

Please stop rephrasing the issue. Be specific in what you think the President and Congress should do. Nationalize the Banks? Wage and Price Controls? WHAT!!!???

by QTG 2009-10-14 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

Once again putting the onus on others to do something while you sit back complaining no evidence has been presented to suggest there is a problem that the government can solve. Indeed, you say above that there is no issue here that the government can solve. I think you really need to workout your avenue of attack because each posts is contradicting itself now not only from diary to diary, but also from post to post within the diary.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

You have no ideas on how?  

DC has done a number of things within their jurisdiction, as I have pointed out. I won't repeat them now. If you have ideas on what more they could do, type them up, I'll read them.

Or, if you want, I can step aside and allow the Diary to sink back into a series of anecdotal reports of personal financial distress.

Your call.

by QTG 2009-10-14 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

You will see below I discuss some of the ideas with Steve. The problem here is not that I do not have ideas based on what others who are far more knowledgeable of these issues than myself have said.

The problem is  you are not a good faith poster. You don't know what you are talking about. You write contradictory statements. You engage in rhetorical arguments like don't discuss past or future actions etc.

So continue to post these contradictory statements, rhetorical traps  and other things. They only serve to illustrate my point better than I ever could about your purpose for being in this diary, and why I asked you not to hijack it.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

Thank you for pointing this out.  I have never trusted this person - and for more than his glaring u omission.  Now that I have your good guidance I see that we have almost certainly been suckered by a rebuglican troll masquerading as a Democrat.  I blame myself for failing to be suspicious of his apparent sense of moderate contentment.  

Please help unmask more of these trolls so we can finally have a substantive & honest discussion of how the leadership is failing us.  We're in a crisis and only reasoned, rational voices like yours will be able straighten out this mess.

by January 20 2009-10-14 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

I am not certain if this person is a conservative or not.

Their comments could be as much because of his or her support of President Obama as anything else.  

As Bill Maher said, the President is not our boyfriend or significant other. Glenn Greenwald discusses the issue here:

"How to avoid the GOP's mistakes during the Bush years?"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

"(4) If there are ongoing debates about policy, agitate for the outcome you think is best rather than the one the White House wants, where those two are different.  If there are policies you think should be adopted that aren't, complain about that, critique it, and find ways to maximize pressure.

(5) Don't personalize political leaders and be driven by emotional attachments to them one way or the other.  They're nothing more than public servants -- an extremely powerful one in the case of the President -- who should be assessed based exclusively on their actions.

(6) If anything, when it comes to the most powerful political official on the planet, it's best to err on the side of excessive checks and criticism rather than excessive deference and trust.  Presidents have no shortage of people and institutions loyally devoted to their message and agenda."

Some see their role here as being President Obama's aid. I see mines as how Glenn Greenwald describes it.

QTG states a conservative frame here whether he or she is conservative or not.  The impact is the same as the status quo of  economic policies over re-thinking the type of capitalism we practice.

I do not get the point of tuning into sites like this to bitch that the sites are too far left. It is like going to a brothel to complain there are too many prostitutes. So, that's why I question beyond the ideological frame whether QTG and others are conservatives.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

Thank you again!

It's very important for those of us that don't have the deep degree of analytical resource available that people like you provide real thought and real answers on this blog.  From your comprehensive answer it seems that I would be well advised to follow your threads not only for the truth about this catastrophically disappointing administration, but also about those who inhabit this blog for the sole purpose of supporting Obama's ongoing failures.  Please keep up the excellent work and fearlessly call out those masquerading trolls who deserve to be ignored, rebuked or removed from a solid and unbiased conversation!

by January 20 2009-10-19 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

He's not a horrible President. He's an okay president. The problem is the magnitude of the issues he faces requires great. It is just that what he is doing is not as good as it needs to be. A practical example for me is the health care debate. I am debating someone here Shaun who says that President Obama is focused on the "possible." Regardless of what else we are discussing on that issue, my issue with this statement is that we are in a precarious place as a country. The solutions need to be more than limited to what President Obama is proposing regarding policy. A concrete example of this is cost containment. If we do not get cost under control in the health care system, the system will collapse because the cost is unsustainable.  For example, the cost of health care is due to go up from costing 12k now to 23 in a decade. We are already at a competitive disadvantage in the world and are wasting GDP and tax dollars on healthcare now. With this sort of increase, we would price ourselves out of good wages and jobs even more. That's my problem with him. That he's not doing enough. Not that I think he's evil. My other problem with him is that he's surrounded by neoliberal ideologue, and some of them like Summers are clearly plutocrats.

by bruh3 2009-10-19 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

I think Congress and the President absolutely should be doing whatever it takes to get credit moving again.  If it's not their job to make loans in the regular market (and if no one else is doing it right now, maybe it should be their job), then they ought to take whatever steps are necessary to get regular lenders in the business of extending credit again.

