------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Economics Date: Mon Jul 31 19:06:12 CDT 1995 Message number: 1 Reply to message number: unavailable This is a base to discuss economics; mainly concerned with the economy a whole. If there are any supporters of Reaganomics out there, feel free to raise your hand and reply. I adore a good laugh >:-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfox Subject: Re: The invisible worker Date: Sat Oct 26 16:21:35 CDT 1996 Message number: 2 Reply to message number: 0 DR> Can this be extended to international trade between countries? Yes and no. DR> more complex explanation would involve something called `comparative trade' DR> which is realy hard to digest and also somewaht hard to swallow. S> S> Maybe just dont have a terrif, and see what happens.. We have already seen what happens. People buy the cheapest product first, and that is often an imported one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: Preliminary paper ... Date: Sat Oct 26 20:22:49 CDT 1996 Message number: 3 Reply to message number: 1 DR> Not at this time, there's no point finalizing the opening paragraph until DR> the rough draft is done and I know exactly what I have to include in the DR> opening thesis. F> F> True. Anyway, it looks like it is going to be a very good paper. Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll post it again when I get farther along, the econ part in the beginning is the most interesting (and difficult) part of it, methinks. The professor might complain there's too much econ and too little history, but that's his problem ... the root cause is economics, particularly declining fortunes, and without the background the paper won't make any sense. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Preliminary paper ... Date: Sun Oct 27 10:06:24 CST 1996 Message number: 4 Reply to message number: 3 F> True. Anyway, it looks like it is going to be a very good paper. DR> DR> Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll post it again when I get farther along, the DR> econ part in the beginning is the most interesting (and difficult) part of DR> methinks. The professor might complain there's too much econ and too little DR> history, but that's his problem ... the root cause is economics, particular DR> declining fortunes, and without the background the paper won't make any sen Maybe that is your opening paragraph. To make this case and tie in the rest of the paper as an economic explanation of historical fact. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Froggy Subject: Re: The invisible worker Date: Mon Oct 28 10:05:20 CST 1996 Message number: 5 Reply to message number: 2 S> Maybe just dont have a terrif, and see what happens.. F> F> We have already seen what happens. People buy the cheapest product F> first, and that is often an imported one. So how was I wrong before.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Starfox Subject: Re: The invisible worker Date: Mon Oct 28 11:49:03 CST 1996 Message number: 6 Reply to message number: 5 S> Maybe just dont have a terrif, and see what happens.. F> F> We have already seen what happens. People buy the cheapest product F> first, and that is often an imported one. S> S> So how was I wrong before.. You weren't necessarily. But the discussion was about what would happen to the American industry if jobs were shipped overseas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Mon Oct 28 15:07:06 CST 1996 Message number: 7 Reply to message number: -8 F> True. But most of them have ideas of some sort, whether we agree F> withthem or not. If you care to tell us what part of town you live in, some F> of us may have some ideas about your legislators. Yes, I suppose they might have some ideas. I live in Robbinsdale, I've got many fliers from the people running for office, but none of them seems concerned about anything beyond the costs of road repair and construction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Mon Oct 28 15:12:22 CST 1996 Message number: 8 Reply to message number: -4 DR> The election is coming out, I can name half a dozen decent people who need DR> help getting out the vote. If you're interested, let me know ... Darn right I'm interested. I'm not sure I have time, but if I could help I'd be very happy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Preliminary paper ... Date: Mon Oct 28 15:17:25 CST 1996 Message number: 9 Reply to message number: -1 DR> Not at this time, there's no point finalizing the opening paragraph until DR> the rough draft is done and I know exactly what I have to include in the DR> opening thesis. I myself liked the opening quite a bit. The rest of the paper was very good too. I'm looking forward to the finishing drafts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Mon Oct 28 16:49:20 CST 1996 Message number: 10 Reply to message number: 7 S> Yes, I suppose they might have some ideas. I live in Robbinsdale, I've got S> many fliers from the people running for office, but none of them seems S> concerned about anything beyond the costs of road repair and construction. I don't know any of the legislators there, but they have to have some opinions about things like teen curfew and crime. Very near North Minneapolis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Tue Oct 29 15:09:41 CST 1996 Message number: 11 Reply to message number: 10 F> I don't know any of the legislators there, but they have to have so F> opinions about things like teen curfew and crime. Very near North F> Minneapolis. True. I'm within a five minute walk of North Minneapolis those issues do come up. I suppose then that the legislators might have some opinions. In any case I'm more worried about informed opinions, if they have them... good, if not I'm not to worried... yet. My city's legislators haven't done anything really bad in a while so I won't complain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Tue Oct 29 15:53:11 CST 1996 Message number: 12 Reply to message number: 11 S> True. I'm within a five minute walk of North Minneapolis those issues do co S> up. I suppose then that the legislators might have some opinions. In any S> case I'm more worried about informed opinions, if they have them... good, if S> not I'm not to worried... yet. My city's legislators haven't done anything S> really bad in a while so I won't complain. Sometime in January, call the Legislative Clerk's office and ask for them to send you *Sessions Weekly.* Pay special attention to the first few issues, because they will describe the new bills your legislators are authoring. Since I don't know your legislators, or what committees they are on, I can't predict what they may be doing, But I think that is part of Amber Reichgott's district. She is a young attorney, an environmentalist, and looks as though she may put forward some interesting things next session. There are going to be bills about education, education funding, insurance (and possibly HMO) limitations, etc. Then you can decide what areas you are interested in following and go from there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Specter Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Tue Oct 29 17:21:12 CST 1996 Message number: 13 Reply to message number: 8 DR> The election is coming out, I can name half a dozen decent people who need DR> help getting out the vote. If you're interested, let me know ... S> S> Darn right I'm interested. I'm not sure I have time, but if I could help I' S> be very happy. All right ... the best thing I could recommend would be to get down to the Wellstone campaign office on University (in Saint Paul, just shy of Minneapolis), they'll be the best-organized group around and the easiest to contact. I just got e-mail today, they're looking for volunteers all weekend and up to the election Tuesday night. Even a few hours would be great. I don't have the number or address handy though ... do you have it, Froggy? If you're not into Wellstone, let me know ... I'll try to track something local down for you, though it might take a bit of detective work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Specter Subject: Re: Preliminary paper ... Date: Tue Oct 29 17:22:52 CST 1996 Message number: 14 Reply to message number: 9 DR> Not at this time, there's no point finalizing the opening paragraph until DR> the rough draft is done and I know exactly what I have to include in the DR> opening thesis. S> S> I myself liked the opening quite a bit. The rest of the paper was very good S> too. I'm looking forward to the finishing drafts. Thanks, I appreciate it. I just used part of the essay to bach Bopschwitz in the e-debate, asked wby I should trust him to represent me when he lowered capital gains, income and corporate taxes while raising my FICA taxes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Tue Oct 29 18:59:51 CST 1996 Message number: 15 Reply to message number: 13 DR> All right ... the best thing I could recommend would be to get down to the DR> Wellstone campaign office on University (in Saint Paul, just shy of DR> Minneapolis), they'll be the best-organized group around and the easiest to DR> contact. I just got e-mail today, they're looking for volunteers all weeken DR> and up to the election Tuesday night. Even a few hours would be great. DR> DR> I don't have the number or address handy though ... do you have it, Froggy DR> Yup. Wellstone Alliance - 645-0323 Minnesota DFL Headquarters 293-1200 Contact people for local phone banks: Byron Johnson 5951 Earle Brown Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 612-585-9749 Donna Swanson 1821 University Avenue #137 St. Paul, MN 612-644-4942 Kathleen Kerr 7166 10th Street N Oakdale, MN 612-702-0479 Jed Perry Buffalo, MN 612-682-6945 Steve Billings 151 Silver Lake Road New Brighton, MN 612-635-9975 Pete Fischer 4756 Banning Avenue #215 White Bear Lake, MN 612-407-8371 Gary LOre 3182 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 612-933-3567 Call the closest one to your home and volunteer for calling! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Wed Oct 30 17:43:14 CST 1996 Message number: 16 Reply to message number: 15 DR> I don't have the number or address handy though ... do you have it, Froggy DR> F> Yup. F> F> Wellstone Alliance - 645-0323 F> Minnesota DFL Headquarters 293-1200 Thanks, I appreciate it. So, does anyone have any predictions for the upcoming election they'd care to share? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Thu Oct 31 12:23:27 CST 1996 Message number: 17 Reply to message number: 16 DR> Thanks, I appreciate it. DR> DR> So, does anyone have any predictions for the upcoming election they'd care DR> share? I predict that Dole will come in at least 10% below Clinton, and Kemp will spend the next 4 years showing how different he is from Dole so he can run as president next time. I think there is a very real possibility that the Dems may take over the House again. When the campaigh first began, this had never crossed my mind, but numbers are looking more and more like it. Sigh. I WISH we could also take back the Senate, because there are a number of very good dems standing in position to assume majority Committee Chairmanships. One of these is Sen. Jay Rockefeller, IV. I predict that Minnesotans will pass the referendum this Tuesday to fund a bonus for Persian Gulf Service people. So far, Minnesotans have given such bonuses to returning vets from all wars except this one. PLEASE vote for it! Under constitutional rule, it must have 66% of all the votes cast to pass. Abstaining is the same as a NO vote. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Thu Oct 31 15:57:25 CST 1996 Message number: 18 Reply to message number: 12 F> Sometime in January, call the Legislative Clerk's office and ask fo F> them to send you *Sessions Weekly.* Pay special attention to the first few F> issues, because they will describe the new bills your legislators are F> authoring. Since I don't know your legislators, or what committees they are Mmm. I will, thank you. F> on, I can't predict what they may be doing, But I think that is part of Ambe F> Reichgott's district. She is a young attorney, an environmentalist, and loo F> as though she may put forward some interesting things next session. There a F> going to be bills about education, education funding, insurance (and possibl F> HMO) limitations, etc. Then you can decide what areas you are interested in F> following and go from there. I am in her district. I haven't heard much about her, but all I have heard is good. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Thu Oct 31 15:58:39 CST 1996 Message number: 19 Reply to message number: 13 DR> All right ... the best thing I could recommend would be to get down to the DR> Wellstone campaign office on University (in Saint Paul, just shy of DR> Minneapolis), they'll be the best-organized group around and the easiest to DR> contact. I just got e-mail today, they're looking for volunteers all weeken DR> and up to the election Tuesday night. Even a few hours would be great. Thanks. I'll try that. I have to see if I can get down there. I'll have to find a bus route. Thanks. I'm really hoping I'll have a chance to at least do something. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Preliminary paper ... Date: Thu Oct 31 15:59:59 CST 1996 Message number: 20 Reply to message number: 14 DR> I just used part of the essay to bach Bopschwitz in the e-debate, asked wb DR> should trust him to represent me when he lowered capital gains, income and DR> corporate taxes while raising my FICA taxes. good point. I would have to wonder about his choices for raising and lowering taxes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Thu Oct 31 16:04:21 CST 1996 Message number: 21 Reply to message number: 16 DR> So, does anyone have any predictions for the upcoming election they'd care DR> share? Clinton by 8 % popular vote and about 16 % electoral. Kemp tries to get into the race in 2000. Gore does get in, but only if he can consistently find some passion. Perot gets 6 % and whines about how the two major parties kept him out of the debate which hurt his campaign. Wellstone and Boschwitz will be close (As if we all don't know that) Wellstone wins by a slight majority. That's about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Thu Oct 31 20:53:27 CST 1996 Message number: 22 Reply to message number: 18 F> on, I can't predict what they may be doing, But I think that is part of Ambe F> Reichgott's district. She is a young attorney, an environmentalist, and loo F> as though she may put forward some interesting things next session. There a F> going to be bills about education, education funding, insurance (and possibl F> HMO) limitations, etc. Then you can decide what areas you are interested in F> following and go from there. S> S> I am in her district. I haven't heard much about her, but all I have heard i S> good. She is brilliant. Watch her. Her star is going up, if you get my drift. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Preliminary paper ... Date: Thu Oct 31 20:55:08 CST 1996 Message number: 23 Reply to message number: 20 DR> I just used part of the essay to bach Bopschwitz in the e-debate, asked wb DR> should trust him to represent me when he lowered capital gains, income and DR> corporate taxes while raising my FICA taxes. S> S> good point. I would have to wonder about his choices for raising and loweri S> taxes. He claims he wants to lower taxes. I would ask him WHOSE taxes he plans to lower. