[evilgenius]

I was interested to see that the world's richest woman, an Australian mining magnate, recently spewed about how the workers in the West have got to come to terms with lower wages or become so uncompetitive as to lose out. At the same time South Africa, part of the continent she praised for its low wages, is consumed by an expanding industrial action amongst its miners for more money. It seems that even with double wages they wouldn't even come close to base pay in the West and they don't like that. These low wages have contributed to South Africa having perhaps the greatest discrepancy between rich and poor in the world. This doesn't say very much for the transparency of the opinions held by the world's richest woman. My bet is that she would love for the West to go farther toward South Africa style wage discrepancy than away from it.

In the end attitudes like this by the rich seem short-sighted to me. Sure they produce greater wealth amongst the successful because of relative changes, if nothing else, but they don't bode well for any kind of long term sustainability concerning a rich person's revenue stream. Maybe this is a reflection of how much the rich are actually quite lucky, having started with a pile or having found themselves in a greatly advantageous position to begin with rather than working a fixture of probabilities and discovering opportunity? Maybe, in this way, they are like people who invest for short term gain and have nothing but bad things to say about dividends and other kinds of more steadily returning aspects of investment? Maybe, having really been actually quite lucky, they just try to drain what they have working for them of every last drop before it goes away completely? Maybe they are far less expert at wealth and much more lucky than even the most ardent social critic might think? I can hear you saying, nah. Ok, but think about it. The balance that society holds these people in may be a little off, producing a little more confidence in them than they deserve.

That being said, what does this mean when it comes to the first world? Real wages amongst the working people have been drifting down in places like the US since the 70's. Meanwhile, what the capitalists claim for themselves, and probably more importantly the pseudo-capitalist managers, has been going nowhere but up. The crisis of the most recent crash in housing was what? Wasn't it a result of people borrowing? Hmmm, borrowing in order to make up the difference between what they actually made and what they perceived they needed to make in order to live the life they could see transpiring all about them. The habit of turning to borrowing rather than agitating for an increase in wages was a gentle way to get along with the status quo as long as it lasted, wasn't it? Now look where it has gotten us. There is scarcely a person in a regular working position that can say they wouldn't take a pay cut in order to preserve their job right now. The working class has reached a real ebb in its power to speak for itself too, organized workplaces are very small in number compared to all of the shops where every worker essentially goes it alone. All of this has happened and, I bet you, still the majority of workers look upon unions with an attitude of disdain and a fear that they will take too much of their wages in dues.

[Plantagenet]

Marx was correct. Overpopulation on a finite planet will turn us all into beggars.

Marx never said that.

Marx did consider surplus labor, and he prophesized that "surplus" workers in capitalist societies (i.e. people who couldn't find work----the kind of people that the obama administration now calls "discouraged workers") would be able to find employment and contentment when socialism was established and solved all the world's problems.

Its just another example of how Marx's thinking is stuck in the 19th century and isn't relevant to current conditions. We now know that that peak oil and overpopulation will beggar BOTH capitalist and socialist economies.

[SeaGypsy]

Gina recently got a deal with the government to fly in up to 29,000 foreign workers for a big project in WA needing up to 80,000 workers over 10 years. The same person refuses to employ Australians with less than 2 years specific mining experience.

[seenmostofit]

The working class has reached a real ebb in its power to speak for itself too, organized workplaces are very small in number compared to all of the shops where every worker essentially goes it alone. All of this has happened and, I bet you, still the majority of workers look upon unions with an attitude of disdain and a fear that they will take too much of their wages in dues.

Who would you define as the "working class"? In America, it appears to be popular for children to all go to college, as though a nation of all college grads won't both A) devalue a college education and B) there won't be anyone left around to sell hamburgers, man the movie theaters or bus tables at local restaurants.

[SeaGypsy]

That's what migration's for isn't it?

[evilgenius]

The working class has reached a real ebb in its power to speak for itself too, organized workplaces are very small in number compared to all of the shops where every worker essentially goes it alone. All of this has happened and, I bet you, still the majority of workers look upon unions with an attitude of disdain and a fear that they will take too much of their wages in dues.

Who would you define as the "working class"? In America, it appears to be popular for children to all go to college, as though a nation of all college grads won't both A) devalue a college education and B) there won't be anyone left around to sell hamburgers, man the movie theaters or bus tables at local restaurants.

