http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/feehery.budget.questions/index.html

Quote :

"First, why do we let people retire too early and then expect them to live so long without working? In 1910, the average retirement age in the United States was 74. In 2002, however, the average retirement age was 62. Average life expectancy in 1910 was around 55, while in 2002 it was 77. "

Quote :

"Third, why do so many people pay nothing in federal income taxes? According to the Tax Foundation, fully 32 percent of all Americans pay no federal income taxes while 42 percent of single Americans pay no federal income taxes. With President Obama's aggressive efforts to give more money to more Americans through tax credit refundability, many experts expect that over half of the people will owe nothing or may get back some money from the federal government. Ironically, this trend started under George W. Bush, the president who supposedly ignored the poor. But taking so many people off the income tax rolls has two unfortunate consequences. First, it brings less revenue in to pay for a government that is already teetering on bankruptcy. Second, it makes wholesale tax reform more difficult. Hey, if I ain't paying any taxes under the current system, why should I want to change it? But at some point in time, squeezing the so-called rich will become counterproductive to economic growth, and the pie will start to shrink. It is not fair that so many Americans pay nothing in income taxes to their government. "

Quote :

"Fourth, why is it more profitable to work in the government than to work in the private sector?"

Interesting article. His third point is an issue that really grinds my gears. So the people demand all these gov't services and handouts many of which they need to their own irresponsible spending/budgeting. Yet they pay near nothing into the system. The working class and working poor should be chipping into the system as if they were paying insurance for all these benefits that assist them during hard times.

I like the way this guy makes his point without putting the blame on one party or the other. Much to the republicans dismay; those damn "liberal tax n spenders" do not own all that is at fault with our current system.

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 8:52 AM. Reason : aa]

4/16/2009 8:50:53 AM

A SUV?

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 8:53 AM. Reason : -]

4/16/2009 8:53:03 AM

Quote :

""First, why do we let people retire too early and then expect them to live so long without working? In 1910, the average retirement age in the United States was 74. In 2002, however, the average retirement age was 62. Average life expectancy in 1910 was around 55, while in 2002 it was 77."

I've had this discussion with a few folks and have come to just this conclusion, that we as a nation are going to have to man up and work more. I had no idea that the numbers were that drastic though. Having said that, when you've shipped more and more jobs across the pond, just what is there left for a 65 year old to do? It isn't easy for people near this age that are in reasonable health to get new high skillsets to be super productive workers. My dad was a career textiles guy and went back to CC for respiratory therapy at 53. He struggled like mad but managed to finish and has been gainfully employed for a few years now. I couldn't imagine him starting that endeavor at 60 or 65.

4/16/2009 9:05:46 AM

I'm going to work till the day I drop.

Work is life.

4/16/2009 9:09:45 AM

I don't think our higher life expectancy has given us more healthy, "able-to-work" years.

Quote :

"Third, why do so many people pay nothing in federal income taxes? According to the Tax Foundation, fully 32 percent of all Americans pay no federal income taxes while 42 percent of single Americans pay no federal income taxes."

I'd really like to see the context of those statistics.

4/16/2009 9:54:19 AM

The economy will take care of itself. We just have to let it adjust freely. If it turns out we have a shortage of labor and too much savings, then inflation will eat away the savings and more strongly reward the labor.

As such, to complain that others are not working as much as you want them to is to complain that you are being made to work to support your wished-for lifestyle.

^ If I had a child then I too would have paid nothing in federal income taxes but instead gotten paid myself from the EITC.

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 9:56 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/16/2009 9:54:40 AM

Quote :

"any experts expect that over half of the people will owe nothing or may get back some money from the federal government."

I think this his a worthless point. Getting a refund from the federal government isn't the same as not contributing. If you paid too much then you should get some of the money you worked for back.

4/16/2009 10:17:58 AM

It was probably a poorly chosen wording. It probably meant to point out people who get a net payment from the government, not the great masses of people that pay a couple of thousand over what they owe and get a refund.

4/16/2009 10:47:56 AM

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/form-1040s-neglected-kid-sister/



Our 'problem' isn't income tax anyway. Social security and medicare are the freight trains that are going to make a federal government insolvent.

Quote :

"First, why do we let people retire too early and then expect them to live so long without working? In 1910, the average retirement age in the United States was 74. In 2002, however, the average retirement age was 62. Average life expectancy in 1910 was around 55, while in 2002 it was 77."

Ummm, yes, this is completely reasonable. Why? Because we expect that economic productivity increased from 1910 to 2002. WTF would people want to work their ass off beyond the average life expectancy if their life is anything that could be construed as 'prosperous'?

Working longer hours and later years is a sign (moreso an effect of) things being shitty. Back in the 60s we thought things were going to be so good in 2000 that we would all work 4 hours a day, and the rest would be leisure.

And in reality this would have worked, and we would have all been fine even with the demographic trap we're heading for if economics did different stuff than what happened. Since the 70s the median working wage has been relatively constant relative to the CPI. People are working more than ever, and everyone is in debt up to their eyeballs.

4/16/2009 12:05:46 PM

Quote :

"Working longer hours and later years is a sign (moreso an effect of) things being shitty. Back in the 60s we thought things were going to be so good in 2000 that we would all work 4 hours a day, and the rest would be leisure."