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Thu Oct 31 20:56:59 CST 1996 Message number: 24 Reply to message number: 21 S> Kemp tries to get into the race in 2000. Gore does get in, but only if he ca S> consistently find some passion. S> Awww. He *did* learn to do the Macarema. :) S> Wellstone and Boschwitz will be close (As if we all don't know that) S> Wellstone wins by a slight majority. S> See you at the victory party on the 5th. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Election Predictions Date: Fri Nov 01 13:13:07 CST 1996 Message number: 25 Reply to message number: unavailable Clinton wins barely. Rebs hold the house and Senate. House becomes moderate. Senate goes farther Right with the election of Fundie Reb Senators. Wellstone by a hair. Low Voter turnout kills the potential big Democratic tide. ... Life is a journey, not a destination. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Fri Nov 01 18:11:14 CST 1996 Message number: 26 Reply to message number: 17 F> I predict that Minnesotans will pass the referendum this Tuesday to F> fund a bonus for Persian Gulf Service people. So far, Minnesotans have give F> such bonuses to returning vets from all wars except this one. PLEASE vote f F> it! Under constitutional rule, it must have 66% of all the votes cast to F> pass. Abstaining is the same as a NO vote. Are you sure about that? I thought that it only required a majority of peopel voting in the election - but yeah, not voting for it is the same as voting "no". I'm sure Wellstone will win decisively, Clinton moreso, and even Barkley will get a decent showing when the marginal Boschwitz voters desert him over the flag buring crap. Nader, however, won't get above 2% in Minnesota or over 5% in California ... his campaign is just too invisbile, and his decision to not spend more than $5000 is really hurting him (I'm not suggesting he run TV ads, but without puddle-jumping across the country to get free media you're not going to be noticed). Reider in the 1st is the real race to watch here in Minneaota, as is the control over the US and Minnesota House. They'll all be too close to call until late Tuesday methinks, though the trends will be apparent right away. Locally, State Senator Metzen is in a close race here in SD 39 ... his opponent is a Quistian, a former paid volunteer for the Quist campaign. Her literature showed her next to Rod Grams and ... get this ... Phyllus Schlafly. Gives me chills, to think she has a decent chance of winning. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Election Predictions Date: Fri Nov 01 22:12:32 CST 1996 Message number: 27 Reply to message number: 25 S> Rebs hold the house and Senate. S> S> House becomes moderate. S> S> Senate goes farther Right with the election of Fundie Reb Senators. S> S> Wellstone by a hair. S> S> Low Voter turnout kills the potential big Democratic tide. S> Sigh. I hope not, but I have another friend who says the same thing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Fri Nov 01 22:15:43 CST 1996 Message number: 28 Reply to message number: 26 F> fund a bonus for Persian Gulf Service people. So far, Minnesotans have give F> such bonuses to returning vets from all wars except this one. PLEASE vote f F> it! Under constitutional rule, it must have 66% of all the votes cast to F> pass. Abstaining is the same as a NO vote. DR> DR> Are you sure about that? I thought that it only required a majority of peo DR> voting in the election - but yeah, not voting for it is the same as voting DR> "no". DR> Yes. I was told by a co-author of the bill that it must pass by 66% because it is a Constitutional Amendment. DR> Locally, State Senator Metzen is in a close race here in SD 39 ... his DR> opponent is a Quistian, a former paid volunteer for the Quist campaign. Her DR> literature showed her next to Rod Grams and ... get this ... Phyllus DR> Schlafly. Gives me chills, to think she has a decent chance of winning. Metzen is such a good man, too. Anyone out there in the Coon Rapids area? Get out and help Metzen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Sat Nov 02 14:36:57 CST 1996 Message number: 29 Reply to message number: 28 DR> Locally, State Senator Metzen is in a close race here in SD 39 ... his DR> opponent is a Quistian, a former paid volunteer for the Quist campaign. Her DR> literature showed her next to Rod Grams and ... get this ... Phyllus DR> Schlafly. Gives me chills, to think she has a decent chance of winning. F> F> Metzen is such a good man, too. Anyone out there in the Coon Rapid F> area? Get out and help Metzen. Coon Rapids? Wrong district ... 39 covers South Saint Paul, Inver Grove Heights, Sunfish Lake and one precinct of Mendota Heights. Metzen is one of labor's best allies, but I think he's almost been in office too long ... like Vento, he's becoming set in his ways and seemingly unable to change his campaign strategy significantly in the face of a strong challenger. How this affects his work at the Capitol I'm not sure, but it does speak for the need for `fresh blood' once in a while. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Quistians Date: Sat Nov 02 22:15:23 CST 1996 Message number: 30 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Froggy <=- DR> Locally, State Senator Metzen is in a close race here in SD 39 ... DR> his opponent is a Quistian, a former paid volunteer for the Quist DR> campaign. Her literature showed her next to Rod Grams and ... get this DR> ... Phyllus Schlafly. Gives me chills, to think she has a decent DR> chance of winning. Hey! These people are really offended when called Quistians. I suggest that we give these people the respect that they have earned and scream "Quistian, Quistian, Quistian!" from the roof tops. "Onward Quistian soldiers marching others off to war. With the cross of Jesus they shall kill us all...." ... " Stupid TV... BE MORE FUNNY!!!" - Homer ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Economic Nationalism Date: Mon Nov 04 17:18:28 CST 1996 Message number: 31 Reply to message number: 22 F> She is brilliant. Watch her. Her star is going up, if you get my F> drift. I think I do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Preliminary paper ... Date: Mon Nov 04 17:19:41 CST 1996 Message number: 32 Reply to message number: 23 F> He claims he wants to lower taxes. I would ask him WHOSE taxes he F> plans to lower. I concur. My guess is the rich white guys who run the government, of course I'm just cynical. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Mon Nov 04 17:22:51 CST 1996 Message number: 33 Reply to message number: 24 S> Kemp tries to get into the race in 2000. Gore does get in, but only if he ca S> consistently find some passion. S> F> Awww. He *did* learn to do the Macarema. :) Well right you are. That can be his push in 2000. I can Macarena, I've got passion. Mmm... Maybe it'd be better if he learned something else. Anyway I think he's got the passion, but he needs to channel it into outward appearances which is what people want. F> See you at the victory party on the 5th. :) I'm so hoping the party is at my preference of headquarters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Mon Nov 04 23:03:17 CST 1996 Message number: 34 Reply to message number: 33 F> See you at the victory party on the 5th. :) S> S> I'm so hoping the party is at my preference of headquarters. Hmmmm. The party I will be at is not at Headquarters. :) Actually, I have been asked to three, haven't decided yet. I may just stay home and watch the returns. I am *real* interested in how Texas is going to go in the presidential. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Tue Nov 05 16:30:01 CST 1996 Message number: 35 Reply to message number: 34 F> Hmmmm. The party I will be at is not at Headquarters. :) Actuall F> I have been asked to three, haven't decided yet. I may just stay home and F> watch the returns. I am *real* interested in how Texas is going to go in th F> presidential. Cool. Writing this with some of the coverage still happening I can say that unfortunately Texas went to Dole. Of course the election went to Clinton, so it doesn't matter too badly. I'm both watching coverage and writing here. P.S. Yeah! Wellstone and Clinton both won and many of the Democratic representatives look to be winning while I'm writing this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Tue Nov 05 17:38:28 CST 1996 Message number: 36 Reply to message number: 35 S> Cool. Writing this with some of the coverage still happening I can say that S> unfortunately Texas went to Dole. Of course the election went to Clinton, s S> it doesn't matter too badly. S> Can't win them all. We are winning some of the House seats that were taken by "Contract on America" Repubs, too. S> P.S. Yeah! Wellstone and Clinton both won and many of the Democratic S> representatives look to be winning while I'm writing this. Does the word "mandate" ring a bell? Remember, too, that Clinton is the first Democratic president to be elected to a second term since Truman. They said it couldn't be done. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Tue Nov 05 20:52:16 CST 1996 Message number: 37 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Specter <=- Fr> Does the word "mandate" ring a bell? Remember, too, that Fr> Clinton is the first Democratic president to be elected to a second Fr> term since Truman. They said it couldn't be done. Actually FDR was the last to be elected to a second term. Truman finished off FDR's term and then won his second. It looks like the republicans will hold both houses of congress. Dems took Florida! Clearly this was the year of incumbants, again. All things considered it was a good night. In 1994 the rebs thought that they would take the White House and build Constitutional majorities in both house of Congress allowing them to "Build a Republican Future". They have been stopped.....for now. In 2 years every goofy group on the right will be gunning for a victory. Ahhhh. Will it ever stop? ... --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E-- ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Sandman Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Wed Nov 06 01:00:51 CST 1996 Message number: 38 Reply to message number: 37 S> Actually FDR was the last to be elected to a second term. S> Truman finished off FDR's term and then won his second. S> Yes. I found this out when I heard VP Gore's speech later. Dortunately, we never get too old to learn. :) S> It looks like the republicans will hold both houses of congress. S> S> Dems took Florida! S> Yes, but not as resoundingly as before. One commentator remarked about the "arrogance and contempt" that they had ruled with since their takeover. Apparently, nobody told them that in a democracy, the people couyld take revenge on attitudes like this. Torricelli took Bradley's seat! Unfortunately, we still have to deal with Jesse Helms, but he is such a clown that few people take him seriously anyway. Despite it all, Gantt did pretty well against him. Glad to see Florida, but I sure would have liked to take Texas too. S> All things considered it was a good night. S> In 1994 the rebs thought that they would take the White House and S> build Constitutional majorities in both house of Congress allowing S> them to "Build a Republican Future". To their detriment, they chose mean-spirited and incompetent people like Dole and Boschwitz to represent them. If they had concentrated more on telling what *they*would do to build a better future if they were elected, they spent all their time assassinating their opponents. I was relieved to see that the Americal people didn't buy it. S> They have been stopped.....for now. S> In 2 years every goofy group on the right will be gunning for a S> victory. S> S> Ahhhh. Will it ever stop? S> It is their Constitutional right. It is our Constitutional right and responsibility to restrain them. Nobody said that democracy is a rose garden. It is a hard job and requires eternal vigilance. No, it will never stop. One of the greatest beauties of this country is that every wacko has a right to express his opinion, and organize other wackos. As long as ther are human beings there will be wackos. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Wed Nov 06 17:00:18 CST 1996 Message number: 39 Reply to message number: 36 F> Can't win them all. We are winning some of the House seats that we F> taken by "Contract on America" Repubs, too. Yeah. Not as many as I would like, but some. Lost seats in the Senate though. F> Does the word "mandate" ring a bell? Remember, too, that Clinton i F> the first Democratic president to be elected to a second term since Truman. F> They said it couldn't be done. Yes. Clinton didn't get the 50%, but he got close enough that he could definitely make a case for having one. who said it couldn't be done? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Wed Nov 06 17:39:37 CST 1996 Message number: 40 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Sandman <=- S> It looks like the republicans will hold both houses of congress. S> S> Dems took Florida! S> Fr> Yes, but not as resoundingly as before. One commentator Fr> remarked about the "arrogance and contempt" that they had ruled with Fr> since their takeover. Apparently, nobody told them that in a Fr> democracy, the people couyld take revenge on attitudes like this. Fr> Torricelli took Bradley's seat! Unfortunately, we still have to deal Fr> with Jesse Helms, but he is such a clown that few people take him Fr> seriously anyway. Despite it all, Gantt did pretty well against him. Some of that "arrogance and contempt" will definately remain. Labor spent millions to beat the freshmen and scored only a few key victories. The reb survivors are going to be nasty. Low voter turnout sunk a Democratic tide. Helms won. What an embrassment. Watching CSPAN I heard a talk radio guy comment on how great it must be for Helms to have a black man to use racism against. Fr> Glad to see Florida, but I sure would have liked to take Fr> Texas too. Phil Gramm, the next Bob Dole? Run every year for the Presidency until the party pities him enough to nominate him. Texas seems to be a Bush state. They love the Bush family so damn much that Gov George "Dubb-ya" Bush will seek the White House sometime in the future. The republicans are now the party of the South. They ain't the party of Lincoln anymore. ... A conservative believes now what liberals fought for in the past. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Thu Nov 07 01:39:40 CST 1996 Message number: 41 Reply to message number: 39 S> Yes. Clinton didn't get the 50%, but he got close enough that he could S> definitely make a case for having one. S> S> who said it couldn't be done? Dole and Boschwitz, but what do they know? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Thu Nov 07 16:29:44 CST 1996 Message number: 42 Reply to message number: 36 S> P.S. Yeah! Wellstone and Clinton both won and many of the Democratic S> representatives look to be winning while I'm writing this. F> F> Does the word "mandate" ring a bell? Remember, too, that Clinton i F> the first Democratic president to be elected to a second term since Truman. F> They said it couldn't be done. I don't believe that Truman won a second term. If memory serves, he took over when FDR died and then won one term on his own ... just like Johnson did. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Thu Nov 07 17:35:46 CST 1996 Message number: 43 Reply to message number: 42 DR> I don't believe that Truman won a second term. If memory serves, he took o DR> when FDR died and then won one term on his own ... just like Johnson did. I know. I was thusly informed. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Sat Nov 09 09:40:26 CST 1996 Message number: 44 Reply to message number: 41 S> who said it couldn't be done? F> F> Dole and Boschwitz, but what do they know? How to whine. How to lose. How to conduct aggresively anti-liberal campaigns. how to lose. How to make negative ads not work. Did I mention how to lose. