"income inequality"

[Soonerjeepman]

ok, not sure I understand this...being a teacher I KNOW my income is based on taxes...I got a $500 raise for this year. (fellow teachers moved a step and got $2000K on avg)...

Do I expect to make more than a FF counter person...yes...more than a lawyer no...

Guessing this is another start to socialism...everyone makes the same amount of $$ ....no matter how hard you work or try to improve yourself. Can't believe people are actually voting for these guys to put them in office.

[KantoSooner]

I don't know about Kansas, but generally it's my understanding that teaching is a very union influenced job (whether you have unions or not). Unions are socialist by definition. You're probably feeling it more than people in other areas of the economy.

Have you ever looked at teaching in any of the overseas 'American' schools? (American School in Singapore, American School in Japan, etc). The teachers there were, last I checked, making north of $100K per year and had a student body made up of children of ex-pat professionals (who tend to drink and smoke dope, but not to disfunction and you'll never see a weapon or pregnancy). Might be something to consider once you get your pension locked in.

[Soonerjeepman]

Oh, KS, I wasn't really complaining about my salary...I'm good.

I was referring more to "income inequality" seems to be the new social justice trend in making everyone the same.

FWIW, I don't belong to the union, never have, never will...don't agree with their political views of the fact they actually screwed over any teacher at the top of the scale...and continually do that.

[REDREX]

It is a stupid concept----The Dems are just trying to find something to talk about to change the subject from Obamacare

[badger]

Might be something to consider once you get your pension locked in.

Yes, get your pension locked in, THEN do whatever you want while also receiving 75 percent or more of your teacher pay :)

The pay overseas might not be worth it

[KantoSooner]

Not if you have to lose your pension. If you can turn it into a second phase of your career, however, who wouldn't want to go spend ten years or so in Singapore or Thailand, for instance?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Oh, KS, I wasn't really complaining about my salary...I'm good.

I was referring more to "income inequality" seems to be the new social justice trend in making everyone the same.

FWIW, I don't belong to the union, never have, never will...don't agree with their political views of the fact they actually screwed over any teacher at the top of the scale...and continually do that.

It's not new in the teaching profession. Across-the-board raises have been common for many decades.

When I taught in Oklahoma, teaching unions were not allowed by law, nor were salary negotiations. Instead, professional organizations "met-and-conferred" with school boards regarding salary increases. If you chose not to join the professional organization, it still 'met-and-conferred" on your behalf, and you were the benefactor of any resulting pay raise, even if you didn't pay professional organization membership fees.

[badger]

Union and socialist talk aside, I recall Judge Judy (I had a lot of TV watching time during maternity leave) trying to calm some quarreling sisters on the issue of who had the car and the house (sister) and who had to spend all her family's money on raising kids (her). Judy tried to reason that they made the choices on how to spend their own money --- perhaps if she not chosen to have a family, she could have chosen to have a car and house instead.

This is why I'm not jealous of people driving nicer cars or bigger houses. I don't want to spend my money on a nicer car or a bigger house. Both equal bigger payments and more headaches via maintenance and insurance costs. Plus, trees tend to land on vehicles I own. I'd rather it land on a 90s Honda than a brand new convertible.

How people spend their money also provides awesome gift ideas --- you give people what they'd never spend money on themselves. :)

[KantoSooner]

So, Badger, when you gift me that new Corvette (I prefer OU Crimson with the tan leather interior (white is too pimpy)), park it on the West end of the driveway.
Thanx!

[badger]

So, Badger, when you gift me that new Corvette (I prefer OU Crimson with the tan leather interior (white is too pimpy)), park it on the West end of the driveway.
Thanx!

It was supposed to arrive over the weekend, but I guess it got weather-delayed. And then, they salted the roads so bad that it looked more white than crimson. I was too ashamed to give you a tarnished Corvette, so the dealership took it back. I promise that as soon as Oklahoma weather becomes more predictable like Auburn's championship game offense, the crimson Corvette is yours.

But seriously now, I would argue that the problem isn't that people don't have money to spend on necessities --- it's that people don't want to spend money on necessities. It leaves not enough money for the fun stuff, you see

[KantoSooner]

We all want choices, money is simply a means to that end.

[Soonerjeepman]

It's not new in the teaching profession. Across-the-board raises have been common for many decades.

When I taught in Oklahoma, teaching unions were not allowed by law, nor were salary negotiations. Instead, professional organizations "met-and-conferred" with school boards regarding salary increases. If you chose not to join the professional organization, it still 'met-and-conferred" on your behalf, and you were the benefactor of any resulting pay raise, even if you didn't pay professional organization membership fees.

sjs...I've taught for 23 yrs..I'm well aware of how public education salaries work....also very aware that the "union" negotiates the salary scale as well.

I also stated that as a public school teacher I KNOW my salary is tax based and limited...that was NOT the point. It was about the dem's new "social justice" push for "income equality"...and think that is such a bunch of bs. If they are so into that they need to cap professional athletes, entertainers, etc salaries. Take from those rich and give to the poor...

[FaninAma]

The really F'd up thing about this whole steaming pile of contrived Democrat crap is that the more government demagogs the issue and tries to control the economy the more the the poverty rate goes up and the larger the income inequality gap becomes.

Government intervention destroys true market valuation of products and services. It favors those who can lobby and get special favors from our idiot elected officials and the associated entrenched beaurocracies and punishes those who cannot.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

sjs...I've taught for 23 yrs..I'm well aware of how public education salaries work....also very aware that the "union" negotiates the salary scale as well.

I also stated that as a public school teacher I KNOW my salary is tax based and limited...that was NOT the point. It was about the dem's new "social justice" push for "income equality"...and think that is such a bunch of bs. If they are so into that they need to cap professional athletes, entertainers, etc salaries. Take from those rich and give to the poor...

across-the-board raises keep incomes close together, while merit-based or percentage increases spread out incomes. so, i'm saying the use of across-the-board raises as an inhibitor of income inequality is not new. It's been around for many decades.

and I tip my hat to you for serving on the educ front line for 23 years.

[jkjsooner]

I was referring more to "income inequality" seems to be the new social justice trend in making everyone the same.

I've never heard any legitimate person stating that a clerk should make the same as a lawyer. You've either taken a stance from an ignorant or very radical person and abscribed that stance to everyone who disagrees with you politically or you completely misunderstand what people mean by "income inequality".

Most rational discussions on income inequality are not about an assertion that all people deserve the same income or anything close to that. It's about public policy decisions which have lead to CEO's who make hundreds or thousands of times the income of regular workers. It's about policies that encourage off-shoring of labor and manufacturing which has brought down the bargaining power of workers. It is not about saying the textile worker should make the same as a neurosurgeon.

