Slashdot Mirror

I will NOT settle and be happy for "what I have", I will take what I earn.

Blame taxes. Per capita, and adjusted for inflation, the average US taxpayer now pays about 50% more than what they did, back in 1960.

Federal income taxes in 1960 were $41 billion, in 2012 it was $1.13 trillion - that's a 30X increase. The number of tax returns went from 61 million to 145 million. And a dollar in 1960 was worth $7.76 in 2012. Add that all up, and the average taxpayer is paying about 50% more than they did back in the day.

And that is just Federal income taxes. State taxes have gone up, and of course Social Security/Medicare has more than doubled from 3% to 8%. Combine all that together, and the average person is paying quite a bit more in income taxes today, and that does not help with the situation at all.

When My coworker bought a Lisa back in '84, it was $10000...$24,328.78 today according to http://www.in2013dollars.com/u...

Here is a link to a good book to describe what this poster is talking about. It is the one many econ students use. It takes a good 2-3 years to go through and completely understand it.

https://www.amazon.com/Economi...

But basically if you add money to a system prices will rise to match it out as the demand curve will move upwards. The supply curve does not move right away and the cross over point moves upward. But as the suppliers realize they can charge more the supply curve will also move upwards.

In the end it is a wash and 'real' prices end up the same. Because those taxes to pay for this 'free money' will be passed along to the consumer. Paid for by the suppliers. It would be what is called in economic terms 'inflationary'.

Source: degree in economics.

and it has not led to inflation.
This is a real gem!
But here someone did the math. http://www.in2013dollars.com/1...

Increased demand doesn't matter and there's always going to be more regardless of how rich or poor a country is since human want is essentially unlimited. What's needed is more supply, because that's what drives prices down. Increase demand as you want without increasing supply and prices go up, though not immediately by the time it comes close to the same level, the same people would just give a higher UBI to try avoiding the problem. Increasing supply means there's more wealth go around, even if the people at the bottom get disproportionately less of it.

Also the U.S. has undergone steady inflation so I don't know what you're on about with this not leading to inflation. Since 1980, it's been about 200%, which means that it takes about $3 to buy what you could for $1 in 1980. There are some who would argue that inflation is bad, but there are other arguments that is has benefits such as encouraging investment since it's the only way to keep your money from becoming worth less over time. Also, precious metals aren't immune to inflation, though it's less likely. Spain famously experienced it after hauling gold and silver out of the Americas and it wreaked havoc on their economy. In today's economy a gold standard would be terrible since supply of goods and services would rapidly outpace supply of new gold or silver, leading to massive deflation which means you're likely better off just hoarding your precious metal instead of trying to invest it in something.

Why not go back all the way?

You seem to be misinformed about wages in the 1700s. According to this book, a typical laborer's wage (construction work) was between 40 and 80 cents per day, or (given today's 5-day work week) about $208 per year. According to this inflation calculator, $100 in 1770 would be worth about $2,700 today. So at the high end, inflation-adjusted wages for a construction laborer would be in the neighborhood of $5,000 to $6,000 per year.

Of course there were reasons that most people back then were farmers. And today there are reasons that most people have jobs in retail or the restaurant industry, or other jobs that will one day be done by robots. And there are reasons why most people aren't farmers today, just as in the future there will be reasons that people won't do the menial jobs of today. Just as all those people who used to be farmers found other work, future people will find other work too.

If you're so upset about CEO's getting so much more than you, instead of complaining, why don't you instead become a CEO! Oh wait, it's really hard to be a successful CEO. Maybe there's a reason they make so much money. (No, I'm not one, nor do I want that kind of headache!)

The real reason that incentive to work goes down is because people no longer have to work. They can always fall back on government programs. People used to understand that getting ahead comes from hard work. Today, too many people want to get ahead...without the work. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

It's time to start seriously talking about the Sherman Antitrust Act. It has been illegal since 1890 for monopolies to leverage their monopoly status in one line of business into another line of business. ISPs breaking the Internet by violating Net Neutrality are a posterchild for illegal activity. And this isn't difficult to understand. Let's look at the text of section 1, in its entirety:

15 U.S. Code 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Obviously Comcast doesn't give a damn about a piddling million dollar penalty.[1] But Comcast executives might care a little bit about a federal felony conviction.

There's 38 sections in 15 U.S.C., half a dozen of which have been repealed. Section 15c is an interesting one. That's the one that says State attorneys general are allowed to sue to enforce this law. It does not require a federal prosecutor. There's an aggressive New York state attorney general who might be interested.

Section 15 is also interesting. That's the one that says, "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court", and recover triple damages plus attorney's fees. And since corporations are persons... Netflix needs to grow some balls and sue Comcast in federal court. They qualify. It's black letter law, with zero difficulty proving damages. The dollar amount Comcast extorted from them is the amount of damage they suffered. It's trivial to prove Comcast is an interstate monopoly. Done and done. I just wish Netflix had a lawyer like NewEgg's general counsel.

ISPs might be more interested in Title II protections after a few felony convictions. Eric Schneiderman, are you listening?

----
[1] Obviously the law needs to be inflation-adjusted. That penalty cap should be at least $25,791,700. Still a drop in the bucket. I would argue it needs to be 10 times the inflation adjusted amount.