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Sat Nov 09 10:00:12 CST 1996 Message number: 45 Reply to message number: 44 F> Dole and Boschwitz, but what do they know? S> S> S> How to whine. S> How to lose. S> How to conduct aggresively anti-liberal campaigns. S> how to lose. S> How to make negative ads not work. S> S> Did I mention how to lose. At least Dole was a graceful loser. Boschwitz hasn't called Wellstone yet. How EMBARASSING!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Sun Nov 10 13:52:56 CST 1996 Message number: 46 Reply to message number: 45 F> At least Dole was a graceful loser. Boschwitz hasn't called F> Wellstone yet. How EMBARASSING!! True. Dole showed grace Boshwitz doesn't have. I can't find the term to describe what I think of Boschwitz not calling Wellstone. perhaps petty, perhaps just generally stupid. His answer on Television made no sense at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Sun Nov 10 15:52:25 CST 1996 Message number: 47 Reply to message number: 46 F> At least Dole was a graceful loser. Boschwitz hasn't called F> Wellstone yet. How EMBARASSING!! S> S> True. Dole showed grace Boshwitz doesn't have. I can't find the term to S> describe what I think of Boschwitz not calling Wellstone. perhaps petty, Boorish comes to mind. Of course, that is what comes to my mind every time he opens his mouth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Mon Nov 11 15:28:53 CST 1996 Message number: 48 Reply to message number: 47 S> True. Dole showed grace Boshwitz doesn't have. I can't find the term to S> describe what I think of Boschwitz not calling Wellstone. perhaps petty, F> F> Boorish comes to mind. Of course, that is what comes to my mind every time F> opens his mouth. That fits nicely. well, hopefully we won't ever have to listen to him talk again, with the exception of possibly a commercial for his company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Specter Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Thu Nov 14 13:45:28 CST 1996 Message number: 49 Reply to message number: 46 S> perhaps just generally stupid. His answer on Television made no sense at al Missed it.. Fill me in? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Fri Nov 15 11:13:39 CST 1996 Message number: 50 Reply to message number: 49 S> perhaps just generally stupid. His answer on Television made no sense at al BT> BT> Missed it.. Fill me in? BT> Late election night, reporter were haunting all the candidates trying to get their comments. Enough returns had come in that it was clear that Wellstone had won. Wellstone and his followers were keeping a lid on at his headquarters, waiting for some word from Boschwitz. Boschwitz had been talking in circles ablut all kinds of things and not yet said a word about the returns. Finally, a reporter (probably Eric Escala), asked him why he had not called Wellstone yet. Usually, the loser calls the winner to concede the election and wish the winner luck, so they can start partying. Boschwitz said, "I think that just saying that he seems to have won here is enough." Meanwhile, it was so late that Dole and Kemp had already called Clinton and Gore. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Wellstone '96 Date: Wed Nov 20 18:35:45 CST 1996 Message number: 51 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Big Teebo <=- S> perhaps just generally stupid. His answer on Television made no sense at BT> Missed it.. Fill me in? BT> Fr> Late election night, reporter were haunting all the Fr> candidates trying to get their comments. Enough returns had come in Fr> that it was clear that Wellstone had won. Wellstone and his followers Fr> were keeping a lid on at his headquarters, waiting for some word from Fr> Boschwitz. Boschwitz had been talking in circles ablut all kinds of Fr> things and not yet said a word about the returns. Finally, a reporter Fr> (probably Eric Escala), asked him why he had not called Wellstone yet. Fr> Usually, the loser calls the winner to concede the election and wish Fr> the winner luck, so they can start partying. Boschwitz said, "I Fr> think that just saying that he seems to have won here is enough." Fr> Meanwhile, it was so late that Dole and Kemp had already called Fr> Clinton and Gore. It kind of watching the republicans at "Party" headquarters on election night. They lose every race but one and cheer madly about their one victory. It's kinda sad...(smiling ear to ear) ... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: CPI Nonsense Date: Sat Jan 18 04:50:43 CST 1997 Message number: 52 Reply to message number: unavailable Lately, there's been a lot of talk about revising the Comnsumer Price Index (CPI), which is basically the way the government measures inflation. It's measured by taking a "market basket" of goods, and comparing the priceof those products against the price of that same market basket later on - the difference in price is the measure of inflation. Critics argue that because of differences in quality (better VCRs, better TVs, all for the same price) and the ability of people to switch their personal market basket (for example, buying hot dogs when hamburger gets too expensive), that the CPI overstates the true inflation rate. More recently, lots of people in Washington have come to the conclusion that artificially lowering the CPI would make balancing the budget easier. Why? Because lots of government benefits and programs are automatically increased at the rate of inflation measured by the CPI, as are the income tax brackets. So if they would alter the CPI, we'd all get less government benefits and a raise in our taxes ... and each year, that would continue to be compounded. There was a commission that recommended exactly that - an artificial lowering of the CPI by one percent each year. The commission has been criticized as being secretive3 (no peer review or public testimony) and selected to produce exactly the results they did, as all of the members were of the opinikjn that the CPI overstated inflation before they were named to the panel. The Economic Policy Institute ran the numbers, and came up with these interesting extrapolations based on the data ... Policy Implications of the Boskin Commission Findings (1) Generation X-ers and Their Children Will Be Very Well Off -- If the Boskin Commissions adjusted measure of inflation is applied to the current projections used in the Social Security Trustees intermediate scenario (the standard basis for policy analysis), we can look forward to an incredibly bright future. The average annual wage will be approximately $60,000 in todays dollars in 2030 compared to $25,000 at present. By 2050 it will be almost $90,000. If real median family income grows at the same rate, it should reach $96,000 in 2030 and $140,000 in 2050, compared to $40,000 in 1995. (2) Deficits Do Not Hinder Investment -- Research by Boskin Commission member Robert Gordon indicates that inflation in investment goods has also been overstated, and therefore the growth of investment has been understated. This means that investment per worker and productivity have been rising significantly. Thus, it appears that recent deficit levels and low saving rates have not prevented substantial productivity growth, and there is therefore no reason to be worried about the deficit and a lack of saving and investment. Economic policy can instead be focused on the problems of poverty and inequality. (3) The 1960s War on Poverty Was an Incredible Success Story -- The "mismeasured" CPI has caused the real value of the poverty line to rise year by year, thus concealing what would have to have been an enormous reduction in poverty over the last 30 years. The Boskin- adjusted CPI implies that the current poverty line for a family of four should be approximately $9,650, instead of the $15,100 used in most calculations, and that the poverty rate is just 7.5%, approximately half the poverty rate that existed in 1965. (Alternatively, projecting the current poverty line backward would show that nearly 50% of the population was living in poverty in 1960, compared to about 14% today.) So basically, don't beleive the hype. The CPI might very well overstate inflatioin, but we're not going to fix it by lopping off a percent. The way to fix it is to make the numbers more accurate by changing the way the market basket is measured, not by artificially lopping off a percent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Sun Jan 19 14:27:47 CST 1997 Message number: 53 Reply to message number: 52 DR> (1) Generation X-ers and Their Children Will Be Very Well Off -- If DR> the Boskin Commissions adjusted measure of inflation is applied to DR> the current projections used in the Social Security Trustees DR> intermediate scenario (the standard basis for policy analysis), we DR> can look forward to an incredibly bright future. The average annual DR> wage will be approximately $60,000 in todays dollars in 2030 compared DR> to $25,000 at present. By 2050 it will be almost $90,000. If real DR> median family income grows at the same rate, it should reach $96,000 DR> in 2030 and $140,000 in 2050, compared to $40,000 in 1995. What a nice pipe dream. I'm not sure of the exact method of measuring the CPI, but I have trouble imagining that simply dropping it by 1% would suddenly cause people to earn thousands of dollars more, especially if it's done artificially. DR> (3) The 1960s War on Poverty Was an Incredible Success Story -- The DR> "mismeasured" CPI has caused the real value of the poverty line to DR> rise year by year, thus concealing what would have to have been an DR> enormous reduction in poverty over the last 30 years. The Boskin- DR> adjusted CPI implies that the current poverty line for a family of DR> four should be approximately $9,650, instead of the $15,100 used in DR> most calculations, and that the poverty rate is just 7.5%, DR> approximately half the poverty rate that existed in 1965. DR> (Alternatively, projecting the current poverty line backward would DR> show that nearly 50% of the population was living in poverty in 1960, DR> compared to about 14% today.) Hmm. Well, well. Poor people who make more than 9,650 dollars a year should stop complaining... they're so obviously making enough money to survive off of. Just look at the CPI properly interpreted. (sarcasm, sarcasm, sarcasm) DR> So basically, don't beleive the hype. The CPI might very well overstate DR> inflatioin, but we're not going to fix it by lopping off a percent. The way DR> fix it is to make the numbers more accurate by changing the way the market DR> basket is measured, not by artificially lopping off a percent. When you began the post I was thinking, gee we might need to change the interpretation of the CPI. I got scared about two paragraphs down... I can't believe that someone would create a group whose soul purpose was to play fast and loose with some inflation numbers and without any hard facts show that by dropping a point off inflation, suddenly the world is perfect. That's nuts... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Sun Jan 19 16:15:32 CST 1997 Message number: 54 Reply to message number: 52 DR> The way to DR> fix it is to make the numbers more accurate by changing the way the market DR> basket is measured, not by artificially lopping off a percent. There's one argument that nobody in Congress is giving much credence to--at their peril. The critiques against the "market basket" are largely critiques about how the CPI is calculated. However, criticisms like the "transfer" argument (people buy hamburger when hot dogs get too expensive) are more accurately critiques of the entire enterprise of using a "market basket". Much the same criticisms are levelled against the NYSE in the calculation of their Dow Jones average--they take a small number of stocks and, by their performance, extrapolate the performance of the market as a whole. Statistically, it is possible to gain a sense of the whole through sampling; it is then not necessary to analyze the entire population, since the sample provides an accurate enough snapshot. However, the statistical integrity of the average is only guaranteed if the initial sample is _random_. Neither the CPI nor Dow Jones operates on a random scale, because of the need to provide continuity from one sample to another (in effect, economists must always express their numbers in dollar form, while other, "purer" mathematical averages are best described using unitless numbers; for example, the psychologists "T-scores" and percentile ranks). Unless the entire idea of a consistent "market basket" is thrown out (especially since the basket can be selected at will by politicians to promote their own agendas), the CPI will always be significantly flawed. I'm not saying that it'll lead to world economic collapse, but it'll definately waste tax dollars, create opportunities for demogoguery, and generally make things worse instead of better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Specter Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Sun Jan 19 16:17:40 CST 1997 Message number: 55 Reply to message number: 53 S> When you began the post I was thinking, gee we might need to change the S> interpretation of the CPI. I got scared about two paragraphs down... I can't S> believe that someone would create a group whose soul purpose was to play fas S> and loose with some inflation numbers and without any hard facts show that b S> dropping a point off inflation, suddenly the world is perfect. That's S> nuts... Welcome to the Gingrich Congress, Specter. Does anybody else remember Newt's famous "178 percent" increase gaffe on CNN last winter? This from a former (supposed) college professor? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Jan 20 05:25:14 CST 1997 Message number: 56 Reply to message number: 53 S> interpretation of the CPI. I got scared about two paragraphs down... I can't S> believe that someone would create a group whose soul purpose was to play fas S> and loose with some inflation numbers and without any hard facts show that b S> dropping a point off inflation, suddenly the world is perfect. That's That's exactly what happens. It is called the Federal Reserve,and they play fast and loose with inflation by controlling interest rates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Jan 20 05:27:17 CST 1997 Message number: 57 Reply to message number: 55 DT> Does anybody else remember Newt's famous "178 percent" increase gaffe on CN DT> last winter? This from a former (supposed) college professor? I remember something generally, but not the detaile. 'Enlighten us. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Jan 20 08:14:55 CST 1997 Message number: 58 Reply to message number: 55 DT> Welcome to the Gingrich Congress, Specter. Oh, I'm there and I would like to leave. Check please! