Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Steal This Icon

Michele Bachmann Would Consider Lowering Minimum Wage To Match The Cost Of Labor Overseas

I have be saying for a while that no matter how badly Obama fucks up, whomever emerges from the GOP primaries will be so fucking batshit they'll terrify the electorate into re-electing him.
This recession related topic is being discussed at The Recession.
The Recession community forum the_recession ~ powered by LiveJournal.


Aug. 28th, 2011 10:15 pm (UTC)
"Emotion and prejudice" - you poor fool.

No wonder your economy's fucked. You really do practice every man for himself and devil take the hindmost (except for connected businessfolk of course).

Well, that little experiment isn't working out too well, is it? Half the country doesn't have a pot to piss in - and you even want to take the pot off them (that they don't have).

You people are insane. You're like a cargo cult that keeps trying the same old rituals - worship the flag, elect a crazed right wing monster, beat up poor people, but the rituals don't work because the world is a more complicated place than you think it is - the economy isn't a god to be worshipped but a tool to serve humanity. People aren't only valuable as servants for the rich; there's a whole universe beyond the narrow confines of money-worship, avarice and self-serving charity.

Like I say, money isn't a god, it's a tool. People aren't your slaves to be disposed of as you wish - they're human beings with as much right to a decent life as you.

You forget all this and fall into a narcisst's world of madness, where you really believe you're the centre of the universe because you've amassed more little bits of green paper with pictures of dead politicians on them than anyone else. And a lot of good that'll do you when you're dead.

Well, you keep mouthing your cute little homilies and living in the 19th century; the rest of the world has stuff to do.
Aug. 28th, 2011 10:25 pm (UTC)
You are on quite a riff talking about stuff that you feel very strongly about. But you're not talking to me, you know. I already TOLD you that I'm kind and generous. I feel moved to acts of mercy. I give my time and treasure to help the poor in literal as well as figurative ways.

Money is not my god. I don't elect crazed right wing monsters (or humans, either.) I have never beaten up a poor person. I live in an INTENSELY complex world that I navigate using the tools of thought and reason and debate and consideration because I find that emotion and prejudice steer me wrong.

I actively work for social justice in a variety of domains. Can you say the same thing?

And yet, despite being kind and generous, well-educated and thoughtful, I disagree with you on the possible benefits of reducing the minimum wage.

MUST you insist that I'm horrible? Is there ANY possible other explanation that you can conceive of why people of good will might disagree?
Aug. 29th, 2011 01:52 pm (UTC)
Compassion is an emotion.
Aug. 29th, 2011 02:11 pm (UTC)
Compassion is not just an emotion, it's a virtue. But, as in other emotions, it pays to govern it with reason.

Compassion is something I strive to combine with wisdom. When I am moved to compassion - which is often - I often find myself thinking about the root causes of the problem.

Women cannot afford school fees for their children in Africa because they have to spend all day toting water. To help them be more economically productive I spend money on building wells in villages in Africa. The women spend less time toting water, can grow a kitchen garden to feed their kids more nutritious food, and it cuts down on diseases from standing water.

Would you just pay their specific kid's school fees? My way helps the whole village for ever after.

Compassion is a worthy instinct but you need to stop and check with reason. You can give a man a fish or you can teach him to fish. They both have merit.

Have you asked yourself why you're so CERTAIN that I'm awful? I'm not. Really I'm not. I'm kind and generous, compassionate and thoughtful, smart and productive.

Why aren't you happy that people like me have the same goals you do?

Do you understand that you are NOT part of the solution when you just go off on emotional prejudices when people try to use reason to get at root causes?
Aug. 29th, 2011 09:03 pm (UTC)
PS you left out "modest".

Have you ever entertained the possiblity that you're not the one who gets to decide whether you're "kind and generous", much less "compassionate and thoughtful"?

As for "smart and productive" - you can't be that productive if you have to lower the living standards of your employees below even that required by American law!
Aug. 28th, 2011 10:46 pm (UTC)
What do YOU think of the idea that low-value workers would have a better shot at employment if the minimum wage were lowered?
Aug. 29th, 2011 01:53 pm (UTC)
That's what gives you away - that phrase: "low value workers".