I was wondering if anyone pondered such questions these days. The 'workers' are all those that make it possible for educated or capital intensive positions to achieve what it is that they need to do to find themselves in the place of success. This might be in a support role, such as an office or semi-office cadre, or as a shop laborer, on a line or putting together burgers.

Basically, I'm asking if those in positions of 'authority' will need to scale back their demands and expectations in these times. There are arguments that say so, especially those of interest rates (moreso in light of the Fed's latest QE infinity proclamation). I think that deflation is demanding concessions and that the world isn't noticing.

[evilgenius]

Here's a link to a real life story that is dealing with this, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/14/amanda_palmer_play_for_beer/. It's not about mining, but it does have to do with paying those that capital needs working for it in order to accomplish what it wants. Plus it's funny.

[Outcast_Searcher]

It would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money" via:

A). Compromise a bit.
B). Pay a little more in taxes
C). Give a little something up (for the truly very badly off, this could be an exception if society agreed on that).

If we could just do THAT -- we in the first world might be able to dig out of the financial nightmare in, say, a generation of hard work.

So, again, since there are NO adults in the room (politicians, or the whiny populace (of all flavors including me) which elects them, I think we need to:

a). Cut ALL programs to some extent.
b). Raise ALL individual taxes to some extent.
c). Gradually repeat A and B until we actually have a meaningful budget SURPLUS, and can eventually pay off our debts.

.....

Now I know: depending on which economic pundit you listen to this would "be too hard" on some group, "cause disincentives", "be cruel and mean and heartless", "be 'unfair':, etc). And I know since almost NO one wants to look out for anyone outside THEIR interests (family, etc), that this will NEVER EVER be accepted. We'll all ride off the cliff screaming hatred and stupidity at each other first.

I just wanted to point out that if EVERYONE would adjust somewhat and we collectively agreed to live within our means (whatever sacrifices, including having lots less kids in the future), that it would at least be a noble and reasonably intelligent try.

(And BTW, this doesn't mean we couldn't have more of SOME things. We would just need to actually prioritize and be willing to choose (preferably wisely), and forego some things. Again, I know, this has less chance than a snowball surviving a billion years in Hell).

(And FWIW, I do the equivalent of this in my own life by practicing what I preach, via private decisions about lifestyle, helping people, charitable giving, etc. So I'm not just saying "hey - 'you all' should behave like THAT while I do the opposite").

I'll shut up now as humans definitely do NOT generally resemble Vulcans in discipline or logic!

[FarQ3]

Evil,

That same Australian mining magnate also explained that Australian workers should work longer hours for less money to attain personal wealth .... I'm still trying to figure the logic in that idea, perhaps she was really refering to the enhancement of her own personal wealth? ,maybe we should all take turns at sucking her toes for her? or maybe giving her a back scrub .... Well, her daddy did refer to her as a baby elephant!

[chris89]

It would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money"

I think there's more to it than that. I know it sounds reasonable and even-handed to ask everyone to "just get along" but there's some legitimate reasons why the poor should be fighting for more and the rich should be willing to go with less. Someone on food stamps can't go with less without going hungry. Saying we need to cut right accross all government programmes is what the rich want anyhow in the best of times. It will have no negative impact on them. That is except for military spending.

[evilgenius]

It would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money"

I think there's more to it than that. I know it sounds reasonable and even-handed to ask everyone to "just get along" but there's some legitimate reasons why the poor should be fighting for more and the rich should be willing to go with less. Someone on food stamps can't go with less without going hungry. Saying we need to cut right accross all government programmes is what the rich want anyhow in the best of times. It will have no negative impact on them. That is except for military spending.

Well said. These things do come about as a result of arguments, but how can we expect some to die for the sake of an argument?

This reminds me of several conversations I have had lately with people about what has gone wrong with Obama. I always speak right up and say I like Obama, but that I do have one knock on him, he hasn't experimented enough. I perceive him as too stuck in the role of an ideologue and not enough the practical scientist out looking for experimental results. Obama is stuck on things like QE, for instance, and very much unlike FDR not engaging the public in varying schemes which might prove to provide stimulus in some scalable manner should they work. Importantly, he seems the only guy in the ring who might eventually realize that's what he needs to do. Romney, well, he seems too willing to let people die for the sake of an argument. Maybe that's not the real Romney, he was a fairly practical governor of a 'Liberal' state. His attempt to be more right than his heart really is could really be the fly in the ointment for him, but this personal quagmire and his wallowing in it doesn't show us any real tendency to do what is necessary really.