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Jan 20 08:17:14 CST 1997 Message number: 59 Reply to message number: 56 S> interpretation of the CPI. I got scared about two paragraphs down... I can't S> believe that someone would create a group whose soul purpose was to play fas S> and loose with some inflation numbers and without any hard facts show that b S> dropping a point off inflation, suddenly the world is perfect. That's F> F> That's exactly what happens. It is called the Federal Reserve,and F> they play fast and loose with inflation by controlling interest rates. This is true. Unfortunately they don't seem to have been able to put all the members of Generation-X into a well to do category within 50 years. Those numbers are so nuts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: SPECTER Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Jan 20 09:38:57 CST 1997 Message number: 60 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Specter : DR> to $25,000 at present. By 2050 it will be almost $90,000. If real DR> median family income grows at the same rate, it should reach $96,000 DR> in 2030 and $140,000 in 2050, compared to $40,000 in 1995. Sp> What a nice pipe dream. I'm not sure of the exact method of measuring Sp> the CPI, but I have trouble imagining that simply dropping it by 1% Sp> would suddenly cause people to earn thousands of dollars more, Sp> especially if it's done artificially. I'm not sure precicely how they get the numbers on that, but the Economic Policy Institute is usually pretty good with their facts. I'd certainly trust them much more than the libertarian Cato Institute, at any rate. In my mind though, the third policy implication was the most significant one. If the CPI is off by 1.1%, we're all 33% better off than we were 30 years ago. That might very well be true - we "all" have flush toilets, indoor plumbing, VCRs and color TVs now. But if that's so, it means that the war on poverty was even more successful than first imagined. DR> So basically, don't beleive the hype. The CPI might very well overstate DR> inflatioin, but we're not going to fix it by lopping off a percent. The w DR> fix it is to make the numbers more accurate by changing the way the marke DR> basket is measured, not by artificially lopping off a percent. Sp> When you began the post I was thinking, gee we might need to change Sp> the interpretation of the CPI. I got scared about two paragraphs Sp> down... I can't believe that someone would create a group whose soul Sp> purpose was to play fast and loose with some inflation numbers and Sp> without any hard facts show that by dropping a point off inflation, Sp> suddenly the world is perfect. That's nuts... It's nuts, but it's politics. Clinton has not yet embraced the idea, and the Republicans will certainly not push it without bipartisan support - they'll get killed in the next election if they do. Democrats like Pat Moynihan (sp?) may push him into it though, it's something that most people don't understand well. I mean really, how many people understand that adjusting the CPI amounts to a 1% tax raise per year with a commesurate reduction by 1% of almost all government services? The media sure won't tell us much, I have little doubt of that. ... Be suspicious of all native-born Esperanto speakers. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: DAVE THE LUCKY Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Jan 20 09:38:59 CST 1997 Message number: 61 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Dave The Lucky : DTL> There's one argument that nobody in Congress is giving much credence DTL> to--at their peril. The critiques against the "market basket" are DTL> largely critiques about how the CPI is calculated. However, DTL> criticisms like the "transfer" argument (people buy hamburger when hot DTL> dogs get too expensive) are more accurately critiques of the entire DTL> enterprise of using a "market basket". True enough, I think the simplest way to explain why the CPI is a useful number *as it stands* is that to date, we haven't come up with a better way to measure inflation. Until we do, we're stuck with the CPI. DTL> However, the DTL> statistical integrity of the average is only guaranteed if the initial DTL> sample is _random_. Neither the CPI nor Dow Jones operates on a random DTL> scale, Why don't we see if we can pass a bill to get both measured "randomly" and see how the folks in Washington react? DTL> Unless the entire idea of a DTL> consistent "market basket" is thrown out (especially since the basket DTL> can be selected at will by politicians to promote their own agendas), DTL> the CPI will always be significantly flawed. I'm not saying that DTL> it'll lead to world economic collapse, but it'll definately waste tax DTL> dollars, create opportunities for demogoguery, and generally make DTL> things worse instead of better. Low battery, gotta hurry ... The problem with that approach is, how do you measure market goods and their prices randomly? Send a kid with $50 into the megamall and see what he gets? :-) ... Yield to temptation; It may not pass your way again. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Jan 20 15:34:12 CST 1997 Message number: 62 Reply to message number: 60 DR> most people don't understand well. I mean really, how many people understan DR> that adjusting the CPI amounts to a 1% tax raise per year with a commesurat DR> reduction by 1% of almost all government services? The media sure won't DR> tell us much, I have little doubt of that. Then, some people consider BOTH virtues. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THROCKMORTON To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: CPI Nonsense Date: Tue Jan 21 11:46:45 CST 1997 Message number: 63 Reply to message number: unavailable DR>(1) Generation X-ers and Their Children Will Be Very Well Off -- If >the Boskin Commissions adjusted measure of inflation is applied to >the current projections used in the Social Security Trustees >intermediate scenario (the standard basis for policy analysis), we >can look forward to an incredibly bright future. The average annual >wage will be approximately $60,000 in todays dollars in 2030 compared >to $25,000 at present. By 2050 it will be almost $90,000. If real >median family income grows at the same rate, it should reach $96,000 >in 2030 and $140,000 in 2050, compared to $40,000 in 1995. Is that $60,000 in 1996 dollars or in 2030 dollars? Doubling a person's income does no good if prices more than double in the same time. --- þ OLX 1.53 þ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THROCKMORTON To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: CPI Nonsense Date: Tue Jan 21 11:46:46 CST 1997 Message number: 64 Reply to message number: unavailable DR> Lately, there's been a lot of talk about revising the Comnsumer Price Inde >(CPI), which is basically the way the government measures inflation. It's >measured by taking a "market basket" of goods, and comparing the priceof th >products against the price of that same market basket later on - the >difference in price is the measure of inflation. DR> Critics argue that because of differences in quality (better VCRs, better >TVs, all for the same price) and the ability of people to switch their >personal market basket (for example, buying hot dogs when hamburger gets to >expensive), that the CPI overstates the true inflation rate. DR> So basically, don't beleive the hype. The CPI might very well overstate >inflatioin, but we're not going to fix it by lopping off a percent. The way >fix it is to make the numbers more accurate by changing the way the market >basket is measured, not by artificially lopping off a percent. The CPI probably does need to be changed. If memory serves correctly the basket used is the one they came up a ways back, and spending habits have changed significantly since that time. For non farm families food used to be the largest item in the family budget. Now housing is. When the CPI was last updated were VCRs, personal computers, and cell phones even on the market? A car with 100,000 miles on it was a rarity. --- þ OLX 1.53 þ Support your local medical examiner: die strangely. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Wed Jan 22 03:42:02 CST 1997 Message number: 65 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy : S> interpretation of the CPI. I got scared about two paragraphs down... I can S> believe that someone would create a group whose soul purpose was to play f S> and loose with some inflation numbers and without any hard facts show that S> dropping a point off inflation, suddenly the world is perfect. That's Fr> That's exactly what happens. It is called the Federal Fr> Reserve,and they play fast and loose with inflation by controlling Fr> interest rates. I don't quite get how the Fed plays "fast and loose with inflation", would you mind elaborating on your point a bit? ... Clinton supporters know how the American Indians felt. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: THROCKMORTON Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Wed Jan 22 03:58:35 CST 1997 Message number: 66 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Throckmorton : >wage will be approximately $60,000 in todays dollars in 2030 compared >to $25,000 at present. By 2050 it will be almost $90,000. If real >median family income grows at the same rate, it should reach $96,000 >in 2030 and $140,000 in 2050, compared to $40,000 in 1995. Th> Is that $60,000 in 1996 dollars or in 2030 dollars? Doubling a Th> person's income does no good if prices more than double in the same Th> time. Good question, I was wondering the same thing myself when I read that. I have no clue what the answer is ... ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: THROCKMORTON Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Wed Jan 22 03:58:36 CST 1997 Message number: 67 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Throckmorton : DR> So basically, don't beleive the hype. The CPI might very well overstate >inflatioin, but we're not going to fix it by lopping off a percent. The way >fix it is to make the numbers more accurate by changing the way the market >basket is measured, not by artificially lopping off a percent. Th> The CPI probably does need to be changed. If memory serves correctly Th> the basket used is the one they came up a ways back, and spending Th> habits have changed significantly since that time. Yep, and I have no problem with them fixing the CPI. I just want them to actually fix it, not just slap a patch on the leak and call it fixed :-) As for your other question, I believe that everything is indexed to 1986 right now. I'm not certain, though ... ... Be suspicious of all native-born Esperanto speakers. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Wed Jan 22 15:32:20 CST 1997 Message number: 68 Reply to message number: 60 DR> I'm not sure precicely how they get the numbers on that, but the Economic DR> Policy Institute is usually pretty good with their facts. I'd certainly DR> trust them much more than the libertarian Cato Institute, at any rate. Hmm. I'd probably trust them more than the Cato institute too. DR> In my mind though, the third policy implication was the most significant DR> one. If the CPI is off by 1.1%, we're all 33% better off than we were DR> 30 years ago. That might very well be true - we "all" have flush toilets, DR> indoor plumbing, VCRs and color TVs now. But if that's so, it means DR> that the war on poverty was even more successful than first imagined. Hmm. I can see that. My question would be how are we measuring poverty? You'll have to forgive me, I'm having trouble staying awake right now, but I'd have to see some numbers to understand this better. It would be interesting to find out that we were better off than we thought. DR> It's nuts, but it's politics. Clinton has not yet embraced the idea, DR> and the Republicans will certainly not push it without bipartisan DR> support - they'll get killed in the next election if they do. Democrats DR> like Pat Moynihan (sp?) may push him into it though, it's something that DR> most people don't understand well. I mean really, how many people understan DR> that adjusting the CPI amounts to a 1% tax raise per year with a commesurat DR> reduction by 1% of almost all government services? The media sure won't DR> tell us much, I have little doubt of that. I'm interested to see how this pans out, what people do with this. Question, I myself don't understand the CPI that well. So question adjusting the CPI in which direction, up or down would affect a 1% increase in taxes and a 1% decrease in services. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: SPECTER Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Thu Jan 23 10:18:48 CST 1997 Message number: 69 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Specter : DR> In my mind though, the third policy implication was the most significant DR> one. If the CPI is off by 1.1%, we're all 33% better off than we were DR> 30 years ago. That might very well be true - we "all" have flush toilets, DR> indoor plumbing, VCRs and color TVs now. But if that's so, it means DR> that the war on poverty was even more successful than first imagined. Sp> Hmm. I can see that. My question would be how are we measuring Sp> poverty? The Federal government maintains an official poverty line, which is raised each year commesurate with the rate of inflation. Today, that poverty line is set at about $15,000 ... which is, officially, the amount of money needed to keep a family of four out of poverty. Next year, the poverty line will be raised - presumably by the percent that the CPI increases this year. If the CPI this year is 3%, the $15,000 figure is also raised by 3%. (Which I'm pretty sure is accurate, but I could be wrong .. I'm just making an educated guess that the poverty line is based on CPI increases). This poverty line is very important, because many government benefits and programs are based off of this number. Sp> I'm interested to see how this pans out, what people do with this. Sp> Question, I myself don't understand the CPI that well. So question Sp> adjusting the CPI in which direction, up or down would affect a 1% Sp> increase in taxes and a 1% decrease in services. If the CPI is 3% this year, and we artificially lower it to 2% as the Boskin Commission suggests, some of the things that will happen is: - The tax bracets will not be raised as quickly. The tables on which income taxes are based are adjusted yearly according to increases in the CPI. If the CPI is lowered, the higher tax brackets will hit lower incomes each year, a percent at a time. - Government benefits will not be raised as quickly. The amount paid out on a multitude of government programs is based on the CPI, including money hogs like social security. If the CPI was lowered, these people would see a cut of 1% per year. - Union contracts, and assorted other things, will also see a decline due to adjustment of the CPI. Many union contracts call for wage increases based on inflartion as reported by the CPI; if it is lowered, the salary increases will be lower too. These are just some of the affects, I honestly don't think that anyone understands all of the affects this would have on the American (and world) economy, and political system. ... Success is just a matter of luck. Ask any failure. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: MOre complete Boskin report Date: Thu Jan 23 10:21:10 CST 1997 Message number: 70 Reply to message number: unavailable Here's a more complete version of the EPI Boskin report, which might not be formatted too well, but should be readable: Washington, D.C. -- The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) today released a preliminary analysis of the final report of the Senate Finance Committee's Commission on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), chaired by Michael Boskin. EPI economist Dean Baker prepared the following analysis of the Boskin Commission report: Insufficient Research for Definitive Conclusions Very little research has been conducted into most of the potential sources of bias in the CPI. The existing research is far too sparse to provide the basis for definitive conclusions about the size or even the sign (up or down) of any bias in the index taken as a whole. Unlike the Price Statistics Review Commission appointed in 1959, and chaired by Nobel Prize winning economist George Stigler, the Boskin Commission commissioned no original research. Therefore it had to rely on the limited, and often quite dated, existing body of research. In another departure from the Stigler Commission and standard research practices, it held no public sessions and did not make its report available for peer review prior to its official release. A Legislated CPI "Fix" Raises Taxes and Cuts Social Security A reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment for tax brackets and Social Security amounts to a tax increase and a Social Security cut regardless of the rationale used to justify these measures. The Bureau of Labor Statistics should be given the resources and opportunity to continue its ongoing program to improve the CPI. BLS remains the best authority on the construction of a consumer price index. The Boskin Commission's findings do not provide a sufficient foundation for policy change. Biased Composition of Commission Prior to their appointment, all five members of the Boskin Commission had testified that they thought the CPI substantially overstated inflation. Economists who presented the Finance Committee with a different perspective, such as former BLS Commissioner Janet Norwood, were excluded from the Commission. The Commission was also biased in its focus. Once in place, it concentrated only on identifying sources of overstatement. It made little or no effort to examine ways in which the index might understate inflation (e.g. the treatment of health insurance premiums or deteriorating quality of services at retail stores). The Commission also made no effort to determine whether the biases it identified apply equally to all segments of the population (i.e. the elderly). An Incomplete Analysis of the "Cost-of-Living" The Commission claims to be evaluating the adequacy of the CPI as a cost of living index. It has suggested, for example, that by picking up consumers' substitution to goods that rise less rapidly in price, the CPI will be a true "cost-of-living index." However, in order to construct a true cost-of-living index it would be necessary to take into account such factors as crime, the quality of public schools, or the availability of public recreational facilities. These factors have an enormous impact on the cost of living. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not claim the CPI is a cost of living index, because it lacks the ability to quantify such factors. The Boskin Commission only made a very cursory examination of these issues. A far more serious examination would be needed to make any determination about the accuracy of the CPI as a cost-of-living index. Revised History is Implausible The Commission's findings lead to conclusions that are extremely implausible, if not impossible. For example, if the CPI is overstated by the amount claimed, then the nominal income growth experienced in the past has been less a result of inflation and more a result of real income growth. If real income grew more than has been recognized, then the levels it was growing from must have been lower. If the Boskin Commission's findings are extrapolated backward, they imply that most families lived below the current poverty line as recently as 1960. The findings have many other implications for economic history. For example, they also imply that the real value of the dollar has fallen by 50% compared with other currencies since 1973. Policy Has Been Completely Misguided If the Boskin Commission is correct, then public policy has been completely misdirected in recent years. As Boskin Commission member Robert Gordon has argued, the official data on investment is subject to the same sort of biases as the CPI. Using the same adjustments, he has shown that a "corrected CPI" implies that investment per worker and productivity growth were much greater than we thought and have been strong in recent years. If so, there is little reason to pursue deficit reduction and budget balance in order to generate saving, and therefore investment. Furthermore, if the Boskin Commission CPI adjustment is correct then future income growth should also be strong, implying future generations should be extremely well off. Therefore, there should be less concern about possible generational inequities. Also, if the Boskin Commission is correct, then the war on poverty was an incredible success story. Using our current poverty line, the poverty rate fell from close to 50% in 1960 to approximately 14% at present. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: What's the CPI Date: Thu Jan 23 10:23:11 CST 1997 Message number: 71 Reply to message number: unavailable This one might be worth skipping, but I'm posting it in case anyone wants to wade through it. This one is kind of a difficult read, not too easy to follow ... The Significance of the CPI in Government Statistics The consumer price index plays a direct or indirect role in a very large portion of the statistics that concern economists and policy makers. An adjustment to the CPI would have important implications for these key measures. (1) GDP deflators -- the vast majority of the price data used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to construct the deflators for the consumption component of gross domestic product (GDP) are taken from the calculations made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to construct the CPI. If the quality improvements, or true value of new goods, are being undercounted in the CPI, they are also being undercounted in the GDP deflators. While there are some differences between the indexes, as a first approximation the errors in the GDP consumption deflators would be about the same as the errors in the CPI. Also, there is evidence that the errors in measuring quality improvements in investment goods are at least as large as in consumption goods. This means that the size of any overstatement in the GDP deflator is approximately the same as the overstatement in the CPI. This overstatement implies the following: Real GDP growth -- if inflation has been overstated, then real GDP growth has been understated. Since the overstatement of the rate of inflation in investment goods is probably as large as the overstatement in consumption, the understatement of GDP growth is approximately equal to any overstatement of the CPI. Thus, if the CPI is overstated by 1.0 percent a year, then real GDP growth has been understated by 1.0 percent a year. Productivity growth -- productivity growth measures the increase in real final output (consumption, investment, and net exports) for each hour worked. If (and only if) the CPI has been overstating inflation by 1.0 percent a year, productivity measures have been understating productivity growth by 1.0 percent a year. Productivity growth can be understated only if the growth of a category or categories of real final output has been understated. (2) Real wage and income growth -- these would have to be understated by exactly the amount that the CPI has been overstated. Thus, if the CPI is currently overstated by 1.0 percent, then real median family income has to have increased by 150 percent since 1960, from approximately $16,900 in todays dollars (only slightly above ou r current poverty level). This compares with a 43 percent rise shown by current data, from $29,500 in todays dollars. This same CPI overstatement would also imply that the average hourly wage has increased nearly 200% over this period, from $5.30 in 59 to $15.89 in 1994. Calculating a 1.0 percent overstatement into the projections of the Social Security Trustees, the average real wage should increase an additional 143 percent by 2030, to $38.65 an hour, compared with a 55 percent increase projec ted with the current CPI. (3) Real Interest Rates -- the real interest rae and the real rate of return on physical and financial capital would be higher by the same amount as the overstatement in the CPI. This means, for example, that the real federal funds rate is now about 3.75 percent (5.25 percent nominal minus 1.5 percent inflation). (4) Real Foreign Exchange Rates -- the real value of the dollar is calculated using the CPI as a deflator. If the CPI overstates inflation, then the real value of the dollar has fallen far more than is generally recognized. Using the current CPI, the ollars real value declined by 16.5 percent from 1973 to 1995. Projecting back a 1.0 percent overstatement means that the real value of the dollar, relative to other currencies, has declined by more than 50 percent since 1973. (5) International Comparisons -- the higher growth rates for consumption and GDP implied by an overstated CPI imply that these levels must have been much lower in the recent past. For example, a 1.0 percent overstatement at present implies that per c apita GDP in the U.S. would have been about $5,600 in 1953, in todays dollars. According to the latest World Bank estimates, this would place living standards in the U.S. in that year roughly equal to the current level in Panama and more than 20 perc ent below the current levels in Mexico and Thailand. (6) Sectoral Demand and Output -- any overstatement is not distributed evenly between sectors. For example, much of the research has focused on errors in the measurement of the price of food purchased for home consumption. This means that the real co nsumption of food has increased far more than had been thought and that the price of food has fallen far more relative to the price of other goods than has generally been recognized. If there is substantial measurement error in the index, the rate of growth of output, demand, and prices in each sector will have to be reassessed. All the economic research based on current data will be thrown into question. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: CPI-flavored colas Date: Thu Jan 23 10:24:19 CST 1997 Message number: 72 Reply to message number: unavailable This one's pretty easy to read, going into what the CPI adjustment would affect: Taxes -- Tax brackets are currently indexed to the CPI. A lower measured rate of inflation lowers the bracket cutoff points relative to where they would have been with the current CPI. This will mean that most people will have more income taxed at a higher rate. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the average taxpayer will see his or her taxes rise 0.7 percent of income by 2006 if the CPI is lowered by 1.0 percentage point. This hidden tax increase will cost an average taxpayer over $1,600 during this period. Earned Income Tax Credit -- Most recipients of the earned income tax credit are on the downward-sloping portion of the income scale, and the more money they earn, the lower the amount of the credit they receive. A lower CPI will push more people into this situation. A 1.0-percentage-point reduction in the CPI will cost a family with a $20,000 income approximately $1,650 over the next 10 years. Social Security Benefits -- Once a worker retires, his or her Social Security benefits increase in step with the CPI. If the CPI shows a lower measured rate of inflation, then the annual increase in Social Security benefits will be lower. A 1.0-percentage-point reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment will cost an average couple $2,148 over the next five years. Other indexed benefits: Veterans Pensions and Benefits Pensions of Federal Government Employees Supplemental Security Income Railroad Workers Pensions Food Stamps Women, Infant, and Children Nutrition Program* School Lunches* * Eligibility is linked to the poverty line, which is indexed to the CPI. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Social Security Date: Thu Jan 23 10:28:03 CST 1997 Message number: 73 Reply to message number: unavailable More from EPI, the last one here ... this bit is on social security, related to attempts to privatize it. KInd of related to all the CPI talk, being another way to cut back on spending without being so overt about it: PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITYThe Wall Street Fix Dean Baker In June, the Presidents Advisory Council on Social Security will issue proposals intended to ensure the long-term solvency of the Social Security trust fund. Fear and concern for the future of Social Security has become widespread. This has led some to call not just for tax increases and benefit cuts but for the actual dissolution of the system and its replacement with a system of government-mandated private savings. But contrary to the assertions of many public officials and to the alarm of the public at large, there is a strong case to be made that Social Security is sound now and will continue to be sound indefinitely. The major threat to the system comes from the proposals to fix it. Privatization presents perhaps the most serious threat to date: it would place individuals retirement savings at considerable risk, force the creation of huge government bureaucracies, and leech Social Security assets out of the system and into the coffers of brokerages and banks. SOCIAL SECURITY WORKS Social Security provides retirement income to over 35 million people. It also provides disability insurance to virtually the entire working population, as well as survivor insurance for families in the event of the death of a parent or spouse. It provides these benefits in a manner that is progressive and fair: lower-income people get back a higher percentage of their earnings as Social Security benefits, but the more someone has paid in the more they get back. The system is also efficient: the cost of administering Social Security is less than 0.7% of annual benefits, compared to administrative costs at private insurance companies that are on average more than 40 times as high. THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND IS SOUND Social Security is not in danger of bankruptcy. According to the intermediate projection of the Trustees of the Social Security fund (the standard basis for policy projections), the fund will be able to meet all of its benefit payments to the year 2030, with no increase in taxes whatsoever. Even this projection is based on pessimistic assumptions. For example, it assumes that economic growth over the next 35 years will be far lower than during any 35-year period in U.S. history. It also assumes that wage growth will not increase, even though the trustees forecast a labor shortage created by the retirement of the baby boom generation. History and economic theory suggest that the economy will perform better than indicated by this gloomy scenario, and therefore the Social Security fund should be able to pay out all its benefits even further into the future, with no change in policy. While the retirement of the baby boom generation will place increased demands on government budgets in coming decades, this pressure will be offset largely by the smaller segment of the population comprising children. This changing demographic mix will lead to savings in education and other government spending that supports children, which currently accounts for approximately 20% of all government spending. The dependency ratio (the ratio of both children and retirees to workers) is projected to rise gradually until 2035, but even then it will reach only 84% of its 1960 level. Since output per person should be more than 2.5 times as great in 2035, there is little reason to believe that the dependency ratio in that year will create an unsustainable burden. FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL ENJOY HIGHER LIVING STANDARDS Even the pessimistic projections in the Social Security trustees report show that wages will be on average 35% higher in 2030 than at resent, after adjusting for inflation. If the consumer price index (CPI) overstates inflation, as