[REDREX]

I've never heard any legitimate person stating that a clerk should make the same as a lawyer. You've either taken a stance from an ignorant or very radical person and abscribed that stance to everyone who disagrees with you politically or you completely misunderstand what people mean by "income inequality".

Most rational discussions on income inequality are not about an assertion that all people deserve the same income or anything close to that. It's about public policy decisions which have lead to CEO's who make hundreds or thousands of times the income of regular workers. It's about policies that encourage off-shoring of labor and manufacturing which has brought down the bargaining power of workers. It is not about saying the textile worker should make the same as a neurosurgeon.----What "public policy decisions" are you talking about ----that makes no sense

[jkjsooner]

----What "public policy decisions" are you talking about ----that makes no sense

Just to name a couple:

1. Policies that have allowed/encouraged the off-shoring of jobs and the movement of most of our production overseas. This is due to either action or inaction.

2. Policies/actions that have reduced the power of organized labor.

Both of these policies reduce the bargaining power of the worker and increase the bottom line of the corporation. This decreases the wage of the worker and increases the compensation of the owner or business executives.

I'm not here to argue whether these policies are good or bad so if you come back talking about the dangers of tariffs or evils of organized labor I'm not going to respond.

I'm just saying the assertion in this thread that the argument over "income disparity" is an argument that we should all have equal income is wrong. It's almost so laughable that I have to assume the thread starter deep down must have known this.

[jkjsooner]

There's also an argument about income disparity the goes beyond the individual concerns. At a macroscopic level, many argue that a larger income disparity can lead to societal problems including social unrest. This is not just a concern for the poor but is something the rich must be concerned about as well. (Many countries succumb to communism because of the disparity within their system and no wealthy person - nor I - want that.)

I'll also point out that I imagine many lump this together with wealth disparity which I believe is debated more often.

In either case, none of this is about Joe Plumber not having the same income as Mr. Neurosurgeon.

[Boomer.....]

Then by all means lets raise the minimum wage to the requested $15/hr. That will benefit everyone, huh.

[ouwasp]

...29 yr teacher here...I'll have my pension locked in within a couple months...I plan to make it a few more yrs in the classroom, but more and more "stuff" is being dumped in our laps... I will miss the students, but not the testing/techno/CC garbage.

As for "income inequality", this is just one of those head-shaking things that has become a part of our society. I see serious news reports interviewing people that are outraged the minimum wage is not a "living wage", that a family of 4 cannot be sustained on such, blah, blah, blah. I would say to those folks to do something to position yourself for a better-paying job, much like I think toward some of my fellow teachers that complain about low pay. (Hey, dumazz, you knew the salary going in, but now you're indignant? Are you really that thick-headed?) But I digress...

I read somewhere that if a person is making $50,000 per yr, he is in the top 1% of incomes in the world. I wonder if that stat is accurate?

[badger]

I read somewhere that if a person is making $50,000 per yr, he is in the top 1% of incomes in the world. I wonder if that stat is accurate?

Yes, but there's cost of living and country-by-country economies to factor in, I guess. $50,000 in Hawaii isn't going to carry you as far as it would in Mexico.


As for "income inequality", this is just one of those head-shaking things that has become a part of our society. I see serious news reports interviewing people that are outraged the minimum wage is not a "living wage", that a family of 4 cannot be sustained on such, blah, blah, blah.
It might be a feasible solution to the low employment rate of the young and the minimum wages of the older to impose an age limit on minimum wage. That way, the family-aged can't complain about not being able to support a family on the minimum, and the young can have lower employment numbers!


some of my fellow teachers that complain about low pay. (Hey, dumazz, you knew the salary going in, but now you're indignant? Are you really that thick-headed?) But I digress...

I sometimes wonder if people realize what they're getting into when they go into teaching, not just pay, but everything. I once considered it when I was younger, so I volunteered as a tutor and Sunday School teacher/assistant/etc, and realized that it was NOT for me. Tutoring one on one was fun, being a babysitter for an hour or several to a dozen energizer bunnies that keep going and going not so much

[jkjsooner]

It might be a feasible solution to the low employment rate of the young and the minimum wages of the older to impose an age limit on minimum wage. That way, the family-aged can't complain about not being able to support a family on the minimum, and the young can have lower employment numbers!

Problem is that the jobs may go to the young and the older workers (with families to support) will be passed over. That's not going sit well with the older worker who isn't given the option of working for less money.

[badger]

Problem is that the jobs may go to the young and the older workers (with families to support) will be passed over. That's not going sit well with the older worker who isn't given the option of working for less money.

yyeeeaaaah, then the question becomes what is the worst problem to have: no low paying job, or low paying job

[REDREX]

If you want a better job learn how to do something that someone needs done----move to where the jobs are-----If you wait for the Gov't to fix the problem you may never get a job

[Since71ASooner4Life]

It is a stupid concept----The Dems are just trying to find something to talk about to change the subject from Obamacare

you forgot to say BINGO

[Since71ASooner4Life]

I've never heard any legitimate person stating that a clerk should make the same as a lawyer. You've either taken a stance from an ignorant or very radical person and abscribed that stance to everyone who disagrees with you politically or you completely misunderstand what people mean by "income inequality".

Most rational discussions on income inequality are not about an assertion that all people deserve the same income or anything close to that. It's about public policy decisions which have lead to CEO's who make hundreds or thousands of times the income of regular workers. It's about policies that encourage off-shoring of labor and manufacturing which has brought down the bargaining power of workers. It is not about saying the textile worker should make the same as a neurosurgeon.

Who's to say what a CEO deserves to make? In a free market driven economy, people earn what others are willing to pay. Same as athletes who cant read yet earn 10's of millions - do they not deserve it? Says who? It's not up to some radical leftest politician to decide, or to incite class warfare as our useless president does so well

[Since71ASooner4Life]

Then by all means lets raise the minimum wage to the requested $15/hr. That will benefit everyone, huh.

if $15 an hour is a good thing, why not $50 an hour? Every liberal ought to be forced to take economics classes and perform an essay demonstrating that they actually learned something from it

[Since71ASooner4Life]

If you want a better job learn how to do something that someone needs done

Really? What a novel concept! You mean you don't just sit back whining about what's not fair?

[jkjsooner]

Who's to say what a CEO deserves to make? In a free market driven economy, people earn what others are willing to pay. Same as athletes who cant read yet earn 10's of millions - do they not deserve it? Says who? It's not up to some radical leftest politician to decide, or to incite class warfare as our useless president does so well

I never once said that it is the role of government to set limits on CEO salary. If you read all of my posts you'll get it.