It would have been easiest to attach some conditions regarding lending to the funds that went to banks last year, but having moved past that, I'm confident there are steps that can be taken even now.  What's going on with the credit market right now, especially as it impacts small business, is a horror show and that trickles down to every aspect of society.

by Steve M 2009-10-14 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

I agree. I hope that the reports saying that they may increase loan financing  (or may be it was just a pundit idea like Robert Reich?) through the SBA is true. I do not know how far along that idea is in the process or whether Geithner and other forces are helping or hindering such discussions. I say this because he supposedly from one news report out of the times placed pressure on the DOJ, for example, over antitrust cases.

Small business loans seem like a relatively simple way to address growing smaller businesses that face credit problems. I also like the idea of targeting these businesses with tax credits, but I would add that I would love to see the also do so by specifically targeting certain types of jobs that are better paid positions.

There are many steps they can take going forward outside of this. Certainly, some kind of industrial policy would help- especially for infant industries like green technology, which is expected to boom in the next decade with China's recent commitment to greening its economy.

And even more long term include, renegotiating trade agreements to make them more equitable, reducing the cost of the middle class (ie education and health care), and diversifying the American economy away from big finance to a variety of economic engines.

Things like this, a tax  on excessive executive pay and other means to  take the incentive out of wage deflation and stagnation as well as to encourage real investment in main street business innovation and technical breakthroughs would be ideal.

Making sure the banking system is sound would help with regard to that issue if they are not allowed to be "too big to fail."

There are probably a few other things I am forgetting. The point is there is a lot that can be done. The issue is whether it will be done. I am hoping it will be.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

Let's look at this credit for small businesses problem from a slightly more revolutionary perspective. Given that the Banks are not lending, and Credit Card limits are shrinking while rates skyrocket ahead of the February law changes, we should do an end run.

We should all start funding loans through peer to peer lending and become bankers ourselves. Virgin Bank is a great choice to help friends, family, and small businesses and our fellow citizens and you don't have to have a load of money to do it. Prosper is another social lending site which I recommend.

http://www.virginmoneyus.com/Virgin_Mone y_Social_Loans/tabid/447/Default.aspx

https://www.prosper.com/account/common/r egister.aspx

Let's pause our Yakking and help our fellow man (and woman)!!!!

by QTG 2009-10-14 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

Ironically, of course, you prove once again you just don't get it. If people have less money due to deflating wages and higher costs, their ability to pool money together also decreases.

The only entity  capable of having the necessary economic impact large enough to shift this dynamic is the government. Your idea sounds like the co-opt idea. Something that's throw out there without any real grasp of the economic issues involved, but sounds good because its private.

By, the way, thanks for confirming that you are a conservative. It does explain a lot about why you do not particularly care about policies.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

The government is poring money into great projects like gangbusters all over the country and employing people both directly and through contractors (those are small businesses, mostly). How did you miss that? And you said downthread that a rising stock market has no effect on peoples wages or employment. This indicates that you are a complete idiot.

by QTG 2009-10-14 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

But you say government has no role in it so that can not possibly be true since that would be magic.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

You sir, are a lying sack of crap. I said the President and the Congress are doing what is properly in their purview and doing a great job in doing it. I also said that they can't give everybody a raise.

Peer-to-peer lending is a great way to take charge and actually do something besides bitch about the bad oligarchs, which, by the way you also suck at.

by QTG 2009-10-14 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

Let me ask you a question: when you post do you realize that your comments are there for anyone else to read? Or do yo think this is like  being on CNN, and , do you just write without thinking that someone can go back to see what you say from one post to the next? I mean- Steve M- whom I consider to have a high level of tolerance for bullshit-- is even asking you what the hell you are talking about. Do you realize how crazy come off?  Just curious.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

 I'm doing OK, but thanks.

by QTG 2009-10-14 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

It's like I'm saying the Senate should pass cap-and-trade and you're saying maybe they will, maybe they won't, but instead of pushing them to do it we should all make sure to recycle.  We're having two entirely different conversations.

I do not think the present credit crisis can be solved without coordinated federal action, any more than FDR could have skipped the Emergency Banking Act in favor of encouraging people to start credit unions.

by Steve M 2009-10-14 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: All this indenting
Steve,
Whom were you addressing?
by QTG 2009-10-14 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: All this indenting

He's addressing you since I am not making the argument that "government can not have an impact here"

Like I ask above- do you even read what you write from post to post to post?

by bruh3 2009-10-14 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: All this indenting

Thanks for the help, bruh. Very nice of you.

by QTG 2009-10-14 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: All this indenting

You are really odd.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: All this indenting

You.

by Steve M 2009-10-14 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: All this indenting

OK. I don't remember mentioning recycling, perhaps you are referring to my reference to peer-to-peer lending? I'd be glad to discuss how peer-to-peer lending actually provides wonderful help to people who are burdened with jacked up credit card rates (a lot of small businesses rely on credit cards for working capital, btw).