[Outcast_Searcher]

It would be nice if EVERYBODY, and I mean rich, poor, irresponsible and think they're poor (self-inflicted poor), politicians, lawyers, etc. would ALL be willing (net) "accept less money"

These things do come about as a result of arguments, but how can we expect some to die for the sake of an argument?

Evil:

Well, it would be nice if we could actually have some balance and honesty in the discussion. Acting like there will be a meaningful number of people who would DIE if a little were taken from some programs, ESPECIALLY when I specifically mentioned potentially having the (truly) poor be exempt if society agreed to that is an example of hard left extremism. (i.e. there never is enough redisribution, and personal responsibility NEVER comes into it).

Recently on "Need to Know" on PBS there was a show about the "working poor". The (clearly far left wing) commentators on PBS who showed a short segment of the show n the PBS News Hour said these people were "barely over the poverty line and did not qualify for government aid."

Well, within the first MINUTE, it showed that they received each month:

a). Food Stamps
b). Unemployment insurance of about $1400 (a government benefit)
c). Subsidized Rent
d). They were about $15,000 ABOVE the poverty line.
e). One of the three people was making no effort to help (young, healthy, unemployed and NO work history of any kind cited).

Within a couple more minutes it showed that MOST of the problem was things like

a). Driving an expensive car.
b). Paying high parking fees.
c). Paying for all kinds of things like laptops, fancy cell phones, cable, multiple cats, and on and on and on.

(Watching the full half hour show made this all abundantly clear, if there were any doubt from the 5 minute intro. I watched both).

In other words -- the people weren't really poor in any objective sense, and their problem was mostly self-inflicted (aside from the cost of health insurance which I DO think we need to fix via some socialized system). But aside from suggesting financial counseling (which I would agree to support and help pay for IF being somewhat financially responsible was a requirement for such "poor" after counseling) -- the commentators acted like the problem was all "unsolvable except with more income (i.e. endless redistribution)" and that they "had no control over their situation" yadda yadda yadda.

And this was their poster child "hardship" family to bring attention to the "working poor hardship" problem.

So, when you immediatly jump to talking about people DYING as a result of a balanced approach to solving the country's financial problems -- sorry, but you get zero in the credibility scale from anyone right of center, and I suspect anyone right of the far-left zone.

So go ahead and maintain the extremist left positions (and the far right does the same thing, and I condemn that as well) -- the problems will NEVER even BEGIN to be solved with that old-school thinking. (But you of course pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how politically correct you are).

The "war on poverty" is a good fifty years old now -- hasn't exactly BEGUN to solve the problem, now has it?

[FarQ3]

OS,

I can definatey see where you are coming from and your argument has a large degree of merit. Consider however that the 'poverty line' income level in for what size family? or is it meant as a per capita income level? Also the laptop and mobile phones many have these days are in fact very cheap items and 'essential' as in you need to have them for gaining employment and also how many 'public phone boxes' are around these days. Also 'expensive' to run cars are cheaper to purchase up front so people on low incomes tend to have large uneconomical cars.

I was bought up in a low income neighbourhood where the families are similar to the one mentioned by OS in the 'Working Poor' show. Many (not most) of the parents have health OR mental OR addiction problems and if government subsidies were cut they and their children would go hungry, that is unless they could gain further income via criminal activity. Sadly in a some cases parents care more about their addictions than they care about their children.

It is probably cheaper to try support families so that their children have some (albeit small) chance at a better life than to build and staff institutions for more criminals and parentless children. When there is less oportunity it is the less educated and their children that suffer the most. We could just let the children starve I suppose and shoot them whenever they break the law sufficiently.

I was lucky, my dad had a well paying job that allowed my mother to stay at home and rear us. How many parents get that nowadays?

[vision-master]

Poor ppl and addictions? What's next, hookers in the private suites at the football game, don't you feel small, it happens to us all

[chris89]

Well, it would be nice if we could actually have some balance and honesty in the discussion. Acting like there will be a meaningful number of people who would DIE if a little were taken from some programs

What would be a meaningful number out of the 46 million Americans on food stamps?

Even if 45 million of those 46 million Americans have too many cats, a laptop and more than one pair of socks, are the one million legitimately poor and hungry Americans a meaningul number?

[SeaGypsy]

I applaud OS' openness to socialised medicine & call for balance/ rationalised debate.