The government makes public policy decisions that have impacts on income and wealth disparities. It's not about the government saying the CEO can't make 100 million.

[jkjsooner]

As for your free market, you can't talk about that without considering income tax rates, long term capital gains rates, policies on organized labor, import policies, environmental regulation, anti-trust regulation, interest rate decisions, net neutrality stance, grants to use public lands, bankruptcy rules, ... The list goes on and on. It isn't the free market you may want but it is reality and government positions on these things have an impact on the topic we're discussing here.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Who's to say what a CEO deserves to make? In a free market driven economy, people earn what others are willing to pay. Same as athletes who cant read yet earn 10's of millions - do they not deserve it? Says who? It's not up to some radical leftest politician to decide, or to incite class warfare as our useless president does so well

Right. But, you understand this is how socialism rises. There has to be someone to blame. For Hitler, the success of the Jewish business community was it. Here, anyone with the title CEO is somehow to blame for poverty.

It's a concept that sells every easily to the ignorant masses. Look no further than the way Venezuela is currently being torn apart. Envy sold there to the point of no return. They basically have a president with the IQ of a monkey running the country because he is able to successfully continue to convince the mass poor there that the rich have, and continue, to screw them over:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-16/venezuela-post-chavez-hustlers-paradise?campaign_id=yhoo

This is a glimpse of our pathetic future. The Democrats sell it very well.

My wife is from Mexico, and her family owns a ranch there. During the late 60s and throughout the 70s, their socialist presidents began to confiscate land and private property. Her family's ranch was forcibly taken, one of her uncle killed.

See, when the "redistribution" of the currency from "the rich" doesn't change the poverty situation, the politicians who have fed the poor on envy have to keep moving to the next thing. After currency comes private property.

People think it is far-fetched to believe that could ever happen in America. But, I think it could well within my kids' lifetime. What's to stop the government from doing it? The demographics have already shifted to the degree that the envious will ensure permanent Democratic leadership in the Executive and Judiciary branches.

[diverdog]

Right. But, you understand this is how socialism rises. There has to be someone to blame. For Hitler, the success of the Jewish business community was it. Here, anyone with the title CEO is somehow to blame for poverty.

It's a concept that sells every easily to the ignorant masses. Look no further than the way Venezuela is currently being torn apart. Envy sold there to the point of no return. They basically have a president with the IQ of a monkey running the country because he is able to successfully continue to convince the mass poor there that the rich have, and continue, to screw them over:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-16/venezuela-post-chavez-hustlers-paradise?campaign_id=yhoo

This is a glimpse of our pathetic future. The Democrats sell it very well.

My wife is from Mexico, and her family owns a ranch there. During the late 60s and throughout the 70s, their socialist presidents began to confiscate land and private property. Her family's ranch was forcibly taken, one of her uncle killed.

See, when the "redistribution" of the currency from "the rich" doesn't change the poverty situation, the politicians who have fed the poor on envy have to keep moving to the next thing. After currency comes private property.

People think it is far-fetched to believe that could ever happen in America. But, I think it could well within my kids' lifetime. What's to stop the government from doing it? The demographics have already shifted to the degree that the envious will ensure permanent Democratic leadership in the Executive and Judiciary branches.


Beyond your fearmongering show many anywhere that the uber wealthy in this country have been hurt since Reagan. Last I looked QE has pumped up their portfolios and their share of paid taxes has remained fairly constant.

As Buffet noted there is class warfare in this country and the rich has won it going away.

[Boomer.....]

if $15 an hour is a good thing, why not $50 an hour? Every liberal ought to be forced to take economics classes and perform an essay demonstrating that they actually learned something from it

People don't realize that increasing the minimum wage drives up cost.

[badger]

I also think anger is misplaced in these protests for $15 an hour --- McDonald's the corportation is raking in massive profits, but the ones paying the burger flippers and the cash register button pressers are local franchisees, not the giant faceless corporation.

[REDREX]

Beyond your fearmongering show many anywhere that the uber wealthy in this country have been hurt since Reagan. Last I looked QE has pumped up their portfolios and their share of paid taxes has remained fairly constant.

As Buffet noted there is class warfare in this country and the rich has won it going away.---People are not poor because someone else is rich----------Your labor is worth what someone will pay for it

[jkjsooner]

---People are not poor because someone else is rich----------Your labor is worth what someone will pay for it

I'm in 100% agreement with this when it comes to decisions the corporation makes. They have every right and responsibility to maximize their profit margin and keep their costs as low as possible.

However, it is a more complex issue than you are presenting. Contrary to what we often hear, there are lots of nurses out of work because of the trend to bring in cheap nurses from overseas. We've spent a decade outsourcing high skilled labor. We've almost allowed our manufacturing capacity to disappear. These decisions have increased corporate profits (and thus CEO pay) but in addition to reducing the power of the worker they have (in my opinion) placed our country in a precarious position.

Whether you agree or disagree with me on what our policies should be, you can't deny that "what someone is willing to pay" is impacted by our decisions in these matters. That is the root of this argument.

Yes, people like to point to individual cases of a person making hundreds of millions while his workers are making minimum wage but the real issue is much more macroscopic. The gap is increasing and that has societal dangers.

[jkjsooner]

Right. But, you understand this is how socialism rises. There has to be someone to blame. For Hitler, the success of the Jewish business community was it. Here, anyone with the title CEO is somehow to blame for poverty.

These things didn't occur just because someone pointed to the jew or CEO and said, "Look, he's to blame." In almost all of these cases there was severe poverty and social problems that lead the societies to look for alternatives and to look for someone to blame.

I think most of your post is paranoid as I don't think our country is anywhere near going to what you describe. In fact, we've spent over 30 years moving towards the right in economic policy from greatly lowering the tax rates (both high income and capital gains), reducing regulation, and making large cuts in social services like welfare.

That being said, if you are truly concerned about whether our society will turn socialist (and I mean the government seizing private property type not just some social services) then you should be a little concerned about income wealth disparity. Those are the things that ultimately lead to radical philosophies gaining power.

[REDREX]

I'm in 100% agreement with this when it comes to decisions the corporation makes. They have every right and responsibility to maximize their profit margin and keep their costs as low as possible.

However, it is a more complex issue than you are presenting. Contrary to what we often hear, there are lots of nurses out of work because of the trend to bring in cheap nurses from overseas. We've spent a decade outsourcing high skilled labor. We've almost allowed our manufacturing capacity to disappear. These decisions have increased corporate profits (and thus CEO pay) but in addition to reducing the power of the worker they have (in my opinion) placed our country in a precarious position.

