Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Wall Street Journal" channel.

  1. 14
  2. 4
  3. 3
  4. ** When you undercut wage growth you also undercut the very base of capitalism - consumers with spending power. And since big biz evades paying taxes the nations cannot even compensate with welfare payments. Smaller !! businesses (and also start-ups) who may depend on consumer spending are not doing so well - they have to fight in a market with not overly optimistic consumers and hardly increased spending power. Also: the (potential) output ! in manufacturing has risen - this is one way in which productivity has risen - more modern production especially automatization. However the SPENDING POWER of the consumers (who are supposed to ABSORB that ever increasing OUTPUT) has hardly risen and is also eaten up by high housing costs (because investors in search of lucrative investments are driving up real estate prices) and rising healthcare costs (that is true for all wealthy countries but especially for the US). INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION is NOT nearly running at FULL CAPACITY. Many large manufacturers in all branches have merged to form super large corporations. They could easily increase production by 10 - 20 % while using only existing machines - and due to high automatization they would not even need a corresponding increase in manpower. But there is not enough consumer demand or better consumer spending power to absorb that output In the US they invented the credit card for consumers in the 80s and for some time private debt kept sales and the economy going - but that band aid does not work anymore, private debt has risen to unsustainable levels.
    2
  5. Large scale kidnapping incentivized by the Europan colonial powers and later Chattel Slavery was necessary for the ECONOMIC model of clearing land for the upper class of Europe: they rushed to the new colonies in pursuit of easy money. Indentures servitude was fading out in Europe. there were cultural taboos to kidnap the citzens and drag them over to the new colonies (and it was also no legal) - sure there were a lot of deportations for petty crimes, but that was just not enough. These deported usually had to be realeased after some years (if they surivived). If they had children they could not be enslaved. European Catholics were not allowed to enslave each other (they could kill each other in wars), and there were cultural norms to not do that to Protestants of European descent either. Kidnapping by the millions and later chattel slavery by the millions was necessary for the LUCRATIVE plantation model and for growing cash crops (often under terrible conditions - one of the first crops was Indigo and I think that was a terrible crop for the farm workers, insects, humidity etc.). White farmworker would not have done that work - not for cheap or not for a master. If they would do the unhealthy work (draining swamps, malaria) or the bone breaking work - they would try to do it on THEIR OWN land. Intense racism was the Divide and Conquer strategy to keep the poor whites (the majority of white people) and the people of color apart. The slave owners needed their help to keep the MANY slaves in check. And it was important to keep those groups apart from mingling socially ! (learning to know and like each other). That there was no honorable union possible (marriage laws) or no way to have children with each other that would be valued and equal. (if people live to together they will of course make babies - and that UNITES). Carefully nurtured racism with a good dose of sexual hystera * took care to maintain those ECONOMIC CONDITIONS that were so lucrative for those at the top of the food chain. * Black men being painted as a danger to white women, meanwhile the white males raped black women as they liked. Black men only looking at white females could be in danger of being lynched. Of course once such a prejudice is FIRMLY implanted it tends to self-perpetuate. The pleasure to have someone you can always look down at is not easily given up by some.
    2
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. As for our alleged trouble with population growth and the propagandized "need" for immigration. In Germany and Austria this is one of the unchallenged establishment talking points (like globalization or that  we need the "financial markets" or how wonderful the Euro or the "free" "trade" agreements like TTIP are going to be).    I used to accept it - sure in Austria and Germany the birth rates are down. So we are provided with arguments how many working people have to pay for non-productive citizens (that means retired but also ! children, students, disabled, not to forget homemakers/Stay at home mums). One very common argument (for cuts in the retirement system) is: HOW MANY WORKING adult will have to PROVIDE for ONE RETIRED person (they talk only about retired, not about the other non-productive citizens). The doom and gloom scenario: in 2030 one working person will have to "provide for" one retired person (which is realistic with the birth rates in Germany and without immigration). Right now: around 1000 working people take care of 600 retired. Part of these retirment payments are already subsidized and financed with state debt because the 1 %  and Big Biz refuse to pay taxes and successfully lobbied politics to support that plot. (Apple has an agreement in Ireland that allows them in some cases  to pay as little as 50 - FITFTY - Euro for every MILLION  profit - yes profit, not revenue. And their  tax rate does not  exceed 2 % - that would be a maximum of 2000 Euro per million profit, Apple is hugely ! profitable. Former President Obama immediately gave them verbal support when the EU objected to that arrangement between Ireland and Apple). Of course in the 70s the population was much younger and the ratio Active to Retired was much