Paradoxically much of what is being done/ not being done to improve the situation is in the defence of middle class asset value; ie. the real estate and stock markets. There are a swathe of wasteful government spends in all first world countries based on nothing much more than maintaining the wage status quo in fear of RE/ banking collapse. There are reams of papers to wade through in order to be allowed to legally trade a carrot for an egg/ stupid laws galore, anti productive, anti local, anti competitive, pro mega business, anti the ordinary family. A crazy situation with no end in sight.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Well, it would be nice if we could actually have some balance and honesty in the discussion. Acting like there will be a meaningful number of people who would DIE if a little were taken from some programs

What would be a meaningful number out of the 46 million Americans on food stamps?

Even if 45 million of those 46 million Americans have too many cats, a laptop and more than one pair of socks, are the one million legitimately poor and hungry Americans a meaningul number?

Chris, and I never said that ANYONE should starve -- or even be cold, hungry or without crucial medical care. Whether the number is 1 million or 5 million, I believe all BUT the far right are willing to help those people short term, especially if longer term those capable of it will make an EFFORT to improve their situation.

1). I said that if society could agree on it I was just fine with exempting the objective poor (i.e. "legitimately poor and hungry") from making the sacrifices I think EVERYBODY else should make.

2). It's the other 40 or 45 million (or whatever the number is -- it certainly seems like a large majority (according to empical data and what one observes year after year)) who DO have the pile of irresponsible expenses that incense much of the more responsible middle class who is asked to pay for their bad habits, and by the far left who claims such payments are NEVER enough (even though we are essentially bankrupt).

....

So, if we could fix the healthcare issue via SOME "reasonable" form of socialized medicine (perhaps looking to several examples in the first world that actually work reasonably well over all), that fixes the BIG issue that people really do have little control over -- especially the random catastrophic health events that could hit anyone at almost any time -- that would solve a huge problem for everyone who isn't rich. (Although it's messy, I'll call Obamacare a good start with good intentions).

So THEN if we could come up with some sort of "reasonable" definition of what (to use your words) "legitimate poor and hungry Americans" are -- and work to ensure THEY are not left poor and hungry -- we have solved the bulk of the problem as far as I'm concerned. Sure there are details (should they do public service for their benefits if they are healthy? How do we get them (re)trained so they can get decent work down the road? etc), but that would hit the big picture.

The problem is -- we can never get CLOSE to that. The far right wants to lump ALL the "poor" into the "NOT legitimate" bucket and cut off access to care. The far left wants to lump EVERYONE who doesn't have (essentially) every creature comfort they want -- despite how irrational or irresponsible their behavior is -- into the "poor" and demand we all pay to take care of them (and they will never ever define how much is "enough").

So the two sides are MILES apart and show NO sign of any willingness to work toward ANY kind of compromise whatsoever. And this general trend has been going on for at least as long as the "war on poverty" in America.

I don't see how we fix it. You and I can have an honest conversation and admit that neither side's position is completely reasonable (or frankly, even close to reasonable). However -- we aren't trying to get re-elected. Meanwhile, the objectively poor suffer, and we are going bankrupt as a nation, and both trends are getting worse at a frightening rate.

And I don't see EITHER side actually doing anything meaningful to fix the overall problem, regardless of who gets elected.

[Plantagenet]

So the two sides are MILES apart and show NO sign of any willingness to work toward ANY kind of compromise whatsoever. And this general trend has been going on for at least as long as the "war on poverty" in America.

Thats not really true. The "war on poverty" was started by LBJ in the late 1960s. When the republicans took over Congress in the 1990s and Clinton was president they worked together to reform welfare and actually added a work requirement and lifetime limits on benefits. As a result the welfare rolls shrunk.

I don't see EITHER side actually doing anything meaningful to fix the overall problem, regardless of who gets elected.

Its really asking too much to expect either side to quickly "fix the overall problem". ---The best we can hope for is changes that will fix some problems and make things somewhat better.

Unfortunately, during the last four years under Obama and the dems, things have been getting worse. The elibibility rules for programs were loosened up, and the number of people on food stamps and other sorts of welfare benefits has exploded. A few months ago the bipartisan welfare work requirement that helped shrink welfare rolls in the 90s was recently unilaterally "waived" by Obama. In constrast, Republicans would seek to drive food stamp use back down, and would reinstate the work requirement.