many claim, future generations will be even better off. For example, according to the estimate of the Boskin commission (a commission appointed by the Senate Finance Committee to evaluate the accuracy of the CPI), average wages will be 140% higher in 2030 than at present and nearly 300% higher by 2050. This means that the average annual wage will be approximately $60,600 in 2030 and $98,210 in 2050 (measured in 1996 dollars.) By comparison, the average annual wage today is about $25,260, and the typical couple now receiving Social Security has an income of about $20,000. Any tax increases that might be needed to finance Social Security in the next century would be small compared to these projected increases in real wages. For example, if the trustees projections are accurate, Social Security could be supported indefinitely by increasing the tax by approximately 3 percentage points over the 30-year period from 2010 to 2040. This is less than the 4 percentage point increase in the tax from 1980 to 1990. A tax increase of this size would barely make a dent in the projected wage growth of future workers. It is important to note that, while average wages are projected to rise substantially in the next decade, most workers will not see rising wages if most of the gains go to those at the top. This is exactly what has been happening in the economy over the last 20 years. Average wages have continued to rise, but the increase has been driven by the gains of those at the top. The median wage (the wage of a typical worker) has been falling for the last 20 years. If this trend continues, then future generations will experience declining living standards, but the source of this decline will be the institutional structures that allow wealth and income to be concentrated at the top, not a distributional problem between generations. It is often claimed that Social Security will provide a poorer return to future generations on the taxes paid in than it does for current and earlier generations. Yet this trend is not an accident. The nation as a whole is getting richer through time. Future generations will enjoy higher wages and incomes through their lifetimes as a result of the investments in infrastructure, education, technology, and capital made by earlier generations. Social Security transfers part of this wealth back to earlier, poorer generations. Younger generations therefore get a lower return on their Social Security taxes, but they get to enjoy a much higher living standard on the whole. In this sense, Social Security provides a progressive transfer between generations just as it provides a progressive transfer within generations. For this reason, it is inappropriate to compare the rate of return on Social Security taxes with the rate of return on stocks or bonds. Social Security is part of a policy package in which earlier generations created a public and private infrastructure to allow later generations to enjoy higher wages and living standards. The relevant measure is not the rate of return provided by Social Security benefits relative to the taxes paid in, but rather the improvements in living standards over generations. By all projections, younger generations will on average enjoy far higher standards of living than previous generations, even after paying their Social Security taxes. In addition, because of the Social Security benefits paid to their parents, millions of younger workers will not have to worry about providing for their parents retirement at a time when they are raising their own families. (It is also important to remember that Social Security provides the equivalent of a $200,000 life and disability insurance policy for most of an individuals working life. The value of this policy is generally not included in calculating the return on Social Security taxes). For the rest of the report, detailing the various proposals, check out: Copyright 1996 by the Economic Policy Institute. Preferred Citation: Dean Baker, "Privatizing Social Security: The Wall Street Fix" (Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 1996 [http://epn.org/epi/epib112.html]). To order this report. EPI ISSUE BRIEF Issue Brief #112 Economic Policy Institute April 29, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: ALL Subject: Re: Social Security Date: Thu Jan 23 13:41:08 CST 1997 Message number: 74 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising : DR> SOCIAL SECURITY WORKS DR> Social Security provides retirement income to over 35 million people. DR> It also provides disability insurance to virtually the entire working DR> population, as well as survivor insurance for families in the event DR> of the death of a parent or spouse. It provides these benefits in a DR> manner that is progressive and fair: lower-income people get back a DR> higher percentage of their earnings as Social Security benefits, but DR> the more someone has paid in the more they get back. Unfortunately, social security *isn't* very progressive. People who make under $65,000 a year pay 7.5% and their employer matches it; any income over $65,000 is subject only to the 2% medicare tax, which their employer also matches. DR> THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND IS SOUND DR> Social Security is not in danger of bankruptcy. According to the DR> intermediate projection of the Trustees of the Social Security fund DR> (the standard basis for policy projections), the fund will be able to DR> meet all of its benefit payments to the year 2030, with no increase DR> in taxes whatsoever. The fund may be sound until 2030, and even beyond - but there is still a fundamental problem in the way that it's funded. Current retirees often get back all they pay in (plus interest) in a couple of years, the rest being paid for by a regressive tax which hits primarily lower and middle income workers. Why should an independently wealthy person, who has recieved all they've paid in plus interest, be getting monthly checks paid for by a regressive tax? If social security is insurance, then they don't need to collect - and if it's an investment plan, they've already gotten their money out of it (although, admittedly, not at a very high rate of return). That is a question worth exploring though, whether social security is really a form of mandated invcestment or social insurasnce. DR> FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL ENJOY HIGHER LIVING STANDARDS DR> Even the pessimistic projections in the Social Security trustees DR> report show that wages will be on average 35% higher in 2030 than at DR> resent, after adjusting for inflation. If the consumer price index DR> (CPI) overstates inflation, as many claim, future generations will be DR> even better off. On the one hand, the Economic Policy instiutute is bashing this idea ... but when it fits their agenda, they embrace it? Whatever. DR> For example, if the trustees projections are accurate, DR> Social Security could be supported indefinitely by increasing the tax DR> by approximately 3 percentage points over the 30-year period from DR> 2010 to 2040. This is less than the 4 percentage point increase in DR> the tax from 1980 to 1990. A tax increase of this size would barely DR> make a dent in the projected wage growth of future workers. Yeah, another 3% added onto the otherwise regressive tax won't hurt at all will it? Oh, I forgot. That doesn't include the employer's half, does it? Well, a 21% tax on the first $65,000 of income isn't really that big of a deal. What a great idea! Wonder why I didn't think of it. Here, I was going suggest asking wealthier people to stop dipping into the pool when they don't need it, or even raise the bar a bit and ask the more affluent to chip in a larger share. But hey, taxing poor and middle-class people is so much easier, they don't vote much anyways. DR> Younger generations therefore get a lower return on DR> their Social Security taxes, but they get to enjoy a much higher DR> living standard on the whole. In this sense, Social Security DR> provides a progressive transfer between generations just as it DR> provides a progressive transfer within generations. It's hard not to get cynical when the facts are twisted so badly, it's hardly "progressive" to watch retirees recieve checks which match the total contributions they made through an entire *decade*. This wasn't some sort of planed wealth transfer through the generations, and trying to make it seem that way is pure sophistry. DR> Social Security taxes with the rate of return on stocks or bonds. DR> Social Security is part of a policy package in which earlier DR> generations created a public and private infrastructure to allow DR> later generations to enjoy higher wages and living standards. The DR> relevant measure is not the rate of return provided by Social DR> Security benefits relative to the taxes paid in, but rather the DR> improvements in living standards over generations. By all DR> projections, younger generations will on average enjoy far higher DR> standards of living than previous generations, even after paying DR> their Social Security taxes. In addition, because of the Social DR> Security benefits paid to their parents, millions of younger workers DR> will not have to worry about providing for their parents retirement DR> at a time when they are raising their own families. DR> (It is also DR> important to remember that Social Security provides the equivalent of DR> a $200,000 life and disability insurance policy for most of an DR> individuals working life. The value of this policy is generally not DR> included in calculating the return on Social Security taxes). Which, for a relatively healthy young male such as myself, runs what ... a hundred bucks a year? ... If voting really effected change, it would be illegal. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Thu Jan 23 15:27:47 CST 1997 Message number: 75 Reply to message number: 69 DR> The Federal government maintains an official poverty line, which is DR> raised each year commesurate with the rate of inflation. Today, that DR> poverty line is set at about $15,000 ... which is, officially, the DR> amount of money needed to keep a family of four out of poverty. DR> DR> Next year, the poverty line will be raised - presumably by the percent DR> that the CPI increases this year. If the CPI this year is 3%, the DR> $15,000 figure is also raised by 3%. (Which I'm pretty sure is accurate, DR> but I could be wrong .. I'm just making an educated guess that the poverty DR> line is based on CPI increases). That all makes sense. I have to wonder where it actually is. $15,000 dollars seems about right from my way of thinking. My father gets by on $16,000, of course he also doesn't support three other people, but i can see a family of four getting by on $15,000 a year. Now I think I see the implications of this, if the CPI was too high, then perhaps the poverty line is too high, because it grew too quickly, correct? And if it's too high then we have even less poverty than we think, correct? DR> If the CPI is 3% this year, and we artificially lower it to 2% as the DR> Boskin Commission suggests, some of the things that will happen is: DR> DR> - The tax bracets will not be raised as quickly. The tables on which income DR> taxes are based are adjusted yearly according to increases in the CPI. DR> If the CPI is lowered, the higher tax brackets will hit lower incomes DR> each year, a percent at a time. DR> DR> - Government benefits will not be raised as quickly. The amount paid out DR> on a multitude of government programs is based on the CPI, including DR> money hogs like social security. If the CPI was lowered, these people DR> would see a cut of 1% per year. DR> DR> - Union contracts, and assorted other things, will also see a decline DR> due to adjustment of the CPI. Many union contracts call for wage DR> increases based on inflartion as reported by the CPI; if it is lowered, DR> the salary increases will be lower too. Ahh. I see, thank you. All that makes sense now. Just had to see it worked out. That and I'm awake right now, yesterday was iffy. DR> These are just some of the affects, I honestly don't think that anyone DR> understands all of the affects this would have on the American (and world) DR> economy, and political system. I'm sure the effects would be enormous, like chaos theory in action, every action producing several others. Ripples in a pool, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Social Security Date: Thu Jan 23 15:39:06 CST 1997 Message number: 76 Reply to message number: 74 DR> Unfortunately, social security *isn't* very progressive. People who make DR> under $65,000 a year pay 7.5% and their employer matches it; any income DR> over $65,000 is subject only to the 2% medicare tax, which their employer DR> also matches. DR> What a great idea! Wonder why I didn't think of it. Here, I was going DR> suggest asking wealthier people to stop dipping into the pool when they DR> don't need it, or even raise the bar a bit and ask the more affluent DR> to chip in a larger share. But hey, taxing poor and middle-class people DR> is so much easier, they don't vote much anyways. I was thinking something similar. Proposition: If people making over $65,000 dollars a year make something around, oh, for the sake of argument I'll say 50% of the income collected in the United States each year, that's a guess I have no idea what it really is- sorry, now if the make 50% of the income collected each year, and we're not taxing them for over the %65,000 then aren't we missing a lot of possible tax income that could defended as being pretty fair?.. Of course, the middle class really deserves more taxation, I mean there are more of us after all, even if we don't hold the wealth. Sorry that's two thoughts, but hey whatcha gonna do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Specter Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Thu Jan 23 17:53:12 CST 1997 Message number: 77 Reply to message number: 75 DR> Next year, the poverty line will be raised - presumably by the percent DR> that the CPI increases this year. If the CPI this year is 3%, the S> That all makes sense. I have to wonder where it actually is. $15,000 dolla S> seems about right from my way of thinking. My father gets by on $16,000, of S> course he also doesn't support three other people, but i can see a family of S> four getting by on $15,000 a year. Now I think I see the implications of S> this, if the CPI was too high, then perhaps the poverty line is too high, S> because it grew too quickly, correct? And if it's too high then we have eve S> less poverty than we think, correct? Exactly, according to the Economic Policy Institute the poverty rate would be abo(ut $9000 right now, instead of $15000, if the CPI had been "correctly" reported since the 1960s. I don't know about you, but I don't know how to live on $9000 a year without holing myself up in someone's attic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Specter Subject: Re: Social Security Date: Thu Jan 23 18:01:29 CST 1997 Message number: 78 Reply to message number: 76 S> I was thinking something similar. Proposition: If people making over $65,0 S> dollars a year make something around, oh, for the sake of argument I'll say S> 50% of the income collected in the United States each year, that's a guess I S> have no idea what it really is- sorry, now if the make 50% of the income S> collected each year, and we're not taxing them for over the %65,000 then S> aren't we missing a lot of possible tax income that could defended as being I see where you're going with this, but you have to first make the distinction between earned income and unearned income. Earned income is the cash you and I pick up when we work a shift at the local gas station. Unearned income is the statement we get in the mail at the end of the year from the bank, telling us that we made $5 in interest. Earned income is taxable and also subject to social security withholdings; unearned income is subject to different tax laws (which I'm somewhat ignorant on, never having to personally worry about them). But as far as I know, this unearned income is not subject to social security witholdings. For people who make lots of money, they tend to make a larger chunk of it through invcestments and capital gains (unearned income) rather than as plain wages. So even if you'd raise the bar to $200,000 or something, it may not make much of a difference. But I'll try to track down some numbers and get back to you, remind me early next week if I don't get back to you on it ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Fri Jan 24 01:36:06 CST 1997 Message number: 79 Reply to message number: 69 DR> poverty line is set at about $15,000 ... which is, officially, the DR> amount of money needed to keep a family of four out of poverty. DR> Is it that high now? I thought it was around $12,000. DR> This poverty line is very important, because many government benefits DR> and programs are based off of this number. DR> For example: to qualify for food stamps, your family income cannot be higher than 80% of poverty. DR> If the CPI is lowered, the higher tax brackets will hit lower incomes DR> each year, a percent at a time. DR> DR> - Government benefits will not be raised as quickly. The amount paid out DR> on a multitude of government programs is based on the CPI, including DR> - Union contracts, and assorted other things, will also see a decline DR> due to adjustment of the CPI. Many union contracts call for wage Figures. Another way to screw the poor and working stiffs and enrich the rich. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Fri Jan 24 01:42:44 CST 1997 Message number: 80 Reply to message number: 77 DR> I don't know about you, but I don't know how to live on $9000 a year witho DR> holing myself up in someone's attic. Most impoverished people in today's world live on a lot less than that. That is more than minimum wage, and a lot of people are unemplyoed and have no income at all, or only work part time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Fri Jan 24 14:12:35 CST 1997 Message number: 81 Reply to message number: 77 DR> Exactly, according to the Economic Policy Institute the poverty rate would DR> abo(ut $9000 right now, instead of $15000, if the CPI had been "correctly" DR> reported since the 1960s. DR> I don't know about you, but I don't know how to live on $9000 a year witho DR> holing myself up in someone's attic. I agree. $9,000 isn't enough for almost anyone to live on, at least here in the U.S. Offhand, did you see Paul Krugman's response to this subject on the some internet site? I read it today, quite interesting. He talked about the effect of wealth differences on one's perception of poverty. I'd say but if you read it then there's no reason to. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Social Security Date: Fri Jan 24 14:17:53 CST 1997 Message number: 82 Reply to message number: 78 DR> Earned income is the cash you and I pick up when we work a shift at the lo DR> gas station. Unearned income is the statement we get in the mail at the end DR> the year from the bank, telling us that we made $5 in interest. Earned inco DR> is taxable and also subject to social security withholdings; unearned incom DR> is subject to different tax laws (which I'm somewhat ignorant on, never hav DR> to personally worry about them). But as far as I know, this unearned income DR> not subject to social security witholdings. Yeah, I know the difference. I can see why we haven't written any tax laws affecting unearned income. I don't think most people would be too happy with having SS taxes placed on their bank interest for example. DR> For people who make lots of money, they tend to make a larger chunk of it DR> through invcestments and capital gains (unearned income) rather than as pla DR> wages. So even if you'd raise the bar to $200,000 or something, it may not DR> make much of a difference. Ok, even though I knew the difference between the two, I really hadn't considered where the people who make the most money were getting it from, and how tax laws would affect that. Thank you for pointing it out. DR> But I'll try to track down some numbers and get back to you, remind me ear DR> next week if I don't get back to you on it ... k. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Sat Jan 25 06:46:59 CST 1997 Message number: 83 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy : DR> poverty line is set at about $15,000 ... which is, officially, the DR> amount of money needed to keep a family of four out of poverty. DR> Fr> Is it that high now? I thought it was around $12,000. No, I'm pretty sure that it's about $15,000. As for not being able to live on $9,000 per year, minimum wage at $5 an hour would get you about $10,000 a year at full time (the quick and dirty way to figure it out is to take the amount per hour, double it, and take it times a thousand). But it would be consistent with working a typical minimum wage job, where one doesn't always get a full 40 hours a week. ... Yield to temptation; It may not pass your way again. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Sat Jan 25 09:09:29 CST 1997 Message number: 84 Reply to message number: 83 DR> As for not being able to live on $9,000 per year, minimum wage at DR> $5 an hour would get you about $10,000 a year at full time (the quick DR> and dirty way to figure it out is to take the amount per hour, double it, DR> and take it times a thousand). But it would be consistent with working DR> a typical minimum wage job, where one doesn't always get a full 40 hours DR> a week. DR> That is the problem. Several times. people on BBSs have argued this point with me, but if a worker works 40 hours a week, the employer has to pay for some benefits. So low-wage workers' hours are usually scheduled between 35-38 hours per week. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Specter Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Sun Jan 26 17:50:41 CST 1997 Message number: 85 Reply to message number: 75 S> That all makes sense. I have to wonder where it actually is. $15,000 dolla S> seems about right from my way of thinking. My father gets by on $16,000, of S> course he also doesn't support three other people, but i can see a family of S> four getting by on $15,000 a year. Say what? Specter, I make $18,000 a year, and I'm here to tell you that there's no way in hell I could support a family of four on that income. The rent on a two-bedroom apartment (or mortgage payment on a three-bedroom house) would eat up nearly half of that all by itself. Add in car payments, insurance, food, and clothing, and there's nothing left. My friend Ian has a family of four: himself, his wife, and fraternal twins. He makes nearly $30,000 per year, plus his wife brings in extra from giving music lessons and performing in ensembles, and they can't afford to move into a house unless his parents provide most of the down-payment on the mortgage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Jan 27 14:23:24 CST 1997 Message number: 86 Reply to message number: 85 DT> Say what? Specter, I make $18,000 a year, and I'm here to tell you that DT> there's no way in hell I could support a family of four on that income. Th DT> rent on a two-bedroom apartment (or mortgage payment on a three-bedroom hou DT> would eat up nearly half of that all by itself. Add in car payments, DT> insurance, food, and clothing, and there's nothing left. Mmm. I gotta go with what I've seen... One of my best friends gets by on $18,000 a year for a family of 6, I wouldn't know the specific methods, but I do believe it can be done. I know it's difficult, but with effort I've seen it done. DT> My friend Ian has a family of four: himself, his wife, and fraternal twins. DT> He makes nearly $30,000 per year, plus his wife brings in extra from giving DT> music lessons and performing in ensembles, and they can't afford to move in DT> a house unless his parents provide most of the down-payment on the mortgage Mmm. I wouldn't know, but as I said, I've seen it done. 18,000 a year for a family of 6. of course young children are very expensive. I don't believe anyone should have to make due on 15,000 a year. I'm just saying I can see it being done. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Jan 27 15:33:07 CST 1997 Message number: 87 Reply to message number: 86 S> Mmm. I gotta go with what I've seen... One of my best friends gets by on S> $18,000 a year for a family of 6, I S> wouldn't know the specific methods, but I do believe it can be done. I know S> it's difficult, but with effort I've seen it done. S> When? The cost of living has been going up alarmingly, and things like salaries, benefits, and social programs have not been keeping pace. In addition, there is very little low-cost housing left. Most of it has been leveled r remodeled for higher rents. This is putting low-income people to more of a crunch, as a higher portion of their incomes must be spent for housing. Rents of $1,000/ mont are not unusual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Specter Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Wed Jan 29 15:26:57 CST 1997 Message number: 88 Reply to message number: 86 S> Mmm. I gotta go with what I've seen... One of my best friends gets by on S> $18,000 a year for a family of 6, I S> wouldn't know the specific methods, but I do believe it can be done. I know S> it's difficult, but with effort I've seen it done. Your friend should be put in charge of the federal budget for a couple of years... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Thu Jan 30 14:28:26 CST 1997 Message number: 89 Reply to message number: 87 F> When? The cost of living has been going up alarmingly, and things F> like salaries, benefits, and social programs have not been keeping pace. In F> addition, there is very little low-cost housing left. Most of it has been F> leveled r remodeled for higher rents. This is putting low-income people to F> more of a crunch, as a higher portion of their incomes must be spent for F> housing. Rents of $1,000/ mont are not unusual. Yes, housing is pretty bad, and yes, we do need more low-cost housing, but as I said I've seen it done, and as to when, right now, though his income may have been bumped up within the last year. I knew housing was bad, but where are the $1,000 a month rentals, that's horrible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Thu Jan 30 14:29:08 CST 1997 Message number: 90 Reply to message number: 88 DT> Your friend should be put in charge of the federal budget for a couple of DT> years... Naw, his mother, she runs everything in their household down to pretty much every penny. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Fri Jan 31 00:54:43 CST 1997 Message number: 91 Reply to message number: 89 S> have been bumped up within the last year. I knew housing was bad, but where S> are the $1,000 a month rentals, that's horrible. In the Twin Cities area, sort of everywhere. In the suburbs, if is difficult to rent anything for much less than that. But in the inner cities, gentrification is causing these rents. There are a lot of places in the cities that used to be warehouses or low-income houses that have been remodeled, made fancy and spendy, and these rents are common. Especially for the kind of apartments where they have installes skylights and spas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Feb 03 14:18:30 CST 1997 Message number: 92 Reply to message number: 91 F> In the Twin Cities area, sort of everywhere. In the suburbs, if is F> difficult to rent anything for much less than that. But in the inner cities F> gentrification is causing these rents. There are a lot of places in the F> cities that used to be warehouses or low-income houses that have been F> remodeled, made fancy and spendy, and these rents are common. Especially fo F> the kind of apartments where they have installes skylights and spas. Mmm. Wow, I've lived in like two or three apartment buildings and none of them cost more than $600 for a nice two-bedroom in a reasonable suburb, I had no idea they were up there... Thank you for enlightening me to that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Feb 03 16:00:18 CST 1997 Message number: 93 Reply to message number: 92 S> Mmm. Wow, I've lived in like two or three apartment buildings and none of S> them cost more than $600 for a nice two-bedroom in a reasonable suburb, I ha S> no idea they were up there... Thank you for enlightening me to that. Even so, The income of a person making minimum wage is about $600/month. See the problem? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Tue Feb 04 15:43:40 CST 1997 Message number: 94 Reply to message number: 93 F> Even so, The income of a person making minimum wage is about F> $600/month. See the problem? Yes, but $600 a month only makes $7200 a year, (I'm against such a low-minimum wage to begin with, but that's a different topic) I was getting at more around $15,000 a year which is twice as much, though of course with taxes, and food, and utilities, that leaves just about nothing afterwards... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVE THE LUCKY To: Specter Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Sat Feb 15 11:23:58 CST 1997 Message number: 95 Reply to message number: 94 S> Yes, but $600 a month only makes $7200 a year, (I'm against such a low-minim S> wage to begin with, but that's a different topic) I was getting at more arou S> $15,000 a year which is twice as much, though of course with taxes, and food S> and utilities, that leaves just about nothing afterwards... $15,000 per year equals $7.50 per hour full-time. Your homework assignment, find a company who will pay a high-school graduate with no college $7.50 per hour for 40 hours per week. I think you'll find that you either won't be offered the job, or will have to work for less money or fewer hours (35 hours per week seems to be the current favorite). Here's a little brain-twister for you: On Tuesday, I'll be starting a new job that pays $25,000 per year in salary. Will I be earning a gross income of greater than or less than $1000 per paycheck? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Sat Feb 15 13:13:15 CST 1997 Message number: 96 Reply to message number: 95 DT> On Tuesday, I'll be starting a new job that pays $25,000 per year in salary DT> Will I be earning a gross income of greater than or less than $1000 per DT> paycheck? With or without the value of the pens and computer paper you bring home from work. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Mon Feb 17 05:53:29 CST 1997 Message number: 97 Reply to message number: 95 DT> Your homework assignment, find a company who will pay a high-school graduat DT> with no college $7.50 per hour for 40 hours per week. I think you'll find DT> that you either won't be offered the job, or will have to work for less mon DT> or fewer hours (35 hours per week seems to be the current favorite). * a friend of mine works at parker-hannefin, which is a humungous warehouse/factory/distributorship. they are *desparate* for workers. a person starts out temp, works temp for 400 hrs, i think, then the company will hire them. they start out $7/hr but raises are good. this includes *full benefits* and paid vacations. the only prob is, you have to get out to lakeville to get to the job- but it's a decent warehouse job and they will take anyone with a highschool education. if you know anyone who needs work, email me privately. -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: DAVE THE LUCKY Subject: Re: Money, money, money Date: Mon Feb 17 11:22:00 CST 1997 Message number: 98 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Dave The Lucky : DTL> On Tuesday, I'll be starting a new job that pays $25,000 per year in DTL> salary. Will I be earning a gross income of greater than or less than DTL> $1000 per paycheck? It all depends on how often you're paid, does it not? ... Eat the rich. The poor are tough and stringy. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Dave The Lucky Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Tue Feb 18 11:30:14 CST 1997 Message number: 99 Reply to message number: 95 DT> On Tuesday, I'll be starting a new job that pays $25,000 per year in salary DT> Will I be earning a gross income of greater than or less than $1000 per DT> paycheck? Less, though just near $1000 gross every two weeks, about $750 net every two weeks, I know because that's what my mother makes... oh, yeah, good luck or congrats or whatever... I don't know... DT> Your homework assignment, find a company who will pay a high-school graduat DT> with no college $7.50 per hour for 40 hours per week. I think you'll find DT> that you either won't be offered the job, or will have to work for less mon DT> or fewer hours (35 hours per week seems to be the current favorite). Full-time I have no idea... but part-time I can think of a few that will pay $7.50 per hour after a year, and with no college one could have started in high school and be making that much by the time one leaves high school... One could take two 20 hour a week jobs at $7.50 per hour and be making the same though of course without a full-time job one wouldn't get any benefits... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THROCKMORTON To: DAVE THE LUCKY Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Tue Feb 18 13:46:07 CST 1997 Message number: 100 Reply to message number: unavailable DTL>Your homework assignment, find a company who will pay a high-school gradua >with no college $7.50 per hour for 40 hours per week. I think you'll find >that you either won't be offered the job, or will have to work for less mo >or fewer hours (35 hours per week seems to be the current favorite). Depends on what you're willing to do for work. There's a warehouse in Northfield that seems to be always looking for workers. Start at $9.50 per hour but; you work second shift including weekends. (You do get a minimum of 40 hours a week) If I wanted I could go to the Airlake Industrial Park in Lakeville and get a job in about 2 days that paid $7 to $8 per hour, again warehousing/material handling, and probably shift work. DTL>Here's a little brain-twister for you: DTL>On Tuesday, I'll be starting a new job that pays $25,000 per year in salar >Will I be earning a gross income of greater than or less than $1000 per >paycheck? That comes to just a penny or two over $12 per hour on a 40 hour week. Depends, are you getting paid weekly, bi-weekly, semi-monthly, or monthly? --- þ OLX 1.53 þ Atheism- The belief that there is nothing to believe in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Specter Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Wed Feb 19 04:47:31 CST 1997 Message number: 101 Reply to message number: 99 DT> Your homework assignment, find a company who will pay a high-school graduat DT> with no college $7.50 per hour for 40 hours per week. I think you'll find DT> that you either won't be offered the job, or will have to work for less mon DT> or fewer hours (35 hours per week seems to be the current favorite). * it's interesting- since i posted my note that said not only do i know of such a place- solid work, full time, benefits and paid vacations, good raises, and asked that if anyone wanted a job or knew anyone who did, they could email me-- not a single note have i had. right now, there's work OUT there. but if people are too pissy to work in a warehouse, then they must not need it bad enough. -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Cosima Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Wed Feb 19 06:22:47 CST 1997 Message number: 102 Reply to message number: 101 C> it's interesting- since i posted my note that said not only do i know of suc C> a place- solid work, full time, benefits and paid vacations, good raises, an C> asked that if anyone wanted a job or knew anyone who did, they could email C> me-- not a single note have i had. right now, there's work OUT there. but if C> people are too pissy to work in a warehouse, then they must not need it bad C> enough. Throckmorton also posted about similar jobs. In fact, one of them looked like it might be the SAME job. In all honesty, there are some people who canot work in warehouse work, or cannot work 3rd shift. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Froggy Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Wed Feb 19 17:02:03 CST 1997 Message number: 103 Reply to message number: 102 F> Throckmorton also posted about similar jobs. In fact, one of them F> looked like it might be the SAME job. In all honesty, there are some people F> who canot work in warehouse work, or cannot work 3rd shift. * yes, i know. actually, it wasn't the same job, but it was in the same area- the humungous industrial park out in lakeville. i do NOT know why the morons who are making maga-bucks out there don't realize that many people who need basic jobs live in town and don 't have cars to get to lakeville- why not do a shuttle bus of somekind, from downtown, uptown and southdale? * parker, where my friend works, takes people on *all* shifts- you can even work 4 10 hr days and get 3 days off. but the real problem is the transpo. -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Cosima Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Thu Feb 20 01:40:14 CST 1997 Message number: 104 Reply to message number: 103 C> yes, i know. actually, it wasn't the same job, but it was in the same area- C> the humungous industrial park out in lakeville. i do NOT know why the morons C> who are making maga-bucks out there don't realize that many people who need C> basic jobs live in town and don C> 't have cars to get to lakeville- why not do a shuttle bus of somekind, from C> downtown, uptown and southdale? Probably because they would have to pay for the shuttle bus. :) A closely-guarded secret is that some of these jobs are also unavailable for another reason. On the employment application, they ask if you have your own car and do not offer you the job if you say no. So they can pay low wages and the worker can pay for the vehicle and insurance. This also gives them leverage to complain that they *have* jobs, but nobody wants them. When I was working as a temp, I took one of these as a temp assignment. I lived in North Minneapolis and the company was in Hopkins. I was paid $4/ hr, no benefits, to drive 40 miles to work and back and work 3rd shift. My car expenses and increased food costs gobbled up the pittance that I earned, and I would NEVER accept something like this as a permanent job.Not because I am lazy, but because I can't afford the priviledge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Cosima Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Thu Feb 20 11:42:46 CST 1997 Message number: 105 Reply to message number: 101 C> it's interesting- since i posted my note that said not only do i know of suc C> a place- solid work, full time, benefits and paid vacations, good raises, an C> asked that if anyone wanted a job or knew anyone who did, they could email C> me-- not a single note have i had. right now, there's work OUT there. but if C> people are too pissy to work in a warehouse, then they must not need it bad My bet that a lot of the people here aren't really looking for a job. Or in my case I can only work weekends because of school, stuff like that... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Cosima Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Thu Feb 20 11:44:34 CST 1997 Message number: 106 Reply to message number: 103 C> parker, where my friend works, takes people on *all* shifts- you can even wo C> 4 10 hr days and get 3 days off. but the real problem is the transpo. often is... C> yes, i know. actually, it wasn't the same job, but it was in the same area- C> the humungous industrial park out in lakeville. i do NOT know why the morons C> who are making maga-bucks out there don't realize that many people who need C> basic jobs live in town and don C> 't have cars to get to lakeville- why not do a shuttle bus of somekind, from C> downtown, uptown and southdale? I would be interested in seeing something like that, I'm not aware of any corporations that do that, but it does some sense... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KRUSTY To: COSIMA Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Thu Feb 20 12:42:18 CST 1997 Message number: 107 Reply to message number: unavailable CO>a friend of mine works at parker-hannefin, which is a humungous CO>warehouse/factory/distributorship. they are *desparate* for workers. a pers CO>starts out temp, works temp for 400 hrs, i think, then the company will hir CO>them. they start out $7/hr but raises are good. this includes *full benefit CO>and paid vacations. the only prob is, you have to get out to lakeville to g Are you implying that lakeville is way out and there's something wrong with it? Hey I live here! Eh, you are right at any rate, anyway. Wanna go spraypaint "Niggers Go Home" on the high school with me? --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Let's Rab! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Thu Feb 20 16:55:48 CST 1997 Message number: 108 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy : Fr> Throckmorton also posted about similar jobs. In fact, one of Fr> them looked like it might be the SAME job. In all honesty, there are Fr> some people who canot work in warehouse work, or cannot work 3rd shift. Well, wages are pretty decent in the Twin Cities now ... at least comparatively speaking. If you're willing to travel a ways for a job, aren't too picky about the kind of work you're doing or the hours you're working, you can probably find a decent job here. Unfortunately, this isn't universal ... the Duluth job market, for example, is virtually non-existant. Also, because of these employment opportuities, the cost of living is also shooting up. ... Eat the rich. The poor are tough and stringy. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: COSIMA To: Krusty Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Fri Feb 21 20:04:14 CST 1997 Message number: 109 Reply to message number: 107 K> Are you implying that lakeville is way out and there's something wrong K> with it? Hey I live here! Eh, you are right at any rate, anyway. K> Wanna go spraypaint "Niggers Go Home" on the high school with me? * i'm not implying anything, i'm saying that lakeville is too far for many people who need work to get there. lakeville also decided to *not* allow southwest suburban transportation to run buses out there...didn't want The Rabble showing up in the community. so now they have humungous industrial park- and can't get anyone to work there. * about the high school- i'll assume you're kidding, and that you're not that much of a racist asshole. :) -=c=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KRUSTY To: Cosima Subject: Re: CPI Nonsense Date: Sat Feb 22 06:53:26 CST 1997 Message number: 110 Reply to message number: 109 C> about the high school- i'll assume you're kidding, and that you're not that C> much of a racist asshole. :) Well, I'm kidding in the sense that I'm not that one that in one form or another put the words "NIggers go home" or "Die Nigger" on the highschool. Yep, both happened last year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Balanced Budget Hoopla Date: Thu Mar 06 11:07:49 CST 1997 Message number: 111 Reply to message number: unavailable Posted to the mn-politics mailing list by yours truly: I'm still amazed at all this balanced budget talk over here in America. Even the economically conservative European Union, managing most of the major European economic powers, allows member countries a small defecit each year (about 5% of their GDP), in the understanding that defecit spending isn't necessarily a bad thing when your economy is growing at a decent clip. On the contrary, if you're a believer in demand-side economics, it can be a great and necessary thing. As several people have mentioned, the Federal government is not run like a business. While is true, it's also not the whole story: the Federal government is also not run like a state government. Besides investing in infastrcture like roads and school buildings, which often require long-term debt, the Federal government also has a role in managing the nation's economy. All capitalist economies have ups and downs - and no one's found a way to fix that without causing even more problems. When the economy goes sour, as it inevitably does, the government generally spends more on the "safety net" (for example, uneployment insurace) and also generally spends more on infrastructure and public investment. Whatever the cause of the spending, the money is appropriated, spent and pumped into the economy - and if all goes well, it helps to shorten the recession. Besides spending more money, the government also plays around with interest rates through the Federal Reserve. The Fed works against the business cycle by increasing the money supply during a recession, and decreasing the money suply rates during a heated expansion. During a recession, it is both the Fed's monetary policy and the President/Congress's fiscal policy which help to increase spending in the economy, and thus demand for goods and services. Assuming one is a supporter of demand-side economics, this is pretty standard textbook stuff. So what, then, does this have to do with a balancled budget amendment? Of the two economic tools used by the government, monetary policy is the quickest and most powerful. The chairman of the Federal Reserve can make the economy spin on a dime, with fairly little effort. But monetary policy is also sort a heavy club ... if wielded too often and too forcefully, it loses effectiveness. Thus, fiscal policy - spending money on roads and unemployment insurance during a recession - is still an important and necessary tool. One important distinction should be made, though. Just spending money during a recession doesn't do much, unless it's new money. And that's where the need to run a debt comes into play. Creating a debt, the Congress and President appropriate new money and pump it out into the economy. This new money, coupled with the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, spurs demand for products and services. This new demand creates new jobs, which in turn creates new demand for products, which in turn creates new jobs ... So why am I against a balanced budget amendment? For many reasons, but mainly because it's unnecessarily restrictive and shortsighted. During times of crisis, our government needs the flexibility that running a debt allows. Until the 1980s, our government was in the habit of running small defecits in peacetime. We only went into heavier debt during recessions or times of war. When the economy finally rebounded, the defecits would shrink back to peacetime levels, and we'd expand out way out of debt. If we would only return to that (as we seem to have been doing the past few years), we'd have no need for a balanced budget amendment ... we did it for at least 40 years, and I don't see why we can't do it again.