Your ideas/thoughts on what should to be done to return to healthy economy grow.

[karen1972]

Well for me #1 on the list is the power grid, seriously everyone knows it needs to be fixed and its money you have to spend anyway.. so chop chop.

Wage growth is just a natural course of low unemployment. ie if there are more job openings more people will quit and take higher paying jobs.. the lower paying companies will lose too many people and HR will have to resolve it by upping pay for new hires to get anyone to apply... simple evolution and with the rate now lower than 5%, that's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

[Big_Hitter]

What would I do?


eliminate minimum wages and rewrite the IRC for starters

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter What would I do? eliminate minimum wages and rewrite the IRC for starters

What is the IRC?

[Nemo2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB What is the IRC?

Internal Revenue Code?

[VFK57]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator This does create a question of, "does anyone in america even have to work?" When robots take a position that an employer has, productivity increases dramatically. The robot can work 24x7, 365 days a year. No overtime, no OSHA, no workers comp, no pension, etc. Savings produced by robots could be distributed to the people, much like Alaska oil revenues. Assuming we could tax a robots productivity, you could pay the three people the prevailing wage that a robot is saving, and the company would still save money. If the robot was paid a wage, and the wage was paid in as a tax, there would still be no employer taxes, workers comp, etc. It would still be a huge savings to the company. People could work on their own endeavors, without needing college or long days. It may save healthcare costs and free up medical resources, as many people use some sort of medical excuse not to work. FIRE would be come a thing of the past, it would be automatic at age 18 if you want. People could spend the money they receive and generate economic activity. I think if robots become more prevalent, it may even help the economy. Assuming the extra productivity was distributed properly.

If robots would take all jobs from humans in a not so distant future, people most likely would lose creativity, become lazy (physically and mentally) what eventually would lead to Humans to degenerate and disappear. I would rather have dangerous jobs like mining, military, space,heavy construction, foundry etc taken by robots while designing, robots production control, software, managing, analysts, teaching, many service jobs etc remained for us to do.

[Senator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by karen1972 Wage growth is just a natural course of low unemployment. ie if there are more job openings more people will quit and take higher paying jobs.. the lower paying companies will lose too many people and HR will have to resolve it by upping pay for new hires to get anyone to apply... simple evolution and with the rate now lower than 5%, that's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

That is conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, there is a surplus of labor on the low-skill side. The shortage is in the tech and higher skilled trades.

There is virtually an unlimited amount of low-skill labor in the USA and the world.

[RonBoyd]

Fed, ECB, PBOC need to be cheerleaders for their economies

Quote:

How about telling the world that, with a growth rate of 2.4 percent for the second consecutive year, the U.S. economy is currently operating almost an entire percentage point above its long-term potential, delineated by the available labor and (physical) capital resources? And how about a reminder that, thanks to this nicely growing economy, Uncle Sam cut a check to the rest of the world last year for $758.9 billion, after a $741.5 billion contribution he sent out in 2014? You can think of these checks as being literally written by the Fed's support to the economy, and endorsed by the international trade policy conducted by the White House and the Congress, which is now becoming a big bone of contention in presidential primaries. How does that strike you, compared with $1 trillion sucked out of the global economy by countries ballyhooed as the "future of the world," and those developed economies seeking growth by living off their trade partners? Out of that number, what is called the "dynamic Asia" got a cool $585 billion hongbao for its Spring Festival. But the Uncle did not even get a "thank you" note.

[ESRwannabe]

IMHO they should change the taxes so that it benefits companies to invest in the US instead of holding cash offshore.

I'd suggest getting rid of corporate loop holes and simplify everything at a much lower corporate tax rate. I'd imagine you could come out even on tax revenue but you'd make the US more enticing for companies to come to the US.

I also think we need to crack down on the drug companies as they are price gouging us compared to everywhere else in the world.

I'd also suggest we scale back our foreign military bases and stop interfering in everybody else's business.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo2 Internal Revenue Code?

yes

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz Governments don't take money --out-- of the economy with regulations. Regulations require that money be spent improving safety, properly disposing of hazmat, keeping better track of things, and hiring people to do these things etc etc. That's money spent and therefore dumped, trickled down, as it were, back into the economy. What happens when all, 100% of any and all regulations are pulled? There will still be unemployment. Underemployment. Businessmen will still manage to find ways to go out of business. All the things that we suffer from now will still exist only with no way to address them. Regulation, like taxes, should be as low as possible, while simultaneously being as high as necessary.

There's no cost/benefit analysis of those regulations, the governments just decide it will be done. Requiring prevailing wages doesn't help cost effectiveness. And the bureaucrats "managing" these programs are overpaid relative to the private workers & have zero incentive to do a cost effective job; i.e., the more they make something cost the more they can cry they don't have enough. If these things were cost effective, there'd be no need for a private economy.

[GrayHare]

Automation is deflationary because it reduces the demand for human labor, and thus reduces the toal money earned via labor. Deflation will work itself out eventually, but if one is in a hurry either get rid of the machines or find another way for people to get money.

