I also mentioned large corporations and pubically traded companies.

However, small businesses employ over half of Americans so it is relevant. Now, do you have an actual reason you disagree with that argument or would you prefer to simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit what you WANT to believe?I addressed that as well. Furthermore, I addressed how if larger businesses were required to pay more, why would higher-qualified individuals want to work for/run small business? Furthermore, why would a company continue to employ as many people even though it is hurting their bottom line?

Or are you going to require them to employ a certain number of people? Sounds like socialism to me.

Profit is not a bad thing. Profit is taxed. Good profits encourage hiring. Good profits pay retirement benefits.

Yes, the economy is stagnant. Okay, we get it - you think people should just be paid more. Please share specifics on how that would happen.

I tend to agree with Mookie that it is a confidence problem. Furthermore, I believe that inflation caused by across the board pay raises would increase inflation, and decrease confidence.

I have ideas for solutions but I'm waiting to hear yours first, backed up with specifics as to how the steps you propose would actually effect the economy.

you don't get it though. why would a company want to divert their "good profit" to anywhere but the pocketbooks of the top if they can get away with it? They cut benefits, trim workforces by offshoring, and put their money overseas to avoid all 3 of what you just said.

by no means should a company be required to have x amount of people, but things like what GM did in the 80's for pure profit are sick.

secondly, Why is it always about bottom line? Im sorry but there should be more important things than money.

About what we need to do. Im not some economist I'm going to say that straight up. But unless you are then you are no more qualified than i am. we need to get pay away from the current stagnation if were going to see real growth in this economy. Money needs to be spent, but nobody can spend enough without going into debt. and then we risk another meltdown because of the huge household debt. Even if consumers become "more confident" Many are just going to go back to spending money they don't have, and thats wht got us into this mess anyways.

There was a time not too long ago in america where people had a good living and business was booming. Now companies are making even more but people aren't living so well. I truly believe that a happy middle ground can be found where companies can make good profits and Americans can live well.

Ever hear of "Brain Drain"? Companies that don't want to pay get the kind of workers who can't get anyone else to hire them. The best will always follow the money.

So you want to legislate people's priorities?

Sounds tyrannical to me.Just because I'm not an economist doesn't mean that perhaps I don't know more about how it works that you do, because clearly I do, as you are clearly unwilling or unable to present specifics, whereas I can.

I was talking about society in general not calling for legislation.

oh...and i didn't know you were an internet genius. All were going to say is conjecture, and all you say is conjecture that you THINK is right and can make up little stories that HAVE to be true because they came from you.

so what i don't have a masters degree in economics, Just because I can't come up with every step to make my ideas happen does not mean what I'm saying is incorrect, neither does it validate your arguments.

So again you decide to ignore the actual points being made in favor of a simpleton's "you THINK you're right but you're actually wrong" argument.

I'm pretty sure my formal education included quite a large amount of study in economics. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure I've been fairly specific in my postulations. If you have a specific disagreement, I suggest you get to what it is before you continue further down the road of making a fool of yourself simply because you're so blindly tied to a certain flawed ideology which thinks simply paying people more will solve anything, while completely ignoring the ramifications of doing so.

So far your posts consist of nothing more than "you think you're right, but you're not". Nice rebuttals, chief. Seems as though most people from both sides of the political spectrum thinks I'm right. They may differ on solutions, but at least we all agree on the facts. You're involved in neither.

If you have the first clue as to what you were talking about, you'd address how you'd get companies to pay more. You'd address how you'd counter the invariable increase in inflation. You'd address where that money would come from.

This clip sums of your argument quite nicely, gimpy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ojd13kZlCA

Going to pay people more with the stash?

(That link is worth its own thread)

I don't think ur right because wage stagnation is a very very bad thing.
The CPI seems to be going up and every graph of the real wages seems to be going down. I don't care what they do to fix it. Its not my line of work, and it's not yours...but i want to see that change.

as we've learned over the meltdown, whats good for wall street is not always good for main street. I think its time we ought to fight for better wages for the american people as a way of ensuring our economy is strong. An economy is based off of the individual consumer (or at least an economy as Dependant on spending as ours). The stronger the everyday american buyer, the stronger and more stable our economy is.

Who said anything about wage stagnation?Actually, it's kind of close to my line of work.

CPI is generally always going to outpace wages in a recession. The reason is that, when jobs are lost, the higher paying jobs are usually the first to go. That causes the average wage to fall, but that has fairly little impact upon the disposable income of the employed middle class.

CPI can only be reduced when demand is reduced or its on the tail end of supply shortages (i.e. a CPI spike), and that's not likely to happen. The only time when the CPI related to real wages should be worrisome is if there's a sharp increase of unemployment (5% or more) over a very short period. The best way to address that is to incentivize job creation, and asking employers to pay more does not do that.That sounds almost word for word like an Obama stump speech. In case you haven't noticed, both Wall Street and Main Street are getting their asses kicked right now.

all very good points Aramike.

Another issue is the dynamic nature of the now worldwide economy.

In 1945, with most of Europe and Asia basically in ruins, the USA was by far the biggest industrialised state and american workers were able to demand higher wages which employers had no choice but to pay.

In 2010, highly skilled workers in the USA are now competing with workers in China and India that can do the same work for 1/10th the pay. I even read an article recently that big US law firms are starting to farm out certain legal work to law firms in India. That puts a downward pressure on all wages around the world.

Governments are very limited in their ability to intervene since capital is now highly mobile and will move to the country with the lowest wages, lowest taxes, etc.

That's an excellent point.

My biggest fear is that we're moving more and more towards a service-based economy where your average American's value is far more derived from what we do for each other than what tangible good we provide to each other. I'll elaborate more on what I mean by this later, but in general my point is that when you produce a good, that good retains some value and can often be sold. When you provide a service, that service's value is generally completely lost upon its conclusion.

A service based economy has little ability to retain value, thus my fear.

I'd have to hear more of your theory. While I generally agree with you on the importance of a healthy manufacturing sector, it seems to me that services like a professional installation, or a proper repair, or a thorough cleaning for example have real lasting value while manufactured goods often become obsolete and nearly worthless in a relatively short time.

Or when you see a spike in wage inflation. Wage inflation always precedes CPI inflation.

This is the natural progression of an economy and a country as it becomes more affluent and educated. As people gain wealth, they have the discretionary income to spend on services - housecleaning, lawnmowing, accountants, plumbers, etc - that you would not otherwise have the money to spend on if you were just scraping by. More wealth = more demand for services = more services.

And as for manufacturing, the real value is in the front and back ends of the product design. Think about it - you're designing ipods. Your engineers come up with the design and function of the device. You send the schematics to China for manufacture. The products are made and shipped over here for sale. Your sales force sells them, as well as the accessories for the ipod. Your service technicians fix them when they break. Where's the value here? Who is contributing most to an economy? Is it the design engineers earning $150,000 a year? Or is it the Chinese assembly line worker earing $1.50 a day? Is it the $1.50 a day assembly line worker or is it the service tech earning $75,000 a year? Who's going to contribute more to an economy through consumption? The higher paid worker or the lower paid one? Is specialized knowledge more valuable than manual labor? Of course it is.

You're right but we have way more people needing jobs than we have need for specialists.

That I have no answer for. In the midst of a major systemic economic shift such as moving from an agrarian to manufacturing economy, or a manufacturing economy to a service or high tech economy, there's always going to be people left behind. Those with skills that are obsolete or not in demand anymore will have a tougher time of it than new workers who have been trained in specialized fields entering the workforce.