But I understand completely how 'pressuring congress and the president' is a more desirable alternative for many people.

by QTG 2009-10-14 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: All this indenting

More contradictory statements. This is the problem with a) basing arguments on who you don't like rather than thinking through the consistency of what you are saying and b) basing them on charismatic leaders rather than consistent set of principles. Some contradiction in principles and ideas are to be expected because we live in a complicated world, but wow!

There is virtually no difference between what Steve M and I are doing except I am not willing to let the fact you are a bundle of contradictory statements go. Perhaps, if you did not walk into everyone of my diaries just to crap on them with this silliness, that might be different.

Oh, and it is not about desirable alternatives like between choosing soy or hamburgers for one's protein.

It is about whether an idea will or will not accomplish the goal that one is seeking to accomplish. Again, your argument is like saying tort reform will solve the health care crisis or that the co opts will address cost containment.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: All this indenting

I was talking to Steve. Have a seat.

by QTG 2009-10-14 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: All this indenting

This is an open forum. There is no such thing as a private conversation here.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: All this indenting

That's right, you weren't talking about recycling, just as I wasn't talking about climate change.  It's an analogy.  When there is a large-scale crisis that requires a political solution, as I believe the credit crisis does, it is a pointless diversionary tactic to talk about how I could be part of the solution by loaning my extra money to my mom.

It reminds me, frankly, of the way Republicans always say that if we get rid of government programs that help people, all these private charities will magically spring up instead.

by Steve M 2009-10-14 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Discuss specific issues with factual arguments

The Fed has been providing coordinated Federal action for the last 20 years and look at where it has got us?

by tpeichel 2009-10-16 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: LOGIC!!!!

"The Fed has been providing coordinated Federal action for the last 20 years and look at where it has got us?"

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Look it up.

Never mind, I'll do it for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_er go_propter_hoc

GET IT RIGHT!

by QTG 2009-10-16 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: LOGIC!!!!

I'm not sure what you want me to get right.

Compare the United States debt growth -vs- GDP growth over the last twenty years and you'll quickly see that we've borrowed our way to prosperity by spending money we didn't have.

The Fed with the support of the government have been instrumental in setting the policies that allowed everyone to become highly leveraged and we've reach the point where we can no longer take on more debt.

Yet, here we have the governement saying the solution is to free up credit to increase the debt with programs like the stimulus, cash for clunkers, the $8,000 credit for new home buyers, etc.

We're obviously overleveraged, do you think it is a sound policy to continue to take on more debt?

by tpeichel 2009-10-16 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: To the point where we can no longer

take on more debt?

We can and will take on more debt. If we stopped taking on more debt everything would break right away. We want to put off the break until later - if we do it right, our grandchildren will have the ball and we'll be dead.

(My 'post hoc' comment was merely pointing out the logical fallacy of your 'this happened and then that happened, therefore that happened because this happened'. (It was a technical matter.)

You may actually be right about the Fed, but the argument you made in support of your conclusion (look where we are now) was logically flawed.

by QTG 2009-10-16 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: To the point where we can no longer

Debt is fine of course, as long as it is invested wisely and GDP increases faster than the debt.

Unfortunately, we haven't done that and now the amount we spend on servicing our debt is seriously hampering GDP growth.

I don't believe we'll be able to grow out way out of this hole, so one way or the other the bad debt will have to get defaulted and it will be painful.

by tpeichel 2009-10-16 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: To the point where we can no longer

It is not about simply growing out way out of debt but structurally changing our economy so that we do not keep throwing good money after bad. For example, changing our dependency on oil would over time reduce the cost we paying on energy coming fro abroad. The resulting savings in spending in the military industrial complex and the subsidizing of the oil could go toward debt and deficit reduction (this is a huge chunk of the federal budget). Another example, is health care- by wasting over a trillion a year to health care when compared to other advanced countries we lose potential savings that could be reducing debt from tax revenues coming from other economic development that is actually taxable. The problem in the U.S. is not just a matter of growth. It is a matter of misallocation of resources, poor incentive structures that favor consumer based economics rather than main street diversified economies, etc. These things add the debt as anything- for example the money that goes into prosecuting two wars is how much? Yet, we allow this to be frame this in terms of issues that are penny on the dollar rather what would produce real savings. We can protect ourselves as a nation, and not have so much economic waste by re-investing and restructuring in such a way to produce real cost savings that can be used to pay the debt down. That's a separate issue from investing in the necessary economic engine that will allow growth in a different direction. To some degree that's not about paying more money, but say taking the bail out money left in TARP and redirecting it to small businesses-- which would have a multiplier effect whereas directing it toward big banks who are hoarding it does not .

by bruh3 2009-10-16 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: To the point where we can no longer