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dallas27 But pretty incorrect. The government is critical in creating some of the most wildly economic beneficial initiatives, such as the nation highway system. The government is usually responsible for creating situations to encourage capital risk in fledgling industries, like wind and solar. They kept the auto industry afloat, proving me wrong on my call to let them die. But is there tons of waste, yes, but many regulations are quite useful, such as ensuring there is no lead in your drinking water, ie Flint. Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

Infrastructure isn't regulation nor taking. Totally wrong on government being able to pick winning industries to spend, not invest, on. If solar & wind are cost effective, they don't need governments' hands messing them up. Government screwed over the auto industry bondholders who had nothing to do with running the auto industry to protect union pensions, thus picking winners & losers. We'd had autos being made today if government had kept their nose out of the business.

[Independent]

I'm not sure what "healthy economic growth" means.

Real per capita GDP has grown by about 59% over the last 30 years.
If that had been spread around to most people, I think we'd be satisfied with our economic growth.

But, real median wages have gone up by about 10% over the same 30 years. That doesn't feel very good.

So, I'd look for ideas that are going to help the median worker much more than the executives and business owners.

For example, we don't build infrastructure with picks and shovels any more, we use mega-machines. I'd expect the owners of those machines would be the big winners in more infrastructure spending. I'm not sure that they would also pay most of the taxes for the construction.

[dallas27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator This does create a question of, "does anyone in america even have to work?" When robots take a position that an employer has, productivity increases dramatically. The robot can work 24x7, 365 days a year. No overtime, no OSHA, no workers comp, no pension, etc. Savings produced by robots could be distributed to the people, much like Alaska oil revenues. Assuming we could tax a robots productivity, you could pay the three people the prevailing wage that a robot is saving, and the company would still save money. If the robot was paid a wage, and the wage was paid in as a tax, there would still be no employer taxes, workers comp, etc. It would still be a huge savings to the company. People could work on their own endeavors, without needing college or long days. It may save healthcare costs and free up medical resources, as many people use some sort of medical excuse not to work. FIRE would be come a thing of the past, it would be automatic at age 18 if you want. People could spend the money they receive and generate economic activity. I think if robots become more prevalent, it may even help the economy. Assuming the extra productivity was distributed properly.

Nice idea, but those companies are competing with overseas companies that can hire 200 workers in three shifts for the price of our robot.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[dallas27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerntz Infrastructure isn't regulation nor taking. Totally wrong on government being able to pick winning industries to spend, not invest, on. If solar & wind are cost effective, they don't need governments' hands messing them up. Government screwed over the auto industry bondholders who had nothing to do with running the auto industry to protect union pensions, thus picking winners & losers. We'd had autos being made today if government had kept their nose out of the business.

You seem very open minded. I retreat.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[Senator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dallas27 Nice idea, but those companies are competing with overseas companies that can hire 200 workers in three shifts for the price of our robot.

No problem. Have a tariff to make up for our regulations. If they do not have clean air standards, add a percentage that it costs US companies. The same with OSHA and labor laws. If their workers are not being paid as well on a living wage scale, include a tariff for that. Even the playing field.

Our companies could produce goods just as cheap as China if we let them ignore our laws. Use the river to dump in, hire prisoners, eliminate labor laws, etc.

[GrayHare]

Protectionist tariffs were tried during the 1930s but generally did not improve the situation.

[dallas27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator No problem. Have a tariff to make up for our regulations. If they do not have clean air standards, add a percentage that it costs US companies. The same with OSHA and labor laws. If their workers are not being paid as well on a living wage scale, include a tariff for that. Even the playing field. Our companies could produce goods just as cheap as China if we let them ignore our laws. Use the river to dump in, hire prisoners, eliminate labor laws, etc.

We can only tariff our own market, it doesn't help our companies compete in the world market.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[Senator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dallas27 We can only tariff our own market, it doesn't help our companies compete in the world market.

That is all we care about. Competition with our manufacturers here in the USA. Our exports will either compete head to head, or they will not get exported. Just the way they are now.

When you can export iron ore from the USA to China, make it into steel and ship it back cheaper than to make it right here in the USA, there is a problem.

We import many things, the countries get a bunch of USDs. The countries refuse to spend it here in the US, so there is a trade imbalance.

We could make all trade be done in the currency of the country of origin. If the country did not accept their own currency, we do not buy from them. The companies importing would have to buy the goods in the currency of the country that they were buying from. It would force companies to buy the currencies of our trading partners.

Our country has been taken advantage of by many other countries. It has cost us our manufacturing base and our economy.

[dallas27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator That is all we care about. Competition with our manufacturers here in the USA. Our exports will either compete head to head, or they will not get exported. Just the way they are now. When you can export iron ore from the USA to China, make it into steel and ship it back cheaper than to make it right here in the USA, there is a problem. We import many things, the countries get a bunch of USDs. The countries refuse to spend it here in the US, so there is a trade imbalance. We could make all trade be done in the currency of the country of origin. If the country did not accept their own currency, we do not buy from them. The companies importing would have to buy the goods in the currency of the country that they were buying from. It would force companies to buy the currencies of our trading partners. Our country has been taken advantage of by many other countries. It has cost us our manufacturing base and our economy.

We are the only world power. We have it pretty good, but you make it seem like we are shoved and locked in a high school locker.

I think you underestimate that all US companies compete globally, and often primarily.

By the way, see sugar and corn for unfair trade practices in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum