Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Spanky
If this idiot knew anything, he would know that one of the comparative advantages Ricardo’s cites is access to cheap labor. ... There is no doubt that the Chinese benefit from this. The worker that has no job, now gets fifty cents an hour. That places him way above the rest of the Chinese. In America consumers get products for cheaper, freeing up more money that can be used in other parts of the economy creating more jobs other places. In our case more service jobs. Both countries experience more economic growth and the standard of living in both countries increases.

Riddle me this, why is it that the median income of individual full-time workers in the US has been falling since around 1973? Median income has been in the shitter for a long time. Household incomes have held steady because more members per household are working, namely women. What is it that's eroding median income per worker? Free trade with low wage countries that bid down the price of most labor is a likely candidate? Why not? If not that, then what???

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Riddle me this, why is it that the median income of individual full-time workers in the US has been falling since around 1973? Median income has been in the shitter for a long time. Household incomes have held steady because more members per household are working, namely women. What is it that's eroding median income per worker? Free trade with low wage countries that bid down the price of most labor is a likely candidate? Why not? If not that, then what???

In the mid-70s US workers started buying consumer products made by non-US workers because they were a better deal. Once the Busch beer/Catapiller Tractor/US Steel line workers thought "fuck it- I'm buying a Toyota" it was inevitable that it would trickle down to each of them too. Except for beer- US beer has problems because the imports are better tasting not cheaper.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Well, there's Charles Schumer but, as I said, do your own Googling.


Seriously, the parties' positions on farm subsidies reflect some of their worst vote-pandering conduct (and, in turn, reflect the severe problems that the Electoral College one-state-two-senators system causes this country).

But your claim was that certain Repubs were "knee-jerk free marketers" and I pointed out farm subsidies as a glaring contradiction to this. Your response -- "but the Dems support them too!" -- is, well, non-responsive (even if accurate -- which it is to some extent, but not nearly to the extent you claim). If you want to admire Santorum for being "knee-jerk free market.... except when it might cost him some votes," be honest about it. Omitting the second half of a key sentence is beneath you, spankster.

Slow down there cowboy. Pointing out that some Republican vote for Farm Subsidies does not effect my argument in any way. One example doesn't show a thing. I would submit that Generally Democrats are Pro-Choice. Does the fact that there are a few prolife Democrats disprove that statement. No. I still stand by that Repubs are knee jerk free marketers and Dems are not. You look at the Chamber of Commerce or any group that rates politicians on how much they support the free market and Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are way ahead of the Democrats. Its not even close. Sometimes Conservatives stray, but in general you can depend on them much more to side with the free market.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Riddle me this, why is it that the median income of individual full-time workers in the US has been falling since around 1973? Median income has been in the shitter for a long time. Household incomes have held steady because more members per household are working, namely women. What is it that's eroding median income per worker? Free trade with low wage countries that bid down the price of most labor is a likely candidate? Why not? If not that, then what???

Where did you get this statistic? From everything I have heard this is wrong.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Well, there's Charles Schumer but, as I said, do your own Googling.


Seriously, the parties' positions on farm subsidies reflect some of their worst vote-pandering conduct (and, in turn, reflect the severe problems that the Electoral College one-state-two-senators system causes this country).

But your claim was that certain Repubs were "knee-jerk free marketers" and I pointed out farm subsidies as a glaring contradiction to this. Your response -- "but the Dems support them too!" -- is, well, non-responsive (even if accurate -- which it is to some extent, but not nearly to the extent you claim). If you want to admire Santorum for being "knee-jerk free market.... except when it might cost him some votes," be honest about it. Omitting the second half of a key sentence is beneath you, spankster.

Ok - here are some stats - For the “Farm Security and Rural Investment Act” that was passed in 2002 which was the huge porkbarrel farm bill, of the forty Republicans that voted 24 voted against and 16 voted for. Santorum voted against, along with Hatch, Bennet, Alllen, warner etc. Only five Democrats voted against out of the twenty six Democrats voting. Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Dodd and Biden all voted yes.

So Schumer supports farm subsidies, and Santorum does not, even though he comes from a farm state.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyv...p?vote_id=3177

[Replaced_Texan]

Today, HJR 6 passed out of the State Affairs Committee in the State of Texas. This is a superfulous constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the state of Texas. Apparently, the statute that says the same damned thing wasn't good enough.

Among the Republicans voting for the measure was my representative Martha Wong.

Let me tell you a little about my district. We are the highest educated district in the state. We're also have one of the highest incomes. We were recently redistricted, and the woman who held the seat before, held it ably for 21 years. Because of her seniority, we were used to getting a lot of things to go our way. We have the Texas Medical Center, Rice University, West University, Bellaire, part of the Heights, part of River Oaks and most of Montrose.

Let me tell you a little more about that last neighborhood, my neighborhood, Montrose. Montrose is one of the largest gay neighborhoods in the country. A sort of hippie enclave in the 60s and 70s developed, and eventually, it became known as a gay friendly place. There are gay and lesbian bookshops, cafes, restaurants, and other organizations here. Half of the residents on my street are gay couples, including my next-door neighbors who have been together for 13 years and bicker over their renovation project. Land being at a premium, there have been a lot of townhomes and other large residential projects developed in the last dozen or so years, but the people who have moved in have been gay-friendly and fairly bohemian in nature.

The rest of our district isn't as, er, loud as we are about our tolerances, but they don't care what happens in Montrose. It's a fairly urban and sophisticated district, and the money thing is much more important than anything else. The district is at best a moderate leaning one, and of all of the people voting in that committee, Martha Wong had the most people in her district personally affected by the resolution. And when it goes to the full House, more of her constituents will suffer than any others in Texas.

A moderate Republican representing a good percentage of the gay people in Texas should have never voted for this bill. But the goddamned Republican party has their faithful voting in such lockstep that ridiculous and extreme position like changing the constitution for political points.

Moderates are just as bad as, if not worse than, the radical, and the voters in districts like mine aren't going to appreciate being labeled as neanderthals. She can couch hers as the "moderate" position but I read the 12 hours of testimony from last Monday, and I personally know how much shit like this hurts MY family. There's nothing moderate about legislating hate into the constitution.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Riddle me this, why is it that the median income of individual full-time workers in the US has been falling since around 1973? Median income has been in the shitter for a long time. Household incomes have held steady because more members per household are working, namely women. What is it that's eroding median income per worker? Free trade with low wage countries that bid down the price of most labor is a likely candidate? Why not? If not that, then what???

If this is indeed true, I was not aware it was the only measure we should care about. You really think that standards of living have decreased since 1973?

And I think you suggest one potential answer to your question. More people are working.

What is the mix of jobs in which those people are working? Are all of the women who entered the work force working in jobs that pay as well as men's jobs? The answer to that, even today, and even for the same job, is still very clearly no.

And, of course, what do you think the effect of all of these new workers on wages would be (even if there was equal pay)?

[Replaced_Texan]

My net nanny at work didn't let me go there this morning at work, but Susie Bright's obituary for Andrea Dworkin and the subsequent comments are really worth a read, even if you're not really much of a feminist theory type.

I'm a big Susie Bright fan, and I'm almost surprised at how even handed this account is given how radically different the two women's views towards sexuality was. Bright points out, though, that Dworkin was the first to even begin to look at pornography from a feminist perspective. She drew attention to it, and a lot of fantastic feminist pornographers, writers and sex workers got their inspiration from Dworkin's early work.

The comments are great too. Many are fawning towards Bright's piece, but a few are downright critical of Bright's approach to sexuality in general and defensive of Dworkin's work.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where did you get this statistic [that median income per full time worker in constant dollars has been relatively stagnant since 1973]? From everything I have heard this is wrong.

It's from the economic report of the president, and the Financial Times. The 2005 report covers years 1989 through 2003 (slight increase, due to the late 1990's); the 1999 report covers 1979 through 1997 (bigger decrease). http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/
The various articles I've read over time say the same thing about years 1973 through 1980.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Today, HJR 6 passed out of the State Affairs Committee in the State of Texas. This is a superfulous constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the state of Texas. Apparently, the statute that says the same damned thing wasn't good enough.

It's not superfluous, it's necessary from the republican perspective. Each additional constitutional amendment banning gay marriage makes it less likely the US Supreme Court will say that "evolving standards" mandate legalizing gay marriage. It also sets up a fight to amend the US constitution in the event the US Supreme Court votes to legalize gay marriage.

[Hank Chinaski]

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Slow down there cowboy. Pointing out that some Republican vote for Farm Subsidies does not effect my argument in any way. One example doesn't show a thing. I would submit that Generally Democrats are Pro-Choice. Does the fact that there are a few prolife Democrats disprove that statement. No. I still stand by that Repubs are knee jerk free marketers and Dems are not. You look at the Chamber of Commerce or any group that rates politicians on how much they support the free market and Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are way ahead of the Democrats. Its not even close. Sometimes Conservatives stray, but in general you can depend on them much more to side with the free market.

You identified specific people as being consistently in support of the free market. You didn't say that one party is generally more free-market than the other. So, pointing out how those specific people are against the free market when it satisfies their political goals certainly affects your argument.

More importantly, it suggests, as I meant to, that maybe their free-market sensibilities (when they choose to apply them) are driven more by political goals than by accepting economic wisdom.

As for your general point, cowboy, farm subsidies are hardly the only counterpoint. Or were you a fan of Bush's steel tariffs as well?

I am not challenging the view that Repubs have in general leaned towards free trade while Dems have in general leaned towards more protections for American workers and the environment. I'm questioning your apparent view that this is driven by moral and ideological purity rather than broader considerations.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where did you get this statistic? From everything I have heard this is wrong.

You haven't been listening very well, then. Household income is up since the early 70s, but that's largely due to more women working -- i.e., more two-earner households. Individual incomes have been stagnant or falling since then, consistently, except for a few years during the Clinton Administration.

Given that you've been pontificating about economic issues on this board for weeks or months, I find it surprising that you don't know one of the basic economic facts of our generation -- that individual incomes have suffered an unprecedented fall.


But I'm sure none of this affects your arguments either, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Dems have in general leaned towards more protections for American workers

Except for those that work in high rise buildings

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Except for those that work in high rise buildings

Good point. I keep forgetting that Clinton was President on 9/11, and that he ignored the report about Al Qaeda planning attacks within the US.