It is not about simply growing out way out of debt but structurally changing our economy so that we do not keep throwing good money after bad. For example, changing our dependency on oil would over time reduce the cost we paying on energy coming fro abroad. The resulting savings in spending in the military industrial complex and the subsidizing of the oil could go toward debt and deficit reduction (this is a huge chunk of the federal budget). Another example, is health care- by wasting over a trillion a year to health care when compared to other advanced countries we lose potential savings that could be reducing debt from tax revenues coming from other economic development that is actually taxable. The problem in the U.S. is not just a matter of growth. It is a matter of misallocation of resources, poor incentive structures that favor consumer based economics rather than main street diversified economies, etc. These things add the debt as anything- for example the money that goes into prosecuting two wars is how much? Yet, we allow this to be frame this in terms of issues that are penny on the dollar rather what would produce real savings. We can protect ourselves as a nation, and not have so much economic waste by re-investing and restructuring in such a way to produce real cost savings that can be used to pay the debt down. That's a separate issue from investing in the necessary economic engine that will allow growth in a different direction. To some degree that's not about paying more money, but say taking the bail out money left in TARP and redirecting it to small businesses-- which would have a multiplier effect whereas directing it toward big banks who are hoarding it does not .

by bruh3 2009-10-16 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

In your Diary you assert that

"Employment, including under employment, is a potential economic crisis that President Obama and the Democrats must tackle soon."

They are and have been doing great work and have shown great results all things considered. I defend Obama and the Congress because I understand the difficulty of the problems they were handed and recognize that within the constraints imposed just how well they've done the job of turning this ship. We are lucky to be where we are given where we were, and all signs are that despite the difficulties ahead, we are being well served by our Democrats in Congress and the White House and should be supporting them as the work continues.

by QTG 2009-10-14 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

I see. Interesting rhetorical trap. Not only can I not discuss what has happened in the last 9 months because you would argue that is not enough time for change to occur, but now, I can not say that there is an issue that must be addressed in the future so that change can occur going forward.

That plus your throwing the kitchen sink with regard to economic indicators like the DOW like it matters with regard to improving wages, your contradictory statements over the issue of income inequality, etc all certainly clears this up about what you think on the issues.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Whatever dude. The only thing you want to talk about is anything but just what the government can do to make our employers pay us more money. And you offer nothing in the way of suggestions on just what that magic might look like.

I think their doing pretty good work to get the economy rolling again, and the evidence supports me.

by QTG 2009-10-14 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

You continue to contradict yourself with rhetorical traps. You ask me for how it can be done, and then say it is magic to even try to do it.  Make up your mind first which approach you want to use to try to derail the arguments I am making, and then, we can talk. As it is, you are incoherently saying anything that you hope with stick.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

So far, all you've done is whine.

I, on the other hand, have discussed exactly what this Diary is about. Solutions both Public and Private to the damage being done to businesses and the employees who run them in an economic disaster of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush's making.

Ihave discussed specific measures that the current government has taken and how they are succeeding. I have discussed ways to end-run the Oligarchs and become our own bankers.

And I have noticed that you aren't contributing to the discussion of what we do as a society to help right the economic ship and get wealth into the hands of working people.

You're making a mess of your own diary by being disruptive and making it all about you and your poor hurt feelings. Butch up. There's an economy that needs us.

by QTG 2009-10-14 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

So far I have listed the problem, and mentioned to Steve M the solutions, which you then ignored.

So far you have basically kept posting that I have not provided any solutions (although I have), stated that even if  I did provide solutions they would not work (magic to think governments have a role in economic issues), and asked why am I suggesting the government should do something anyway, when we can solve the problem of wage deflation and economic situations not through the government but by pooling out money together personally to solve the issue of wage deflation.

As I said, thanks for conversation you are straight up conservative wingnut. It is funny to watch you turn on others here by saying things like call them whiners for discussing their wage deflation.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

You once again have entertained me enormously. Thank-you. I look forward to more of the same back and forth with you in the near future.

We'll have to leave it at that for now.

by QTG 2009-10-14 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Do you even notice that Steve M is having the same problems with you?

by bruh3 2009-10-14 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Have you been drinking? You seem upset.

by QTG 2009-10-14 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Can you tell that I am ridiculing you for contradicting yourself in every other post?

by bruh3 2009-10-14 06:13PM | 0 recs
What is to be done?

What are your thoughts about policy to change this in both the long and short term?  The wage deflation/stagnation has been with us for a while.

Personally, I think passing Employee Free Choice would help in the long term, but Obama and the Congressional leadership have already essentially failed on that.  So what is another long-term solution, raise the minimum wage?

How about the short term?  Do you advocate another round of stimulus spending?

by JJE 2009-10-14 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: What is to be done?

Just ideas that I have read that make sense, but are not on the table due to probably neoliberal ideological reasons. Some are short terms, and others long terms. I mention some to Steve M above. I will mention them some and more here as I remember them. I divide them up into different category- not just long and short, but also cost reduction, which is the third level for improving the ability to live off less.

