WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe

[RandFan]

You brought up the increasing income gap, and tied this to the decline of labor unions.

Now you admit it has nothing to do with unions?

? WTH? How do you get "nothing to do with" from "can"? Please, I'm dying to know how you get such an absolute position from that. I do believe that the decline in labor unions has led to the gap. I don't believe that labor unions can in every instance prevent gaps. See the difference between "tend" and the absolute?

 

[WildCat]

? WTH? How do you get "nothing to do with" from "can"? Please, I'm dying to know how you get such an absolute position from that. I do believe that the decline in labor unions has led to the gap. I don't believe that labor unions can in every instance prevent gaps. See the difference between "tend" and the absolute?

Ah, so it's a belief you have and not something you have any evidence of?

 

[RandFan]

Ah, so it's a belief you have and not something you have any evidence of?

So far I have simply claimed the belief. I've provided no evidence that there is a cause and effect relationship. Do you claim that the standard of living for the any or all of the 3rd. 4th and bottom 5th income brackets have remained static factoring inflation? IOW: Do you believe that standard of living has not changed (allowing of course for recessions) for the lower tiers of society since the 50s?

The median weekly earnings of union workers are 28 percent higher than non-union workers.

 

[WildCat]

So far I have simply claimed the belief. I've provided no evidence that there is a cause and effect relationship. Do you claim that the standard of living for the any or all of the 3rd. 4th and bottom 5th income brackets have remained static factoring inflation? IOW: Do you believe that standard of living has not changed (allowing of course for recessions) for the lower tiers of society since the 50s?

I'm asking you what evidence you have that any of that is related to CEO salaries?

And I don't think you have the slightest clue how low the "lower tiers of society" were living in the 1950s. Back then you'd be lucky to have electricity and indoor plumbing, and forget about a TV or phone.

 

[RandFan]

I'm asking you what evidence you have that any of that is related to CEO salaries?

I've been clear from the beginning that my concern was for the declining standard of living. I stated clearly that if the lower tiers were not declining I wouldn't give a damn about the gap.

And I don't think you have the slightest clue how low the "lower tiers of society" were living in the 1950s. Back then you'd be lucky to have electricity and indoor plumbing, and forget about a TV or phone.

This doesn't address the question. It's just a personal attack, a red herring. Do you claim that the standard of living for the lower tiers are static or rising? Are the lower tiers able to pay their bills and not have to worry about homelessness and a trend of less and less discretionary income. Your false consolation does nothing to address the real problems facing the lower middle class.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You're OK with people being denied the right to negotiate?

If so, I think we should deny corporations the right to negotiate too. Government doesn't need to pay $5 Billion for each new stealth fighter; We should just pay $50 million and tell the contractors to "suck it up."

We could, but then we wouldn't get any stealth fighters.

 

[WildCat]

I've been clear from the beginning that my concern was for the declining standard of living. I stated clearly that if the lower tiers were not declining I wouldn't give a damn about the gap.

There you go with the gap again... why is it relevant at all to the declining standard of living you say is happening? Why do you care about the gap if it is unrelated to your claimed decline?

This doesn't address the question. It's just a personal attack, a red herring. Do you claim that the standard of living for the lower tiers are static or rising? Are the lower tiers able to pay their bills and not have to worry about homelessness and a trend of less and less discretionary income. Your false consolation does nothing to address the real problems facing the lower middle class.

Are you still claiming that there has been a decline in the standard of living for the lower tier since the 1950s?

 

[WildCat]

We could, but then we wouldn't get any stealth fighters.

Which should be obvious to anyone. If they could be built for $50 million everyone would have them.

 

[RandFan]

There you go with the gap again... why is it relevant at all to the declining standard of living you say is happening? Why do you care about the gap if it is unrelated to your claimed decline?

I've stated my position over and over. What do you not understand? If the trend for the lower classes isn't declining when adjusted for inflation then I don't care. If it is then I do care. Now, how many times must I tell you that? Do you understand the logical operator of "if then"?

Are you still claiming that there has been a decline in the standard of living for the lower tier since the 1950s?

• I state clearly what I claim.
• I ask you questions.
• You ignore my questions.
• You then ask me to restate my claim.

I don't now specifically where we currently stand compared to the 1950s. I believe the overall trend is very bad and has been for awhile. There have been ups and downs. Particularly during the Clinton admin but for those in the lower tiers things are not at all looking good long trend. Even when we recover to where we were before the financial collapse the standard will likely be lower with no reason to think it will get better for those near the bottom.

Now, please to answer my questions. Why is it you expect me to answer your questions but refuse to answer mine?

 

[fuelair]

WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe*










*It is my opinion that he should be involved in a major anal probe.

 

[mhaze]

WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe*

*It is my opinion that he should be involved in a major anal probe.

Well, looks like the only places "walker implicated" is even being discussed is the very truthy left wing wacko sites.

 

[eeyore1954]

Thanks. You are correct that I used median income which is a poor metric because it doesn't take into account inequality. If the rich are rising and the poor are falling then the median can stay the same, correct? So, we can agree that median is a poor metric.

Do you claim that the standard of living for the lower middle class has remained static?

But does that translate into growth for the lower tiers of society?

[qimg]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7717/ahiu.jpg[/qimg]

Do you claim that the standard of living for the 3rd. 4th and bottom 5ths have remained static factoring inflation?

Given the overall trend I hardly think it matters. Is the data available?

Unless I am reading that graph incorrectly the standard of living has not gone down for any group.

 

[RandFan]

Unless I am reading that graph incorrectly the standard of living has not gone down for any group.

It's not an easy thing to lock down I'll confess.