You are very correct! Even if that is $10 billion in 1789 dollars, not 2017 dollars, it would be off by another factor of 10.

There are two minimum wages. One is a minimum the government sets for all employees to be paid and the other is the market minimum in which must be paid to attract and keep employees working under the conditions presented.

The government minimum is largely static outside acts of government but the market minimum is largely moveable with unemployment. The easiest and best way to raise a minimum wage is to reduce unemployment and let the market for employees demand a higher wage. This is a problem however because the economy has crapped out so badly that fast food jobs are seen as careers now instead of first jobs and stepping stones on a path to bigger and better opportunities. The worst part of this problem is that instead of looking at the situation and saying we need more and better jobs, a lot of people are content outside of wanting to raise the pay for these menial jobs.

When I got my first legal job (other than mowing yards and crap), unemployment in my area was low. I started at minimum wage but quickly progressed above it. All I had to do was basically show up on time and put a bit of effort at doing the work. My second job, which hired me away from my first employer at a raise, I went the extra mile for them and did pretty much anything they asked to the best of my ability and my pay quickly reflected it too. I was making 13 dollars an hour rolling burritos and flipping steaks on a charbroiler in the mid 1990s. $13 an hour might not seem like much but according to an inflation calculator one dollar in 1995 had about the same purchasing power as $1.56 in 2016. So in contrast, think of it as being paid almost $20 per hour in today's world and the minimum wage at then was $4.25 an hour (it went up from $3.35 when I first started working a few years prior).

If employment was there, by necessity, the minimum wage an employer could pay to keep an employee would by higher than the minimum wage. Those fast food jobs would go back to first job experiences and as stepping stones for people to show they can show up to work and follow directions enough to be hired at someplace that pays more.

Kick all the unemployed people out of the country, problem solved. Someone get Trump on this, he'll Make Sandford Great Again.

For The Greater Good.

There are two minimum wages. One is a minimum the government sets for all employees to be paid and the other is the market minimum in which must be paid to attract and keep employees working under the conditions presented.

The government minimum is largely static outside acts of government but the market minimum is largely moveable with unemployment. The easiest and best way to raise a minimum wage is to reduce unemployment and let the market for employees demand a higher wage. This is a problem however because the economy has crapped out so badly that fast food jobs are seen as careers now instead of first jobs and stepping stones on a path to bigger and better opportunities. The worst part of this problem is that instead of looking at the situation and saying we need more and better jobs, a lot of people are content outside of wanting to raise the pay for these menial jobs.

When I got my first legal job (other than mowing yards and crap), unemployment in my area was low. I started at minimum wage but quickly progressed above it. All I had to do was basically show up on time and put a bit of effort at doing the work. My second job, which hired me away from my first employer at a raise, I went the extra mile for them and did pretty much anything they asked to the best of my ability and my pay quickly reflected it too. I was making 13 dollars an hour rolling burritos and flipping steaks on a charbroiler in the mid 1990s. $13 an hour might not seem like much but according to an inflation calculator one dollar in 1995 had about the same purchasing power as $1.56 in 2016. So in contrast, think of it as being paid almost $20 per hour in today's world and the minimum wage at then was $4.25 an hour (it went up from $3.35 when I first started working a few years prior).

If employment was there, by necessity, the minimum wage an employer could pay to keep an employee would by higher than the minimum wage. Those fast food jobs would go back to first job experiences and as stepping stones for people to show they can show up to work and follow directions enough to be hired at someplace that pays more.

Back in 1969 the gov't suspended circulation of all bills greater than $100... If we want to revisit that decision, the likely conclusion would be to bring back the $500 bill, not claw back the $100 bill. A hundred 1969 dollars is over six hundred dollars today - that makes today's $100 bill the equivalent of a $20 bill in $1969 (based on buying power). This is about the government being able to track ever more transactions, not about 'fighting terrorisim'.

One of the biggest changes in focus between the old plan and the new one is the de-emphasis on "NASA does all". As the online version of the Plan evolves, this will continue to change. I can't say when the commercial space budget will exceed NASA's, but it will be happen if all goes well. This may be a terrible example, but it kinda fits - Thomas Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark to explore and map the Louisiana Purchase, and continue on to the Pacific Ocean, to learn what might be learned.
Per this article, Jefferson originally asked for $2500 from Congress, but ultimately the cost was closer to $50,000, a 20 to 1 cost overrun that outdoes any modern overrun.

Lewis and Clark took two years and were actually given up for dead. But today, I can drive approximately the same route in three days. The point is that IMHO we are on the cusp of the transition from pure government financed exploration to the first 'trappers and hunters' going out to see what they could make of an opportunity. So either NASA will become less and less important and cease exploring, or more likely, will continue to transition their activities in support of the next phase.

NASA has been doing some very cool things to support commercial space entities and save money in the process - despite the less-than-sane meanderings of congressional politics. A case in point - the President's Commercial Crew Program 2017 budget, presently in negotiations in Washington, is being cut by $300 million, necessitating that NASA spend $600 additional million to buy launch services from Russia and delaying a return to US manned launches by four years.

(According to this inflation calculator, that $50,000 was equivalent to $1,027,500 today.)