Whether you agree or disagree with me on what our policies should be, you can't deny that "what someone is willing to pay" is impacted by our decisions in these matters. That is the root of this argument.

Yes, people like to point to individual cases of a person making hundreds of millions while his workers are making minimum wage but the real issue is much more macroscopic. The gap is increasing and that has societal dangers.I think it is funny that people believe you can hire people for min wage that you can give much of any responsibility to. I have many employees I would not want one that I could hire for min wage

[Since71ASooner4Life]

People don't realize that increasing the minimum wage drives up cost.


What the Liberals dont get is that it drives down demand - i.e. puts those it portends to help on the unemployment line

[Since71ASooner4Life]

I never once said that it is the role of government to set limits on CEO salary. If you read all of my posts you'll get it.

The government makes public policy decisions that have impacts on income and wealth disparities. It's not about the government saying the CEO can't make 100 million.

When your president uses the word inequality, you can bet your life he believes in the core of his soul the CEO shouldn't make 100 or even 1 million. Redistribution is his idea of heaven on earth

You referenced "most rationale discussions on income inequality .....". In my eyes there is no such thing as a "rational" discussion on income inequality - that is a politically motivated label and an irrational concept in and of itself. We can talk about pay differences among various jobs, but when the word inequality enters into the discussion it takes on a personal and emotional feel and conveys wrongdoing when nothing has been done by or to anyone. We don't have discussions about athletic inequality do we? No, we accept it as a fact of life that some are more skilled than others, even though the "gifted one" prospers to the tune of millions of dollars. But is fun for envious people to hate on the one in the CEOs chair as those they did something morally wrong to get where they are. Inequality is a label to attached to two things which ought to be equivalent in the first place like when two people who do the same job in the same place are paid drastically differently. But there is nothing to compare about a CEO and a burger flipper - by the very nature of what they do its apples and oranges and the associated compensation nothing ever meant to be equivalent in any way, so what create a discussion about it?

[Since71ASooner4Life]

As for your free market, you can't talk about that without considering income tax rates, long term capital gains rates, policies on organized labor, import policies, environmental regulation, anti-trust regulation, interest rate decisions, net neutrality stance, grants to use public lands, bankruptcy rules, ... The list goes on and on. It isn't the free market you may want but it is reality and government positions on these things have an impact on the topic we're discussing here.

by my way of thinking, every American has as much legal rights and freedom as the next guy to get to that CEO's office, so that's as free as a a market gets

[diverdog]

---People are not poor because someone else is rich----------Your labor is worth what someone will pay for it

Rex that is simply not true in some cases. How about the corporate raiders who take over companies and displace hundreds of workers? I know companies where the ******* CEO decided to lay off people just to line their own pockets. And then we get to all those investment bankers who leveraged this nation to the hilt and caused a recession by collapsing the mortgage market.

[REDREX]

Rex that is simply not true in some cases. How about the corporate raiders who take over companies and displace hundreds of workers? I know companies where the ******* CEO decided to lay off people just to line their own pockets. And then we get to all those investment bankers who leveraged this nation to the hilt and caused a recession by collapsing the mortgage market.---You always look at the liberal talking points list and try and apply it to everyone. Most rich people made their money by working hard and smart. Not by screwing workers or the public

[Since71ASooner4Life]

---You always look at the liberal talking points list and try and apply it to everyone. Most rich people made their money by working hard and smart. Not by screwing workers or the public

now the liberals will want to run with this and make a big deal when I say it, but there is absolutely a correlation between intelligence and economic standing. Sure there are plenty of individual data points scattered about the regression line, but there is no stronger precursor of of wealth attainment than high levels of intelligence, and visa versa on poverty. Yes there are disparities in average wealth from one country to the next, but within any society the cream rises to the top. In the poorest places on the planet there are wealthy people, and the aren't the ones with low IQ.

[diverdog]

---You always look at the liberal talking points list and try and apply it to everyone. Most rich people made their money by working hard and smart. Not by screwing workers or the public

Rex:

You were the one painting with a broad brush. I merely pointed out that there a people who have made money screwing other people. When I say rich I am not talking about the small business guys who has $5 million in net worth. The guys I am talking about have tens of millions in net worth. And no not all of them are bad....not by a long shot but there ones who think nothing of screwing other people.

[diverdog]

now the liberals will want to run with this and make a big deal when I say it, but there is absolutely a correlation between intelligence and economic standing. Sure there are plenty of individual data points scattered about the regression line, but there is no stronger precursor of of wealth attainment than high levels of intelligence, and visa versa on poverty. Yes there are disparities in average wealth from one country to the next, but within any society the cream rises to the top. In the poorest places on the planet there are wealthy people, and the aren't the ones with low IQ.

Well clearly you have not visited some of the third world ****holes that I have been to. Most of those guys got to the top because they are absolutely ruthless. They may be smart but they are also sociopaths who thinking nothing of wasting lots of people.

And I do not get for one minute why you guys are on here whining how bad the rich have it. Show me any data where they have been hurt.....

Finally, history repeatedly shows that it is not the rich white guys who starts revolutions. By and large they are started by poor unemployed young men who have nothing to lose. If history teaches us anything when there is a huge disparity in wealth there are problems and when there are problems the poor generally rise up and kill the rich.

[yermom]

that's just a "market correction"

[Since71ASooner4Life]

Well clearly you have not visited some of the third world ****holes that I have been to. Most of those guys got to the top because they are absolutely ruthless. They may be smart but they are also sociopaths who thinking nothing of wasting lots of people.



That's a woefully inadequate characterization of the rest of the word, and I've been to mexico city, sao paolo, johannesburg and plenty other places with abundant poverty, and the wealthy aren't all named Kim Jong. There are millions of highly educated, highly intelligent business people who enjoy life at the top of the socio economic pyramid just like here in the USA. Nothing in this world happens by accident.

[REDREX]

That's a woefully inadequate characterization of the rest of the word, and I've been to mexico city, sao paolo, johannesburg and plenty other places with abundant poverty, and the wealthy aren't all named Kim Jong. There are millions of highly educated, highly intelligent business people who enjoy life at the top of the socio economic pyramid just like here in the USA. Nothing in this world happens by accident.---Correct -----------But if that is true the Dems can't create an issue---I would love for them to take a long look at what causes most poverty and how many of their programs have made it worse

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Because poor people need to make more money.