more favourable. But what is never mentioned in this context is that for instance in Austria and Germany many women were homemakers and stay at home mums and the salary of the husband had to be sufficient for the whole family. Even though people lived more modestly then, one has to consider  that now often two adults work (in a paid job) a total of 80 hours per week to make that living standard possible. In the 70s the weekly work of 40 or maybe 45 - 50 hours (meaning 5 - 10 hours well paid overtime) was sufficient to provide for a family - and that often meant a family of 4 - 5 persons or even more. Even more important:  since the 40s and 50s there was a DRASTIC ! RISE in PRODUCTIVITY . Up to 1970 wages rose more or less with it (15 % gap), since then until 2013 there is an additional ! gap of wages vs. productivity of 57 %. (see *) The problem is that more or less only the middle class is now paying the taxes and they have less money than they used to (and the number of middle class people is shrinking). The big corporations (Multinationals !) on the other hand are sitting on cash - they do not know what to with their huge profits (because of increased productivity which they do not share anymore and because of tax evasion of big biz). Investing in more production makes no sense (see**). So if one worker produces so much more wealth (and is not getting paid for it) - how come we cannot take care of the increased number of non-working citizens ? ? ? And if we had the same birth rates as in the late 60s (before contraception) - in which jobs would these people work now ?? (see ***)
    1
  11. * After WW2 until the 70s the workers more or less got their fair share of that improved productivity , wages rose WITH productivity, taxes were much higher (for top earners and profitable corporations) AND were paid. No outsourcing of jobs (because politics entered into "free trade agreements" that made outsourcing possible in the first place) You can search with "productiviy vs wages" the graphs are very impressive. The one I looked up - 1948 - 1970, the base line is 1948, in that period the Wages and Productivity line is pretty close: Increase in wages vs. productivity: 93,4 vs. 108,1 (so roughly ! doubled since 1948, the corporations got more than the workers, but still an impressive gain in real average wages. Since then (1970 - 2013 in that graph) there were further increases: 8,1 % in total for wages and 64,9 for productivity. (that is an US chart, in Germany and Austria the gains in productivity are at least as much if not more - both countries have very competitive export industries). So on top of the gap of 14,7 % (from 1948 - 1970) which gave the entrepreneurs an advantage and a reward for their input NOW there is an ADDITIONAL GAP of 56,8 % (1970 - 2013). So in total wages lag behind 71,5 % In the 70s pressure on wages began. Before the manufacturers had an almost shortage of workers, they had to pay good wages AND to let the workforce participate in the increase of productivity. That means IF and WHEN the company was more successful or more cost-efficient or whatever, not only the owners of the company got all the profit from that improvement, no the workers because of their negotioting power got their fair share of the profit as well. Also the income taxes and corporate taxes for those doing well were MUCH higher AND they were acutally paid. Neither outsourcing nor tax evasion was possible (Politics starting enabling that on the behest of big biz in the 80s, Reagan, Thatcher, Neo Liberalism, resp. Neo Conservatism)
    1
  12. * We do not have enough jobs for the workforce as is - and there is a trend to not hire people over 50 or even over 40. So if you are unlucky enough to lose your job and you are over 50 good luck with getting another well-paying long term stable position (as opposed to provisory employment, hire and fire, short term jobs). In Germany there is also the myth popping up every where, that there is not enough "skilled workforce" (and it is never defined - do they mean academics do they mean skilled blue collars ?, IT, healthcare staff ??).  If that would be the case, 50 year old people would be rehired on the spot and one would see good salaries offered. That is not happening, more like: they do not have 10 people in line for every position they offer, and they would like to hire young excellently trained people up to 25 years with 10 years experience in the workforce. Add to that wish list a rather low salary and a lot of flexibility (so when and how is that imaginary workforce supposed to have the confidence to establish a family and raise kids ??) The shortage in skilled workforce seems to be a neoliberal Think Tank invention in order to "justify" working visas for IT people, doctors of medicine etc. from poor countries like India, Bulgaria. They can hire these qualified people at lower wages than the domestic academic workforces would demand. In that scheme even highly qualified positions come under wage pressure as soon as the number of people seeking employment is higher than open positions. And it has actually become harder to find good, qualified, skilled and resourceful handymen - like plumbers, construction workers, carpenters. Well pay these people better (and give the rest of the population enough money to pay for those services) - and you will be able to find people willing and capable to do the work - and to it well (as it used to be here until around the 90s) These days everyone runs for the white collar jobs and "higher" education: Motivation part is social prestige, part is the hope for a good salary, part is that the hands-on jobs can be very demanding over time especially if the person is not a young strong man (or woman) anymore. Well treat them better or offer a transition of career and more people will be willing to do the work.
    1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1