The notion that the middle class is shrinking is controversial because the economic boundaries that define the middle class vary. Households that earn between $25,000 and $75,000 represent approximately the middle half of the income distribution tables provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Over the past two decades, the number of households in those brackets decreased by 3.9%, from 48.2% to 44.3%. During the same time period, the number of households with incomes below $25,000 decreased 3.5%, from 28.7% to 25.2%, while the number of households with incomes above $75,000 increased over 7%, from 23.2% to 30.4%.[45] A possible explanation for the increase in the higher earnings categories is that more households now have two wage earners.[46] However, a closer analysis reveals all of the 7% increase can be found in households who earn over $100,000.[45]

Poverty rates increased early in the 1980s until late in the 1990s when they started to go back down. Since 2000, the percent of all people living in poverty has risen from 11.3% to 15.1% in 2010.[45][47]


A study by Brookings Institution in June 2006 revealed that Middle-income neighborhoods as a proportion of all metropolitan neighborhoods declined from 58 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 2000. As housing costs increase, the middle class is squeezed and forced to live in less desirable areas making upward mobility more difficult. Safety, school systems, and even jobs are all linked to neighborhood types

Earning Less - Why The Poor Get Poorer

Furthermore, when it comes to a recovery in employment, it is cheaper, particularly when the government keeps extending 100% tax credits for businesses capital good spending, to implant technology whenever possible to keep employment down. Businesses remain keenly focused on the bottom line, particularly as payroll and benefit costs continue to climb each year as aggregate demand drags. However, if businesses can increase productivity without increasing employment, those net gains flow directly to the bottom line. This attitude, of course, not only stifles the need for employment but also lowers wage requirements as the available labor pool competes for fewer jobs.

How the poor get poorer 1 in 4 U.S. jobs pay less than a poverty-level income.
During the 1980s, 13% of Americans age 40 to 50 spent at least one year below the poverty line; by the 1990s, 36% did.
Since 2000, the number of Americans living below the poverty line at any one time has steadily risen. Now 13% of all Americans—37 million—are officially poor.


Among households worth less than $13,500, their average net worth in 2001 was $0. By 2004, it was down to –$1,400.

 

[RandFan]

I'm rethinking my position a bit.

I'm curious, would our society be better if workers wages were more in line with productivity?

 

[Roadtoad]

[qimg]http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2461/changesince1979600.gif[/qimg]

I'm curious, would our society be better if workers wages were more in line with productivity?

One might hope.

 

[WildCat]

delete

 

[theprestige]

[qimg]http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2461/changesince1979600.gif[/qimg]

I'm curious, would our society be better if workers wages were more in line with productivity?

It depends if the productivity increases are a direct result of increased worker productivity.

For example, if a particular sector's productivity is due to improvements in automation, then we probably wouldn't expect to see workers' wages in that sector go up much at all. Indeed, we might even expect workers' wages to fall, as they must now justify the costs of their labor compared to the costs of a much more productive automated system.

Take network circuit switching, for example. There was a time, a person could earn a living wage, working as a telephone switchboard operator. Now we have robots--you may know them as switches and routers--each capable of doing the work of a hundred thousand such operators. Even working for free, no human being could possibly compete on cost.

There was likely never a point at which the increased productivity in automated circuit switching justified anything but a decrease in the wages of human circuit switchers.

I'm not sure what your graph purports to show, but unless it's only talking about productivity in non-automated, unskilled labor sectors, where it really is simply the sweat of one's brow that determines output, then I'm hard pressed to see why it should follow from that graph that median wages should track productivity.

Obviously, for skilled labor and knowledge workers--the people that maintain and develop the automated systems that improve productivity--the picture is much different. Our wages (for I am such a one) tend to track more closely with productivity, and with the income of the "1%".

 

[RandFan]

...I'm hard pressed to see why it should follow from that graph that median wages should track productivity.

Obviously, for skilled labor and knowledge workers--the people that maintain and develop the automated systems that improve productivity--the picture is much different. Our wages (for I am such a one) tend to track more closely with productivity, and with the income of the "1%".

I didn't say it should follow. I asked if we would have a better society if it did. BTW: My previous post addressed your point.

Earning Less - Why The Poor Get Poorer

Furthermore, when it comes to a recovery in employment, it is cheaper, particularly when the government keeps extending 100% tax credits for businesses capital good spending, to implant technology whenever possible to keep employment down. Businesses remain keenly focused on the bottom line, particularly as payroll and benefit costs continue to climb each year as aggregate demand drags. However, if businesses can increase productivity without increasing employment, those net gains flow directly to the bottom line. This attitude, of course, not only stifles the need for employment but also lowers wage requirements as the available labor pool competes for fewer jobs.

 

[Beerina]

Really? Hooray for possible corruption in government?

Thank you! I'm glad I scrolled down a few posts before replying.

 

[BenBurch]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/scott-walker-john-doe-investigation-explained

<SNIP>
UPDATE 3, Friday, March 9, 5:40 p.m.: Gov. Scott Walker announced the creation of his own legal defense fund in connection with the John Doe probe that has so far resulted in criminal charges against former Walker aides when he was Milwaukee County executive. (For details on those charges, see above.)

Walker's creation of a legal defense fund is the strongest sign yet that the governor may be directly implicated in the ongoing investigation, led by the Milwaukee County district attorney. As WisPolitics.com notes, Wisconsin law says that individuals may start a legal defense fund only if they're under investigation or being charged for violating state campaign finance or election laws. Under state law, Walker can't ask for contributions to the legal defense fund, but he can transfer campaign donations to the defense fund if the donor okays the transfer. In January, Walker's recall campaign said it had raised $4.5 million between December 11 and January 17, and that it had more than $2.6 million on hand.
<SNIP>