Short Term

-Stimulus focused on main street businesses, state governments and more industrial policy like green technology
-More loans through SBA to address credit freeze for small and mid cap businesses
-Close gap that is tax incentive to ship jobs abroad that President Obama  has walked back from doing
-Fast turn around training programs of 9-12 months in high demand industries and positions and more targeting to  push workers toward those careers (these programs already exist, but need to be expanded greatly)
-Heavy tax on executive bonus plans to decrease incentives to rig the system
-Tax break for new domestic jobs -- higher paying and especially at small to midsize firms where we can guess growth is more organic than a scheme to obtain the tax break
-Heavy coordination (some of this is occurring) with local and state governments to retool industries
-Place more banks in receivership with honest accounting rather than shellgames of accounting

Long Term

-Restructure finance from "too big to fail" to returning to efficient middle man for main street businesses
-Industrial policy, especially for manufacture, diversifying the economy beyond being paper finance economy and consumer economy to various industries, diversifying energy supply (the later of which is set to be a several trillion a year industry)
-Incentives for long term investment rather than short term (ie, hiring workers,
-Easier for unions to form, and greater worker bargaining rights even where there are no unions
-Rethinking and negotiating trade agreements to decrease race to the bottom of globalization (I am okay with fair trade, but not when the competition is not an open market)
-Rethink capitalization of small businesses through greater SBA loans (this is also a short term project) and consider creating programs that are direct investments rather than loans where key industries (ie, the creation of batteries for the green tech industry is crucial for many domestic industries), etc.
-Rethink labor laws to reflect the modern globalized,  outsourcing and under employed economy
- Rethink the structure of cap gains to favor investment in main street over wall street

Cost Reduction

-Cheap education and retraining
-Reduced health care cost (it is why I push for it so much)
-Reduced transportation costs (through alternative fuels and improved public mass transit systems like transit rails)

These are just some of the random ideas I have seen that need to be pursued more aggressive or pursued. Some of them are already being considered and are a part of the process, but need  a bigger scale. As I have said, it is not that the Democrats, who are neoliberals, are like the GOP in terms of how they view the market. It is that they as neoliberals are still unwilling to fully pull the trigger on a different way of seeing capitalism. Many of these things would begin to address the systemic issues. There is probably a lot I am missing.

by bruh3 2009-10-14 09:25PM | 0 recs
Thanks

I largely agree with your long-term solutions, but do you have any specific reforms you think the Federal gov't should do implement to restructure finance?

by JJE 2009-10-16 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks

I do not understand your question. Can you explain what you mean.

by bruh3 2009-10-16 11:55AM | 0 recs
Referring to this:

Restructure finance from "too big to fail" to returning to efficient middle man for main street businesses

I'm just wondering if you have any ideas about specific reforms to restructure finance along these lines.

by JJE 2009-10-18 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Referring to this:
I am not an expert. So, Nothing but the usual, ie, cap on size that goes beyond anti trust law (rethinking the idea that it is just about price, and think about the damage that entities that are essential can do to economy if they are too big, and they need not be), maybe regionalize the banks, reign in the fed, place the bad debt banks in receivership, stop the revolving door between dc and wall street and bring in real regulators like Spitzer, and sell off good assets with requires and regulations with teeth. Return of separation of commercial and investment banking. Incentives in tax structure for main street financing over those for more exotic instruments. That's again just from remembering what I have read. Some of this may be good,a nd other may not be as good for various reasons.
by bruh3 2009-10-18 02:59PM | 0 recs
gotcha

The size cap is intriguing.  What do you think is a good way to handle that?  Stricter leveraging requirements?  An absolute bar on the amount of debt/equity an entity can carry?

by JJE 2009-10-18 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: gotcha
This is getting beyond my knowledge base. I am certain only of the fact that we do not want any one entity to so influence the economy by its failure that we are faced with future upheavals. I think your point about leverage is a good one as that is the problem that causes Wall Street to treat finance as no better than casino gambling in Vegas. However, for the purpose of not being too big to fail the real issue is the total amount of assets owned in relationship to its proportional impact on the economy. Therefore, I think limiting debt and equity would be better. At base, this is about limiting the impact of the risk of any one player to the entire system. That if they take a risk- it can harm them or help them, but should not harm the overall financial system. If we are going to have a true capitalism of main street they should not be able to socialize their risk.
by bruh3 2009-10-18 08:30PM | 0 recs
Excellent diary

It's too bad someone had to crap all over it though.

But anyways why can't the federal gov't start a program to directly lend at 0 percent interest to small businesses?

Another thing I would look at would be tax breaks for hiring new workers. Target them to 21st century technologies such as green technology for the long term and service jobs in the short term.

by SocialDem 2009-10-15 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent diary

Great points. Thank you for the kind words about the diary. One of the main source of frustration at this particular site is that there are quite a few people who see it as their purpose to hijack diaries even when the subject matter is as important as this.  I am not sure what they get out of, but it is  what it is.

I think the Administration will approach this as they have approached other issues. They will do some of the ideas to tweak around the edges, but it is not certain they will fully commit to pulling the trigger or for the BIG push. I hope I am wrong, but, the past is not comforting thus far on their willingness to go in big.

When some of these ideas were being floated in the last few weeks, some of the economics/political operatives were saying that they did not know if they should try to push for these things. Whether the more sober realist in the White House are winning out, one can only hope.

by bruh3 2009-10-15 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Anyways

The federal government is developing initiatives to make billions of dollars of bailout funds available to small businesses through community banks, according to lawmakers and other government officials.

One approach, put forward by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) on Wednesday, could combine resources from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and private banks to create a $50 billion pool of money that would be used to lend to small businesses.

Separately, the Treasury is developing its own plan that would be smaller in scale -- using around $10 billion of bailout funds -- and would not involve the Fed, according to lawmakers and other congressional sources who have been in contact with the agency.

Both proposals attempt to speed aid to small businesses, which government officials say are essential to economic recovery because they employ so many workers. But using the federal bailout for this purpose would be a striking shift from the program's original mandate, which was aimed more at righting the financial system than saving jobs.

Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean the Democrats suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2009/10/14/AR2009101403883. html?hpid=topnews

by QTG 2009-10-15 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Anyways

I assume you oppose this program since you don't believe it's the "job of the Legislative Branch or the Executive to make loans in the regular market."  I, personally, think it is a great idea and exactly the sort of thing the economy needs, but I respect your principled stand.

by Steve M 2009-10-15 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Anyways

from my citation:
The federal government is developing initiatives to make billions of dollars of bailout funds available to small businesses through community banks.

There are other mechanisms, which you and bruh3 should know about - since they've been around forever... among them the Small Business Administration and the FSA, a lender to Farmers (part of the USDA).

You really should educate yourself before you pretend to school Congress and the President.

The government has been helping businesses, farmers, disaster victims, and the unemployed for more years than you've been alive. Yet somehow, you are now going o tell them "Help People! or face the wrath of bruh3!"

Ignorant and Pompous, Pompous and Ignorant.

by QTG 2009-10-15 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Anyways

Upthread, you said it wasn't the government's job to make loans.  Now, not only is it their job, but they've been doing it all along, as every schoolboy knows.

In this very diary, bruh suggests an expansion of the mission of the SBA - so I'm pretty sure he knows it exists.  No one is denying the government does a lot to help people.  It is still permissible to argue that it should do more, and to discuss concrete ideas to that end.

Basically, you have divided the universe of ideas into two parts: (1) stupid ideas, and (2) stuff that is being done already.  And you merrily move ideas from column 1 to column 2 as you discover that they are, in fact, being done!  Example: the government looking to expand loans to small businesses to deal with the credit crisis.

There are so very many trash diaries on this site that I really cannot understand why you persist in pissing all over the few constructive discussions that take place.  But that's the Internet for you.

by Steve M 2009-10-15 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Anyways

So, the thread is not about how inadequately the Democrats are addressing the recession and the falling real wages of American workers. The real focus is QTG's apparent inconsistencies. The Democrats are doing just fine but QTG doesn't think they should be doing all the good things that they are doing.

Fine. I'll accept that.

by QTG 2009-10-16 03:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Anyways

I think your problem is that you mentally reframe every diary as "Obama sucks! The Democrats suck!" and then you feel the obligation to defend them.  It's easier to just have a discussion about the issues if we refrain from putting that gloss on everything.

by Steve M 2009-10-16 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: You generalize

I don't reframe every diary.
 I don't respond to every diary. I choose to respond to diaries which either explicitly or implicitly cast blame on the Administration for actions which have not occurred, which blame it for the results of the actions or inactions of other players, which ignore history, which charge inaction or incompetence while assuming the Executive has powers which don't exist, which imagine knowledge of the behind-the-scenes conversations, which presume bad motives, and which are completely devoid of research.

I'll continue to do so as long as the lies proliferate. I can't help it.

by QTG 2009-10-16 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: You generalize

My other comment would be that you seem to have a tough time distinguishing between statements of opinion and lies.  "The government isn't doing enough to redress income inequality" would be an example of the former.

by Steve M 2009-10-16 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: You generalize
The useful part of the exchange between you and Steve M is that I did not appreciate until now how much some of you lack the ability respond to nuance without black and white caricature. Several posters seem to accurately describe the nuance of what I am saying. That tells me that my writing is not the problem. Even if you were not certain that I was discussing this situation with nuance, you could have picked up on that with my subsequent responses to both JJE, Steve M and others. However, I do not think you can allow for nuance. Without the distortions, where would your arguments be.
by bruh3 2009-10-16 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

The point I was making is that the Democratic government is in fact doing things to get the problems resolved, and because of ignorance of those efforts (and poor or nonexistent research on the part of the diarist and others), scurrilous and groundless charges have been levelled against them: that they have taken a laissez-fair approach to the crisis in general and to the plight of wage-earners in particular.