Next question. Stupid poor people.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress

Author:Jay L. Zagorsky

Affiliation:Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 921 Chatham Lane, Suite 100, Columbus, OH 43221, USA

Source:In Intelligence 35(5):489-501

Abstract:How important is intelligence to financial success? Using the NLSY79, which tracks a large group of young U.S. baby boomers, this research shows that each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after holding a variety of factors constant. Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth. Financial distress, such as problems paying bills, going bankrupt or reaching credit card limits, is related to IQ scores not linearly but instead in a quadratic relationship. This means higher IQ scores sometimes increase the probability of being in financial difficulty.

[diverdog]

That's a woefully inadequate characterization of the rest of the word, and I've been to mexico city, sao paolo, johannesburg and plenty other places with abundant poverty, and the wealthy aren't all named Kim Jong. There are millions of highly educated, highly intelligent business people who enjoy life at the top of the socio economic pyramid just like here in the USA. Nothing in this world happens by accident.

Try Somalia, Rwanda (in the 90's), Congo ......to name a few that I have been to. Mexico is utterly corrupt and Brazil has its issues. There are lots of people in those countries who have gotten to the top by murdering a lot of people.

[Soonerjeepman]

My whole point was the libs/dems are now using this term as a new social atrocity, that in my opinion is wrong. Do you think a fast food counter worker should make the same as a teacher?

It's always something. DD, if you don't think society, the dems, libs..whatever you want to call them are not promoting this equality thing to the death of our great country you are wrong. As a public school teacher I continually tell my kids...they EARN their grade. They have the opportunity of a lifetime in making themselves BETTER everyday in school. Then they go hear the gov will take care of them...make everything equal.

The GF...yes THAT one!...works with low-income families, some immigrants. One family is from Africa, the husband just got a second job due to their rent being increased, he now works 5 - 13 hour days. Tell me how many born Americans would do that? none...Why not? Because they are being told it's not their fault...the gov is here to make everything equal....BULL$hit...

Do I agree with corporations raping the land and people..no, but I really don't think this is the issue they are talking about. Just my late night 2 cents...lol

[yermom]

as has been mentioned multiple times, you obviously don't understand the concept here

no one complaining about income inequality is saying that

it's more about things like this:

http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-You

http://www.aflcio.org/extension/aflcio_projects/design/aflcio_user/images/Paywatch-2013/infographic_final_2.png

[diverdog]

My whole point was the libs/dems are now using this term as a new social atrocity, that in my opinion is wrong. Do you think a fast food counter worker should make the same as a teacher?

It's always something. DD, if you don't think society, the dems, libs..whatever you want to call them are not promoting this equality thing to the death of our great country you are wrong. As a public school teacher I continually tell my kids...they EARN their grade. They have the opportunity of a lifetime in making themselves BETTER everyday in school. Then they go hear the gov will take care of them...make everything equal.

The GF...yes THAT one!...works with low-income families, some immigrants. One family is from Africa, the husband just got a second job due to their rent being increased, he now works 5 - 13 hour days. Tell me how many born Americans would do that? none...Why not? Because they are being told it's not their fault...the gov is here to make everything equal....BULL$hit...

Do I agree with corporations raping the land and people..no, but I really don't think this is the issue they are talking about. Just my late night 2 cents...lol

jeep:

I turned 55 this year and during my entire life the rich have never been hurt in this country. Here is a quote from Yahoo news talking about the last 30 years:


. That top 1 percent saw its income skyrocket by 275 percent. Those between the 80th and 99th percentile--that is, the top 20 percent, excluding the very top 1 percent--also did pretty well, seeing their income rise by 65 percent. Income for the bottom 20 percent, meanwhile, grew by just 18 percent.

This whole right wing mantra about class warfare against the rich rings hollow. There is absolutely no data to support this supposed war against the rich. Hell even the rich don't buy it with guys like Gates saying they do not pay enough taxes.

All I know is when taxes were higher we had balanced budgets, a thriving middle class and CEO's who managed for the long term. I am not talking about confiscation of property and putting the rich in the poor house. I think most of us are talking about a slight increase in taxes, closing of tax shelters, and incenting investment for longer terms.

Taxing the rich more is not a threat to our national security. Having lots of poor unemployed young men is a threat. Revolutions are not started by gray haired old men but by young men who have no hope.

[TAFBSooner]

The problem is not "income inequality." There always has been and always will be income inequality. If there weren't, there would be no incentive to excel. The problem that is finally being discussed is rising income inequality.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130910/DA8NN7U02.html

"But since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 percent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices: 95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent.

That compares with a 45 percent share for the top 1 percent in the economic expansion of the 1990s and a 65 percent share from the expansion that followed the 2001 recession."

Believe me, I don't envy any top-500 company CEO their money.

[KantoSooner]

I do think there needs to be some unlocking of boards of directors. I think you ought to get paid whatever you can convince your employer you're worth. But when you are also an important source of income for your employers, the link between your performance and your pay gets attenuated.

Lots of severely crappy CEO's get lots of money because they hired the boards who approved their compensation packages.

[REDREX]

What do you want to do about it?-----Take more from me and give it to someone else------How is that fair?

[KantoSooner]

No, what I'd like is a non-rigged game so we didn't have to fight so many rear guard actions to defend capitalism. Corruption, inside dealing, rigged tax shelters and the like all mean that we have to spend far too much time defending the intrinsic 'fairness' of the system.

[Turd_Ferguson]

No, what I'd like is a non-rigged game so we didn't have to fight so many rear guard actions to defend capitalism. Corruption, inside dealing, rigged tax shelters and the like all mean that we have to spend far too much time defending the intrinsic 'fairness' of the system.

So, how does that happen?

[SoonerorLater]

The numbers will continue to rise in favor of the CEO class as long as they are able to arbitage labor costs. Where's the problem here? People are getting exactly what they voted for. We can't get enough of politicians that would love to flood our country with cheap illegal labor. We keep voting for the guys with "free trade" globalist agenda. What do we expect?

[KantoSooner]

So, how does that happen?

One thing I'd like to see is banning share holders in a company from being contrators for that same company. So, say, if a major mutual fund manager owned 20% of a company and thus could demand a seat on the board and thus say in that company's CEO's pay package, that same mutual fund company would be forbidden to perform lucrative banking services for that company. It would prevent, to some degree, an old boy network from completely taking over the board.

But that would require new legislation.

In general, I'd like to see us enforce laws that are already on the books. That's a pretty easy place to begin. A big part of our recent economic collapse resulted from a failure of regulators to enforce what is already on the books. Getting rid of outright crime would be nice.