So very, very revealing.
Aug. 29th, 2011 02:12 pm (UTC)
We are specifically DISCUSSING the value of their economic output. Seriously, get a grip. Of COURSE they have worth as human beings. But, there's this tiny detail, see, that they actually don't have skills that anyone wants to pay them $10/hour for.

So, how do you address THAT?
Aug. 29th, 2011 02:28 pm (UTC)
Do you realize that you are frantically clinging to reasons to re-enforce your prejudicial hatred of me? You're accusing me of not valuing human life - despite my earlier discussion of the value of Bangledeshi children relative to Kansas children.

Try to use your brain. Hold thoughts in consecutive order. Assume the person conversing with you is of equal goodwill.

Give it a try. You'd be amazed at the world it opens up.

The world is hard and complex and intertwined and there is almost never a single right answer to anything.
Aug. 29th, 2011 02:32 pm (UTC)
So, what method would you suggest to help people with low-value skills to become better able to trade their time and energy and skills for things they want?
Aug. 29th, 2011 08:29 pm (UTC)
- want
+ need

or are food and rent "luxuries" on your planet?


█▓▒░ The Recession ░▒▓

Page Hit Counters
Page Hit Counters

Welcome to

Welcome visitors, members one and all! I hope you find this community as informative, useful and entertaining as we do!

If you haven't done so already, please take a moment to review the couple of guidelines we have in place by clicking on the community profile. From the main profile page you can also familiarize yourself with the many websites and resources members have recommended since this community started. Some of our personal favorites include Calculated Risk, Economic Cycle Research Institute & Jeffrey Frankel's Blog.

You may also want to participate in our LiveJournal Global Economic Poll - "The Economy Around The World: A Real Live Journal Global Poll" .

As the economies around the world teeter once again, with many already having slipped into "Growth Recession" if not outright technical recession, and with many more looking at the real possibility of outright recession in 2012 and 2013, "the recession" in 2011 was seeming mild by way of comparison to what could be lurking just around the corner.

Will "Recession 2012" look as bad as "The Great Recession" of 2007-2009? Could we skirt by this time without a full-on economic death spiral? Will the economy get better by election day? Or will Obama lose the election for economic reasons? (Presidential elections are usually won or lost for base economic reasons in this country, after all).

Stay tuned. I think it's fair to say that it is going to continue to be a pretty wild ride for the world economy for some time to come. Recession 2013? Recession 2014? Did the Great Recession ever really end in the first place? Many think not!

ECRI Weekly Leading Index
Has a moderate lead over cyclical turns in U.S. economic activity. Data begins in 1967.

Recent Data

Date Level Growth

Jun 29 '12 121.9 -2.9
Jun 22 '12 121.7 -3.2
Jun 15 '12 121.5 -3.2
Jun 08 '12 122.1 -2.8

ECRI Calendar

March 22, 2012
Frankfurt Conference

ECRI will participate in the Bloomberg Sovereign Debt Conference in Frankfurt on March 22, 2012.

Crude Oil 1Yr Chart


State Coincident Index
3-Month Change

Is your state essentially in expansion or recession?
Lt Green-Dark Green: Growing-Faster.
Gray: No growth.
Pink-Dark Red: Contracting-Faster.

What is the
definition of recession?

According to the laypress, and even many economists, a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP (Gross Domestic Product). While this very simple definition is usually the case during recessions, it is not always so.

Most experts now acknowledge that GDP alone is an insufficient determinant of recession.

For one, GDP is often revised several quarters - even years - later, as more complete information becomes available that changes the components of the earlier, initial GDP estimates in what can be very substantial ways.

For another, not all serious downturns exact as serious a toll on GDP. Often, the decline is much more pronounced in GDI (Gross Domestic Income) and/or employment. If the income or employment of a nation is undergoing a pronounced, pervasive and prolonged decline even if for whatever various reasons its GDP may be holding up, is it not foolish to deny that a recession is underway?

For these reasons and others, the NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research), the official arbiter of recessions and expansions in the United States, determines whether or not the US has fallen into recession using a much more holistic approach.

As the NBER explains it:
Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?

Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. In 2001, for example, the recession did not include two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. In the recession beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009, real GDP declined in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009. The committee places real Gross Domestic Income on an equal footing with real GDP; real GDI declined for six consecutive quarters in the recent recession.

Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?

The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.

Q: How does the committee weight employment in determining the dates of peaks and troughs?

In the 2007-2009 recession, the central indicators–real GDP and real GDI–gave mixed signals about the peak date and a clear signal about the trough date. The peak date at the end of 2007 coincided with the peak in employment. We designated June 2009 as the trough, six months before the trough in employment, which is consistent with earlier trough dates in the NBER business-cycle chronology. In the 2001 recession, we found a clear signal in employment and a mixed one in the various measures of output. Consequently, we picked the peak month based on the clear signal in employment, as well as our consideration of output and other measures. In that cycle, as well, the dating of the trough relied primarily on output measures.

Q: Isn't a recession a period of diminished economic activity?

It's more accurate to say that a recession–the way we use the word–is a period of diminishing activity rather than diminished activity. We identify a month when the economy reached a peak of activity and a later month when the economy reached a trough. The time in between is a recession, a period when economic activity is contracting. The following period is an expansion. As of September 2010, when we decided that a trough had occurred in June 2009, the economy was still weak, with lingering high unemployment, but had expanded considerably from its trough 15 months earlier.

What is a
"Double Dip Recession"?

In the most general sense a Double Dip Recession occurs when an economy falls back into contraction for at least a couple of months (usually at least six) after a relatively brief expansion.

By this definition, the recession of 1981-82 which followed a year-long expansion after the very short, two quarter's long 1980 recession, seems to qualify. Also by this broad definition, the 1937 recession that occurred four years after the end of the 1929-1933 recession also qualifies. While each of those were technically "new" recessions, they happened so soon after their predecessors that many people tend to think of the separate 1980 & 1981-82 recessions as one nasty, long recession. Similarly, most people think of the 1929-1933 & 1937 recessions as encompassing "The Great Depression."

Another definition of a "Double Dip Recession" would be that of a recession which technically has not ended, and was only punctuated by a quarter or twos worth of head-fake rise in GDP. Many recessions throughout history have had such false hopes, only to swoon back down into contraction, until they finally came to an end.

List of Recessions:
Post-1900 US Recessions

Mo/Yr Started Duration
Sep 1902 - 23 Months
May 1907 - 13 Months
Jan 1910 - 24 Months
Jan 1913 - 23 Months
Aug 1918 - 7 Months
Jan 1920 - 18 Months
May 1923 - 14 Months
Oct 1926 - 13 Months
Aug 1929 - 43 Months
May 1937 - 13 Months
Feb 1945 - 8 Months
Nov 1948 - 11 Months
Jul 1953 - 10 Months
Aug 1957 - 8 Months
Apr 1960 - 10 Months
Dec 1969 - 11 Months
Nov 1973 - 16 Months
Jan 1980 - 6 Months
Jul 1981 - 16 Months
Jul 1990 - 8 Months
Mar 2001 - 8 Months
Dec 2007 - 18 Months

What is
Gross National Happiness (GNH)?

An alternate measure of a nation's wealth was conceptualized several decades ago as a means of cutting through the overemphasis on materialism of traditional wealth measures, and seeing the bigger picture.

According to GNHUSA.Org

  Gross National Happiness (GNH) is an indicator developed in Bhutan in the Himalayas, based on the concept elaborated in 1972 by the then King Jigme Singye Wangchuck. Since then, the kingdom of Bhutan, with the support of UNDP (UN Development Program), began to put this concept into practice, and has attracted the attention of the rest of the world with its new formula to measure the progress of a community or nation.

GNH is based on the premise that the calculation of "wealth" should consider other aspects besides economic development: the preservation of the environment and the quality of life of the people. The goal of a society should be the integration of material development with psychological, cultural, and spiritual aspects - all in harmony with the Earth.

The Four Pillars of GNH

  • the promotion of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development
  • the preservation and promotion of cultural values
  • the conservation of the natural environment, and
  • the establishment of good governance.

Page Summary


Latest Month

October 2015
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Sponsored by Cisco