Ultimately, the economy will rebound fully from the recession and we can go back to complaining about something else and blaming that on Obama and the Democrats.

by QTG 2009-10-15 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

It is odd to watch someone so unprincipled participate in a debate online because we can so easily match your statements against each other, and, yet, you pretend that each time you post the context is tableau rasa. If you were conservative, I could at least respect that.  I have friends who are both more conservative and more liberal than I am. The difference is that they are principled rather than tactically just making it up as they go.

But, this is just unprincipled talking points coming out of both sides of your mouth." I support this.  I don't support this. I am for the war. I am against war. I am for the public option. I am for other things as well. I want to address executive pay. That's not the American way. I think government action should  not be used. Yes, government action should be used"

If you were the only person like this. Or represented the small cabal of folks here who argue like you do at mydd.com I would just ignore you.

The problem is I am seeing this quite a bit.  Including in some factions within the White House. Say anything and hope no one will notice. The problem is what happens when they do.

This kind of tactical style can only last so long. That's not a theory. That's a fact. Mostly because it is a tactic, not a strategy. You can use diversion. Talk out of both sides of your mouth, etc. and hope that no one is noticing, but eventually when you are this obvious- they do.

That's probably the reason Steve M links to your prior posts.

by bruh3 2009-10-15 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Wow.  You really are nuts.  I'd HR myself for saying so if I could (others welcome to oblige), but that just needs to be said.

by fogiv 2009-10-15 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Yes, no one has ever been unprincipled on politics.  That's  an insane idea. Indeed, when Steve M links to QTG's unprincipled flip  above that is also nuts. As I said, great short term tactical approach that you and others use, crappy long term strategy one. You learned the wrong thing from the Bush years. Finally, stop projecting your behavior onto me. I rare, if ever, use the TR status no matter how crazy you and the other groupies act.

by bruh3 2009-10-15 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.  I haven't said or implied any of that crap.  I haven't even said or implied that I disagree with your diary in any way whatsoever.  Yet, with all of that imagined information, you assert that I've learned all the 'wrong lessons from the Bush years'...and then (sweet cherry on top) accuse me of projection.  That's crazy, and you do this kind of thing on the regular.

Also, Steve M is brill, and a great poster here that I respect.  Sprinkling his name throughout your comments fails to give them the weight you think it does.  Steve's disagreement with another user, or his agreement of you in with regard to the diary does not make everything you else you spout legitimate.

Lastly, because I and many others often find your comments condescending, obnoxious, non-sensical, or some combination thereof, that doesn't make us 'groupies'.

by fogiv 2009-10-16 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

What you did was call me a name like the jerk  you are. What I did was to to point out the context in which you  are doing it.  And, yes, your behavior is what i would expect from someone from the Rove school of thought.

by bruh3 2009-10-16 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

I could link to scores of comments wherein you deem those who disagree with you "nuts", but there's not much reason to. By that standard, I'm less a jerk than you are. That you do this frequently, or come off smug in an attempt to sound intellectually superior to all that you survey, are not a matter of contention in this little community.  Everyone is aware of it, to some degree or another, except apparantly you yourself.    

Again, your 'context' is non-sensical, and you're 'Rove school of thought' jab is but another limp attempt to deflect and scorn.  You've got some fairly serious problems with the way you communicate. Hope that works itself out for you.  Sincerely, be well.

by fogiv 2009-10-16 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

orestes is right. I will stop feeing you- troll.

by bruh3 2009-10-16 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Hilarious.

by fogiv 2009-10-16 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

One quick follow up: the reason why this tactical approach is dangerous is what happens when one loses the public trust?

President Obama has that trust, but if those factions in the White House , like Rahm, whom I think your  say-anything-to-win  approach mirrors win out. He will lose it.

by bruh3 2009-10-15 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama

has been put on notice by bruh3.

He'll rue the day he crossed you, I'm sure.

by QTG 2009-10-15 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama

The sad thing is you really probably don't get it.  You really do think this is about me, don't you?

I am just a random diarist on a blog stating my opinion based on history and a basic understanding of presidential power. That part of that power arises from trust. That this trust can be lost if you play games with it like Rahm does.  It should in theory not matter to you that I am saying this. Yet, here you are. Why?

Early on many Bush  cheerleaders were as arrogant as many of you posting here are. The exact same defensive mechanisms. How is he viewed today?

There's a reason for how he is viewed today. Part of is that view derives from his enacting failed policies. Something that I hope President Obama does not repeat. We can not afford it.  Well, I cannot afford it. I am not sure if you can.