[KantoSooner]

We keep voting for the guys with "free trade" globalist agenda. What do we expect?

The alternative to free trade is what, pray tell? Tariff barriers? Those worked sooooooo well.

(and also raises the question of why I should pay more for my goods to support people who can't or won't do anything of enough worth to earn what they want to earn.)

[OU68]

The alternative to free trade is what, pray tell? Tariff barriers? Those worked sooooooo well.

(and also raises the question of why I should pay more for my goods to support people who can't or won't do anything of enough worth to earn what they want to earn.)

So an American IT worker should just walk up to his/her boss and say: "look, I'm making way too much, let's make my pay the same as those guys in India"?

[SoonerorLater]

The alternative to free trade is what, pray tell? Tariff barriers? Those worked sooooooo well.

(and also raises the question of why I should pay more for my goods to support people who can't or won't do anything of enough worth to earn what they want to earn.)

There was a reason the free trade part was parenthetical. It doesn't exist. What we have now is fiat currency manipulation that completely destroys any notion of free trade. It all comes at a huge cost. The free trade lingo sounds pretty good but it just doesn't work well as it's now praticed. If philosophical economic theory is the altar you worship at then carry on. Even an eccentric like Ross Perot was able to see this one coming years ago.

You ever consider the backside cost of all of this in a welfare state like the USA?

[KantoSooner]

So an American IT worker should just walk up to his/her boss and say: "look, I'm making way too much, let's make my pay the same as those guys in India"?

No, but an American IT worker should wake up each and every morning and think real hard about how he's going to produce enough value to justify being paid more. And, if he can't, he'd better start a job search.

[KantoSooner]

There was a reason the free trade part was parenthetical. It doesn't exist. What we have now is fiat currency manipulation that completely destroys any notion of free trade. It all comes at a huge cost. The free trade lingo sounds pretty good but it just doesn't work well as it's now praticed. If philosophical economic theory is the altar you worship at then carry on. Even an eccentric like Ross Perot was able to see this one coming years ago.

You ever consider the backside cost of all of this in a welfare state like the USA?

The currency manipulation thingie? Largely BS.

Like 'dumping' if you keep your currency artificially low, you are, in effect, selling below cost. And what do we call those people who buy something below cost? Smart people. There are lots of things that can not be outsourced (most service jobs, virtually anything medical, extractive industries (oil), construction and so forth), but, count on it, anything that can be, will be, unless you're the lowest cost maker.

And, if you disable international trade, you will only cripple your own economy. Which, of course, long term, will mean that your citizens will be desperate and will work for lower wages than anyone else and you will therefore become a manufacturing hub. I'm assuming that was not your goal.

Perhaps we should train for more stable careers, individualize pensions and health insurance so that workers are more mobile and allow perhaps a tax break for moving costs if you have to up stakes and go where jobs are.

[SoonerorLater]

No, but an American IT worker should wake up each and every morning and think real hard about how he's going to produce enough value to justify being paid more. And, if he can't, he'd better start a job search.

What you are suggesting is great hyperbole but vacant in reality. The folly should be obvious. It would be the same as if you had two football teams on the same field playing a game but each team playing by a separate set of rules. I suppose we could start farming out work to North Korea to really lower costs and create market efficiencies. Talk about a low cost, motivated work force. Where the minimum wage is what.....a bullet to the head if you don't do what you are told?

[KantoSooner]

No, because there you have other concerns, like do your customers want to buy slave made goods. So far, at least, they appear more than happy to buy goods made in relatively free economies such as Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brazil, Vietnam, Mexico, etc etc.

It's the world. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say, "yayayayayayayaa I can't hear you' as long as you want. The world will still be out there.

[OU68]

No, because there you have other concerns, like do your customers want to buy slave made goods. So far, at least, they appear more than happy to buy goods made in relatively free economies such as Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brazil, Vietnam, Mexico, etc etc.

It's the world. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say, "yayayayayayayaa I can't hear you' as long as you want. The world will still be out there.

Nice dodge but it still denies the reality that a CIO will choose $25/hr India over $50/hr US every time.

[SoonerorLater]

No, because there you have other concerns, like do your customers want to buy slave made goods. So far, at least, they appear more than happy to buy goods made in relatively free economies such as Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brazil, Vietnam, Mexico, etc etc.

It's the world. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say, "yayayayayayayaa I can't hear you' as long as you want. The world will still be out there.

Don't know about fingers in the ears but I'm definitely for putting up some firewalls between us and the rest of the world. I don't want to become so entwined in the relations with other countries that their problems wash up on our doorstep. I have no problem with the U.S. becoming somewhat more insular and self sufficient.

[KantoSooner]

Nice dodge but it still denies the reality that a CIO will choose $25/hr India over $50/hr US every time.

Never denied it. In fact that's exactly what I was saying. With the caveat that, if one's customers began to snub you because your goods were imported, any corp manager would obey the market. So far, WalMart is a pretty convincing answer that that is not happening.
And, further, if I can get the same job done in India for half the price, I have duty to my shareholders to go get it done in India until such time as my US supplier gets his act together and learns to do his work efficiently. People in general don't invest in companies who define their corporate mission as "subsidizing sloth, obsolecence, waste and disorganization".

[OU68]

Never denied it. In fact that's exactly what I was saying. With the caveat that, if one's customers began to snub you because your goods were imported, any corp manager would obey the market. So far, WalMart is a pretty convincing answer that that is not happening.
And, further, if I can get the same job done in India for half the price, I have duty to my shareholders to go get it done in India until such time as my US supplier gets his act together and learns to do his work efficiently. People in general don't invest in companies who define their corporate mission as "subsidizing sloth, obsolecence, waste and disorganization".

So American workers are sloths, obsolete and wasteful? In your utopia everyone is paid according to the lowest common denominator - wow, glad I'm nearing retirement!

[jkjsooner]

So American workers are sloths, obsolete and wasteful? In your utopia everyone is paid according to the lowest common denominator - wow, glad I'm nearing retirement!

The problem I see is that this is somewhat of a generational thing. The older workers who are nearing or at retirement and have their 401k's and pensions set love the trend of outsourcing as it enhances their bottom line.

They may have felt differently had this been an issue during their prime working years. But back then it was only low skilled work being sent overseas so the line was, "Go back to school and learn a skill." Now they'll send every skilled work they can to the lowest cost craphole in the world. And if it's a job they can't send overseas, they'll import as many foreigners as they can under the guise that there's a labor shortage. (See all the nurses who can't find work even though we are told we have a critical shortage of them.)


