We Need a New Republican Party

[BrianSD_42]

The mere fact that there may or may not be a growing pay gap is not the root problem that needs solving...

It is not really the gap between CEO and worker that everyone should be concerned about.

You should be concerned about the fact that the median income for a college educated 30 year old male was in 2012 at the SAME exact level as 1996 when adjusted for inflation. Yet the GDP and overall wealth of corporations and business owners has increases enormously since 1996.

Ask yourself this hypothetical ... If the wealth of the united states increases 4 fold in next 20 years should the average college educated workers income and therefore standard of living increase as well? I would think the ideal thing is to raise salaries as overall wealth increases.

The rich still get really rich but at least the worker/human resource would see some of those benefits.

What is going on now (partly because of outsourcing, NAFTA and other democrat (& Rs) sponsored policies) is that the pay increases do not trickle down -enough.

Hence the undisputed fact (look it up yourself) that the average college educated male makes the same pay as in 1996. Even though the GDP has gone up X-fold.

Certain fields are doing well. Mainly technology. But any anonymous poll of tech engineers in their 40s-50s will tell you two things:
1) workers do not feel the profits of a successful company are shared fairly (eg pay, bonus and stocks)
2) the companies they work for are actively trying to minize costs and outsourcing is one of the most common methods. That is why Chamber of Commerce is lobbying congress for a 2-3 year temp worker program that will allow them to bring over engineers from China and India in greater numbers. Right now they can only do it if they try to fill the job with an american first.

I'm not advocating for any specific policy change. I am just telling you that things are not perfect and there are a lot of working educated people who are scared about the opportunities their children will have compared to what they had.

 

[OkieSnuffBox]

The outsourcing thing is ridiculous too.

The company I work for ($1xx,xxx,xxx) is owned by a multi-billion dollar corporation. They are forcing us to continue to use some of the Indian "engineers" for Solidworks changes and stuff like that.

But thanks to the time difference, constant rework, etc. I'm not convinced the company saves any money in the reduced productivity and extended lead times, vs just paying an American Engineer to be in the office.

They just see the salary on the books and not the unintended consequences. I'm hopeful, being a Technical Writer, that while they could outsource my job, having non-native speakers write English manuals (that are also meant for translation where there are many chances for errors) that my job should be safe........at least until I can retire in 30 years.

 

[ndcent]

Saw this the other day, while not surprised, I never really did get the correlation...

It Wasn't Abortion That Formed The Religious Right, It Was Support For Segregation

 

[lelandr]

The company I work for ($1xx,xxx,xxx) is owned by a multi-billion dollar corporation. They are forcing us to continue to use some of the Indian "engineers" for Solidworks changes and stuff like that.

But thanks to the time difference, constant rework, etc. I'm not convinced the company saves any money in the reduced productivity and extended lead times, vs just paying an American Engineer to be in the office.

Indian "engineers." Lol. I see what you did there. If it makes you feel any better, my company is much bigger. Our division is in heavy industry E&A. We also usually spend lots of money overworking our domestic engineers to rework mistakes from our Chinese & Indian engineering which "saves" us money.

The root cause is the general public's lack of understanding of engineering. The use of low cost labor is always the investors who expect the company to constantly have double-digit increase in share price. Everyone knows that you can just go to the engineer tree for more resources.

On the OT. I've thought for a lot time that there are a couple major problems.
1 For the most part, the majority of primary voters are the real loonies. It's because of primaries that a Santorum or Gingrich goes farther than Huntsman.
2 All elections should be preceded by a civics, government & economics test. The vast majority of people would be eliminated from peeing in the election pool.
3 Why should any campaign cost the GDP of a small country?

That's all I got for now.

Oh yea, or educational system needs a modernization, and a huge focus on STEM degrees.

 

[1engineer]

Two words will fix everything: Term Limits.

 

[OkieSnuffBox]

Two words will fix everything: Term Limits.

We already have term limits.

It's called the ballot box.

 

[1engineer]

We already have term limits.

It's called the ballot box.

Right. How's that working out? I thought so.

 

[ndcent]

Right. How's that working out? I thought so.

I don't think it's term limits so much as money.

Our government is bought and paid for by the corporations who own us.

 

[slapdappy]

term limits = meme

Two words will fix everything: Term Limits.

Term limits are a passive form of democracy.

 

[RunninInGA]

Term limits are a passive form of democracy.

Perhaps, but it would be huge step on the path to equal representation, don'tcha think?

 

[Jumpkix]

Agreed. Most of these jackwagons in public office have hung around for far too long.

Unfortunately, most candidates for just about any political position has been choosing between the lesser of two morons.

 

[ndcent]

A working man voting republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Eta, and thinking voting democratic is a genuine alternative boggles my mind.

 

[OkieSnuffBox]

Right. How's that working out? I thought so.

If you don't like your representatives, start a grassroots campaign to get them out.

Support their opponent, etc.

But I doubt you're doing that either? You'd prefer the government make another choice for us.

 

[slapdappy]

don

Perhaps, but it would be huge step on the path to equal representation, don'tcha think?

I do understand their practical value. It's just that The Constitution embodies profound concepts re the rights and values of citizens as a whole and as individuals, that the laws and governing bodies are here to serve us, that we are the powers that be. We are a democratic republic, the cornerstone of which is citizen participation. Freedom of choice demands the burden of choosing.
Again, my objection to term limits is aligned with my belief in a return to a strict and simple reading of the constitution, especially the so called Bill of Rights. The founding fathers used simple clear language to preclude 'interpretation' and revision of these 10 primary edicts. They are short declarative statements, simple and to the point. They define an individual's rights and a governing body's limits. No wiggle room intended, regardless of how they are 'interpreted' and rewritten by the judicial, legislative, and executive branches.
The second amendment comes to mind.
As a practical matter I support term limits and universal health care while wishing they were not necessary.
Gerrymandering is a true perversion of the democratic process, IMHO. It's like the national debt... so shocking and overwhelming we just ignore and accept it while busying ourselves with lesser issues.

 

[1engineer]

If you don't like your representatives, start a grassroots campaign to get them out.

Support their opponent, etc.

But I doubt you're doing that either? You'd prefer the government make another choice for us.

I use my power of my one vote every election. See below for more:

I do understand their practical value. It's just that The Constitution embodies profound concepts re the rights and values of citizens as a whole and as individuals, that the laws and governing bodies are here to serve us, that we are the powers that be. We are a democratic republic, the cornerstone of which is citizen participation. Freedom of choice demands the burden of choosing.
Again, my objection to term limits is aligned with my belief in a return to a strict and simple reading of the constitution, especially the so called Bill of Rights. The founding fathers used simple clear language to preclude 'interpretation' and revision of these 10 primary edicts. They are short declarative statements, simple and to the point. They define an individual's rights and a governing body's limits. No wiggle room intended, regardless of how they are 'interpreted' and rewritten by the judicial, legislative, and executive branches.
The second amendment comes to mind.
As a practical matter I support term limits and universal health care while wishing they were not necessary.
Gerrymandering is a true perversion of the democratic process, IMHO. It's like the national debt... so shocking and overwhelming we just ignore and accept it while busying ourselves with lesser issues.

I agree in principle wholeheartedly. In practice though I think term limits for every elected office is necessary to limit corruption. You see, back when the constitution was developed the average lifespan was around 40 years old so nature took care of term limits. Today we have officials serving for longer than that! Yes, we need to fix that somehow and if we can I think we would see a whole different landscape of politicians for better or worse.