The other part of it is that Bush enacted those strategies because he was surrounded by people who would say anything, demonize dissent and otherwise stay on course with policies that did not reflect the times. That's the danger of your say anything approach as represented by the Rahm faction in the White House, and, that danger is the only reason why I am engaging you on a random diary that should again not matter to you, but does.

by bruh3 2009-10-15 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: President Obama

Actually, I'm already quite worried.

by I am Barack 2009-10-15 11:55PM | 0 recs
Re: How he is viewed

Bruh3, your googling abilities are FAIL

President Obama Job Approval
Poll    Date    Sample    Approve     Disapprove     Spread
RCP Average    9/29 - 10/14    --    52.6    40.8    +11.8
FOX News    10/13 - 10/14    900 RV    49    45    +4
Gallup    10/12 - 10/14    1547 A    53    40    +13
Rasmussen Reports    10/12 - 10/14    1500 LV    48    51    -3
Marist    10/07 - 10/12    913 RV    53    41    +12
CBS News    10/05 - 10/08    829 A    56    34    +22
Ipsos/McClatchy    10/01 - 10/05    1296 A    56    40    +16
Associated Press/GfK    10/01 - 10/05    1003 A    56    39    +17
Quinnipiac    09/29 - 10/05    2630 RV    50    41    +9
Pew Research    09/30 - 10/04    1500 A    52    36    +16

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

by QTG 2009-10-16 03:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

I don't think it's about you bruh3. Your diary is unresearched, ignores obvious facts, disregards history, and presumes to advise the President and Congress. You may be delusional, but it is your diary that bothers me.

by QTG 2009-10-15 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

You wrote 24 of the 69 comments in my diary.

by bruh3 2009-10-15 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

You're Welcome. It would have died, otherwise.

by QTG 2009-10-16 02:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Don't feed the trolls- and they'll go away.

by orestes 2009-10-16 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Good point. The problem is they come into every diary doing this, and even when people do not say anything to them, they talk amonst themselves repeating the same attacks again and again- some names are in fact pretty much regulars at doing this- including QTG and forgiv. But you are 100 percent right.

by bruh3 2009-10-16 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

The funny thing is that nearly all of QTG's comments that you're complaining about are substantive, and pertain directly to the contents and assertions in your diary.  Right or wrong, that's not diary hijacking by any stretch.

by fogiv 2009-10-16 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Thanks, fogiv, but it isn't necessary. I'm a tough guy.

by QTG 2009-10-16 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Correction:  tough troll.  Like me.

by fogiv 2009-10-16 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

From my perspective, QTG does not seem interested in discussing issues honeslty.  S/he appears only to try to antagonize with snark.  On that basis, I would ignore him/her.

by orestes 2009-10-17 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation
This is also true. In one diary, I asked people to post their views on what is their line in the sand for health care reform, and her line was so low as to not be a standard at all. Essentially, it came down to whatever could pass is health care reform. Well, that and claiming that it was useless to predict what will happen with one policy or another.
by bruh3 2009-10-17 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

They probably enjoy getting you worked up.  Don't give them the satisfaction.  Hell, they may even be the same person judging by the backslaps.

by orestes 2009-10-17 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation
This was my view as well, but I ignored my instincts as being too cynical: That they are either sock puppets and/or shills. One problem with ignoring them is that they will swarm into a diary with multiple screen names all clogging up the diary with backslaps as you can see forgiv and QTG doing. I am not sure what to do about the trollish behavior. Others such as Steve M attempt to chime in to address it, but it continues to happen. I guess at this point I will have to trust that reasonable readers understand my points, and will simply ignore the trolls.
by bruh3 2009-10-17 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

I think that is the best course of action.

by orestes 2009-10-18 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Wage deflation has a cascading effect because it will put continued downward pressure on the housing market as consumers have less cash to service their debt.

This in turn increases foreclosures and hurts the banks balance sheet as that house they have been carrying as a $500,000 asset is sold at market for only $300,000. (That's why banks are letting people live in foreclosed houses for free, buying their own foreclosed houses, etc. They must do this because if their TIER1 capital ratios go negative, the FDIC will come in and shut them down. Which they want to avoid since the FDIC is out of money themselves.)

Banks are  

by tpeichel 2009-10-16 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

Your post seems to be cut off so I am not certain what you are saying since it ends with Banks are

by bruh3 2009-10-16 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

The point I was trying to make is that wage deflation is a huge problem because Bernanke and crew have spent the last two years playing the extend and pretend game with the banks in hopes that they could grow their way out of the problem.

It hasn't worked and the bad debt is still on the bank balance sheets. The only reason more banks haven't failed is because the government is letting them lie. (If you have the paper on a 2nd mortgage where the first is underwater, how can the banks justify carrying that asset as anything other than $0? It's ouright fraud.)

This is the BIGGEST current issue, it makes healthcare look like small potatoes. And these same banks that are basically insolvent just handed out billions in bonuses.

When these banks eventually go belly up, we will be on the hook for 20-40% of the banks hidden losses because the FDIC is not doing their job abd closing down the banks when their TIER 1 capital ratio approache negative territory.

by tpeichel 2009-10-19 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Wage Deflation

I agree with you regarding the banks. They have re-inflated the balloon rather than addressing the underlying bad debt.

by bruh3 2009-10-19 09:16PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------