And, Kanto, maybe what you say is true and we are fighting the inevitable but I'm not going to just shut up and let it happen. The end result is that we will be pulled down to the lowest common denominator. Our corporations see it as a benefit but what they don't see is that they're losing control. Given time these people won't be satisfied with just doing the work and we're building up their infrastructure and skills so that they can eventually take over. You already see that happening in the tech industry in India.

[Since71ASooner4Life]

Try Somalia, Rwanda (in the 90's), Congo ......to name a few that I have been to. Mexico is utterly corrupt and Brazil has its issues. There are lots of people in those countries who have gotten to the top by murdering a lot of people.

You can always find examples of corruption. None of these examples have anything to do with life in the USA and the blame game Obama and his radical left pals are playing.

[Since71ASooner4Life]

My whole point was the libs/dems are now using this term as a new social atrocity, that in my opinion is wrong. Do you think a fast food counter worker should make the same as a teacher?

It's always something. DD, if you don't think society, the dems, libs..whatever you want to call them are not promoting this equality thing to the death of our great country you are wrong. As a public school teacher I continually tell my kids...they EARN their grade. They have the opportunity of a lifetime in making themselves BETTER everyday in school. Then they go hear the gov will take care of them...make everything equal.

The GF...yes THAT one!...works with low-income families, some immigrants. One family is from Africa, the husband just got a second job due to their rent being increased, he now works 5 - 13 hour days. Tell me how many born Americans would do that? none...Why not? Because they are being told it's not their fault...the gov is here to make everything equal....BULL$hit...

Do I agree with corporations raping the land and people..no, but I really don't think this is the issue they are talking about. Just my late night 2 cents...lol


That hit the bulls-eye ...

[Since71ASooner4Life]

jeep:

This whole right wing mantra about class warfare against the rich rings hollow. There is absolutely no data to support this supposed war against the rich. Hell even the rich don't buy it with guys like Gates saying they do not pay enough taxes.



I'm stunned that you say this. Obama is the biggest tool on the face of the earth when it comes to inciting class warfare. During his first election he was all about unity in selling himself as a new breed politician who wasn't for old same old political fighting. During the 2nd election his campaign rallies sounded more like a UAW organizer waving a burning 2x4 on the picket line. Had he come out as the radical class warfare inciting extremist that he is during the first campaign, he never would have beat Hillary in the primary. I never thought anyone could make myself and other conservatives wish that Hillary were president, but he's succeeded

[KantoSooner]

So American workers are sloths, obsolete and wasteful? In your utopia everyone is paid according to the lowest common denominator - wow, glad I'm nearing retirement!

Nope, lots of American workers are great. I just have zero interest in subsidizing industries or companies that can't or won't compete.
You, however, can feel free to buy 'Made In America' without reference to quality or price if that is your decision.

[KantoSooner]

And, Kanto, maybe what you say is true and we are fighting the inevitable but I'm not going to just shut up and let it happen. The end result is that we will be pulled down to the lowest common denominator. Our corporations see it as a benefit but what they don't see is that they're losing control. Given time these people won't be satisfied with just doing the work and we're building up their infrastructure and skills so that they can eventually take over. You already see that happening in the tech industry in India.

India is not a bit of a threat...unless you crave jobs doing call center work (which they are already pricing themselves out of) or low level programing (which is being automated at a furious clip).
Manufacturing has changed over the past two generations and we all need to reexamine the paradigm of River Rouge. Given bank credit, you can go anywhere in the world and build a factory to build anything inside 24 months. During that time, you can train the people to work inside that factory.
I was a supplier to a computer chip plant in Borneo (outside Kuching, Malaysia). WTF. I mean seriously, WTF. Borneo?!? They don't even have a large population of potential workers. So why? Well, the provincial government had a seemingly bottomless pit of money to loan at 0% soooooooooooo......
My point is that we lose next to nothing when manufacturing slops around finding the low cost place to be. And, hopefully, it ultimately sets up in places with natural rationality to them. Like close to raw materials (which ultimately benefits all of us by cutting transport of same.)
The losers are workers, but not just any workers. The ones who lose are those with no skills. The fungible lumpen proles. Instead of playing the union game of demanding firemen on diesel locomotives, we need to turn those no-skill workers into people with skills. And I'd even favor government funding of training. Beats hell out of paying welfare.

[REDREX]

India is not a bit of a threat...unless you crave jobs doing call center work (which they are already pricing themselves out of) or low level programing (which is being automated at a furious clip).
Manufacturing has changed over the past two generations and we all need to reexamine the paradigm of River Rouge. Given bank credit, you can go anywhere in the world and build a factory to build anything inside 24 months. During that time, you can train the people to work inside that factory.
I was a supplier to a computer chip plant in Borneo (outside Kuching, Malaysia). WTF. I mean seriously, WTF. Borneo?!? They don't even have a large population of potential workers. So why? Well, the provincial government had a seemingly bottomless pit of money to loan at 0% soooooooooooo......
My point is that we lose next to nothing when manufacturing slops around finding the low cost place to be. And, hopefully, it ultimately sets up in places with natural rationality to them. Like close to raw materials (which ultimately benefits all of us by cutting transport of same.)
The losers are workers, but not just any workers. The ones who lose are those with no skills. The fungible lumpen proles. Instead of playing the union game of demanding firemen on diesel locomotives, we need to turn those no-skill workers into people with skills. And I'd even favor government funding of training. Beats hell out of paying welfare.----Gov't training programs are a huge waste of money-----my cousin got on the Gov't tit and spent 15 years being "retrained" ---even ended up with a college degree ---These programs never work

[jkjsooner]

The losers are workers, but not just any workers. The ones who lose are those with no skills. The fungible lumpen proles. Instead of playing the union game of demanding firemen on diesel locomotives, we need to turn those no-skill workers into people with skills. And I'd even favor government funding of training. Beats hell out of paying welfare.

That's just not true. Plenty of skilled work has been sent to third world countries. At first it was engineering and computer work but it's also moved on to accounting, etc. There's no reason to believe this trend won't continue.

I am in software development and from my experience off-shoring work is a crap shoot at best. While there are really smart guys in India, the majority of them are mediocre at best. They push technology careers education on a large percentage of their society (at least the part that isn't stuck in poverty) which has benefits but when you work with them you realize that most of them are not inherently interested in science, math, and technology and they chose that line of work because society expected it of them. Add to that the cost and inefficiencies of having workers who spend maybe an hour or two at work at the same time and it can be problematic.

But, anyway, that doesn't mean that the CEO won't ship more jobs overseas to save money.

[KantoSooner]

----Gov't training programs are a huge waste of money-----my cousin got on the Gov't tit and spent 15 years being "retrained" ---even ended up with a college degree ---These programs never work
Didn't say they were. But some sort of training is imperative. There simply aren't any good jobs that require no more than knowledge of how to run a shovel.

[KantoSooner]

That's just not true. Plenty of skilled work has been sent to third world countries. At first it was engineering and computer work but it's also moved on to accounting, etc. There's no reason to believe this trend won't continue.

I am in software development and from my experience off-shoring work is a crap shoot at best. While there are really smart guys in India, the majority of them are mediocre at best. They push technology careers education on a large percentage of their society (at least the part that isn't stuck in poverty) which has benefits but when you work with them you realize that most of them are not inherently interested in science, math, and technology and they chose that line of work because society expected it of them. Add to that the cost and inefficiencies of having workers who spend maybe an hour or two at work at the same time and it can be problematic.

But, anyway, that doesn't mean that the CEO won't ship more jobs overseas to save money.

You don't send your high end design work out to be done in a low cost center for precisely the reasons you state. You can send the lower end scut work out very effectively. The problem India and other 'low cost' centers are now starting to face is also exactly what you imply: they can't do the high end and the really low end stuff is increasingly being automated....and moved back 'on-shore' for QC reasons.

CEO's aren't evil. Nor are most particularly stupid. They will move what makes sense to that place where it can be done the cheapest. If that's Oklahoma City, they are good with that. Likewise, they're good with it if it's Mumbai. But it has to be an 'all in' calculation. Simply having a $2/hr labor advantage is not the whole picture.

None of which helps if you're a US worker with skills easily purchased elsewhere for less. Solution? Don't allow yourself to be easily replicated for cheap. Because there is no reason on earth why your fellow citizens should all be forced to pay part of your salary because you can't be bothered to keep up with global competition. (which is precisely what protectionism is in a nutshell.)

[REDREX]

Didn't say they were. But some sort of training is imperative. There simply aren't any good jobs that require no more than knowledge of how to run a shovel.----What type of training?----People need to do that for themselves -----Please show me a Gov't training program that has worked

[KantoSooner]

The GI bill springs to mind....
Along with everyone who was ever trained on computers, engine repair/maintenance, aircraft piloting, radar/air traffic control, emergency medical tech, etc, etc, etc while in the military.

[REDREX]

The GI bill springs to mind....
Along with everyone who was ever trained on computers, engine repair/maintenance, aircraft piloting, radar/air traffic control, emergency medical tech, etc, etc, etc while in the military.---GI bill not even part of the discussion----sounds like they need to join the army----I have friends that have kids in the military they say it is almost impossible to get sent to the training they want to take----------

[KantoSooner]

It's government training, is it not? And it seems to have trained a whole slew of people for things they later went on to do for a living (like a huge number of airline pilots), no?
So, even if you believe that government job training programs have been crap to date (and you would not be entirely wrong in that, in my opinion), it's pretty clear that some parts of the government train people pretty damn well.

As to training that a person wants to get, let's just suppose that, as a condition of getting unemployment or welfare, you had to go in, take an aptitude test and take training in that area. Hell, at least you'd be training people to show up and do something for X hours a day....or not get money.

And that, to me, is a healthier way to address the issue of foreign competition than to erect tariff walls so that an individual can stand in front of the same machine his daddy stood in front of for ten times what an Indonesian would earn for the same job....all the while the Germans and Japanese have put a robot there and moved the hell on.

[REDREX]

It's government training, is it not? And it seems to have trained a whole slew of people for things they later went on to do for a living (like a huge number of airline pilots), no?
So, even if you believe that government job training programs have been crap to date (and you would not be entirely wrong in that, in my opinion), it's pretty clear that some parts of the government train people pretty damn well.

As to training that a person wants to get, let's just suppose that, as a condition of getting unemployment or welfare, you had to go in, take an aptitude test and take training in that area. Hell, at least you'd be training people to show up and do something for X hours a day....or not get money.

And that, to me, is a healthier way to address the issue of foreign competition than to erect tariff walls so that an individual can stand in front of the same machine his daddy stood in front of for ten times what an Indonesian would earn for the same job....all the while the Germans and Japanese have put a robot there and moved the hell on.----Get a grip-----Most of the people are not trained because they are not trainable or they would do it themselves----This country has pissed away a lot of money on stupid programs like you want.

[OU68]

You don't send your high end design work out to be done in a low cost center for precisely the reasons you state. You can send the lower end scut work out very effectively. The problem India and other 'low cost' centers are now starting to face is also exactly what you imply: they can't do the high end and the really low end stuff is increasingly being automated....and moved back 'on-shore' for QC reasons.

CEO's aren't evil. Nor are most particularly stupid. They will move what makes sense to that place where it can be done the cheapest. If that's Oklahoma City, they are good with that. Likewise, they're good with it if it's Mumbai. But it has to be an 'all in' calculation. Simply having a $2/hr labor advantage is not the whole picture.

None of which helps if you're a US worker with skills easily purchased elsewhere for less. Solution? Don't allow yourself to be easily replicated for cheap. Because there is no reason on earth why your fellow citizens should all be forced to pay part of your salary because you can't be bothered to keep up with global competition. (which is precisely what protectionism is in a nutshell.)

No, no, and no. SAP is not low end scut work. The business/functional spec is written here and sent over there to be programmed - the majority of technical work here is "running an offshore team".

[KantoSooner]

No, no, and no. SAP is not low end scut work. The business/functional spec is written here and sent over there to be programmed - the majority of technical work here is "running an offshore team".

No, SAP is a Satanic cult designed to destroy all business it touches. (ten years later, I still bear the scars of an implementation.)

"The business/functional spec is written HERE..."

Now, which part of doing an SAP implementation is the more difficult?

And, frankly, programming has never been the only tech job out there. In machine tools, a lot is done in China...but the designs are done in Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Chicago. That's my point: you farm out what you can. Some stuff you can't. And that tends to be the high end tasks.

[KantoSooner]

----Get a grip-----Most of the people are not trained because they are not trainable or they would do it themselves----This country has pissed away a lot of money on stupid programs like you want.

If you truly believe that (and you really don't), then we shouldn't worry because we'll have to either let the untrainable starve and be rid of them or set up feeding stations if we don't want to watch them starve. Pretty simple choice.

If, on the other hand, we really don't believe X% of our population to be beyond hope, then, rather than tax ourselves so that we can give them pretend jobs (which is what paying someone here more than someone there to do the same work really is), it might make more sense to set up a path down which these folks can move on their own, or be chivvied, that leads to some form of useful employment.