I recall reading and hearing about this. How they thought we'd have so much leisure time that we wouldn't know what to do. However, now people are constantly tethered to work and are expected to check emails and answer phone calls even after office hours.

What things do you see needing to take place differently in order to have turned this dream into a reality. I'm not sure if it ever was possible based on the instinctive business desire to utilize any means necessary to increase production, even if the true demand isn't existent.

4/16/2009 12:14:39 PM

This sort of thing is drinving us off the cliff

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/aig-head%E2%80%99s-3m-in-goldman-stock-raises-apparent-conflict-of-interest/

Wall Street has been in (greater) control of the government for quite awhile now.

4/16/2009 12:21:44 PM

Quote :

"What things do you see needing to take place differently in order to have turned this dream into a reality. I'm not sure if it ever was possible based on the instinctive business desire to utilize any means necessary to increase production, even if the true demand isn't existent."

Easy. Had people settled for the living standards of 1950 then we'd all be working an average of less than 20 hours a week. Of course, we would all eat every meal from home, own about 0.8 cars per household, go without air conditioning, and average 2.3 people per bedroom (I'm making these statistics up, they exist somewhere but I'm too lazy to find them right now). Try to remember, only just over half of Americans enjoyed what we today consider middle-class living standards back then. The rest of Americans lived in either rural or urban subsistance poverty.

Consider that to today where even the poorest among us own a car and have cable TV.

If you are having trouble meeting your financial obligations then reduce your financial obligations.

4/16/2009 12:53:16 PM

Quote :

"What things do you see needing to take place differently in order to have turned this dream into a reality. I'm not sure if it ever was possible based on the instinctive business desire to utilize any means necessary to increase production, even if the true demand isn't existent."

Quote :

"Easy. Had people settled for the living standards of 1950 then we'd all be working an average of less than 20 hours a week. Of course, we would all eat every meal from home, own about 0.8 cars per household, go without air conditioning, and average 2.3 people per bedroom (I'm making these statistics up, they exist somewhere but I'm too lazy to find them right now). Try to remember, only just over half of Americans enjoyed what we today consider middle-class living standards back then. The rest of Americans lived in either rural or urban subsistance poverty."

I think think is the first half of the answer. Yes, in the face of rising productivity Americans have shown themselves willing to raise consumption long before cutting work hours (time investment). And then when things get bad again, a common solution is to work more to make up the difference.

But I think you can answer the question (first quote) a different way as well. What if it was possible for our means (wealth) to keep moving up like Moore's Law, which it seemed poised to do through at least some decades? Well... what if we had a no holds barred approach to nuclear power and fully did develop the advanced fuel cycle including designs we know could smash the economics of today's reactors? What if we really had gotten to-cheap-to-meter power? There's no physical law that say's we can't! Heck, what if the environmental movement never happened? What if we accepted more risk as technology developed (our cars would be more fuel efficient without airbags and advanced safety features, that's for sure)? What if Project Orion had taken off in the maybe 1-2 years when it would have been politically feasible? We could have been flying around the edges of the solar system in nuclear powered rockets throughout the 80s. That sounds probably less crazy to you than going to the moon sounded to someone in the 50s.

I would claim that if we had been super ultimate pro-progress we might have done it, and we'd all be living like kings as in the Jetsons now.

4/16/2009 1:33:25 PM

Quote :

""First, why do we let people retire too early and then expect them to live so long without working? In 1910, the average retirement age in the United States was 74. In 2002, however, the average retirement age was 62. Average life expectancy in 1910 was around 55, while in 2002 it was 77.""

So they were excited enough about living past 55 that they decided to work until 74?

Or did they include infant deaths?
Or is that statistic a typo?

4/16/2009 2:18:20 PM

Answer: Zombies

4/16/2009 2:53:09 PM

bear is driving

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 3:10 PM. Reason : how can that be?]

4/16/2009 3:09:53 PM

those numbers seem suspicious, but if they are actually true, then I would stay two major factors:
1) infant/child mortality lowers the average life span, but does not effect the retirement age because they never worked. It would be more appropriate to take the average lifespan of people who live past, say, 20
2) it's not clear if "retirement age" means that's when people give up working, but continue living, or if it actually includes people who die while still working. It could mean that people who continue to work basically until they die never actually count as "retired"

4/16/2009 3:17:32 PM

mrfrog, I seriously doubt the impositions we have imposed upon ourselves have done that much to retard productivity growth. Yes, we would be richer, but I would guess maybe 50%, tops. Not enough to have us colonizing other planets.

As for electricity, it cannot be cheap enough to go without metering. A nuclear power plant takes a lot of highly paid labor to operate and it can only produce so much power without having to build another one. While I have no doubt eliminating silly regulations would make electricity cheaper, it could never make it free.

4/16/2009 4:19:43 PM

An SUV?

4/16/2009 5:17:23 PM

4/16/2009 9:34:48 PM

^ that man has never had to work a day in his life. except for when he had to come up with a story for why he killed that woman in the river.

First question is a bit absurd in some rights. If a person is financially able to retire, then, by God, let him! What's this talk about "letting" people retire? I was not aware that the government owned our right to choose whether or not to work. As well, the alleged "safety net" of SS probably has led to people retiring earlier, thinking they would be taken care of, in addition to leading people not to save money for themselves.

Fourth question is also absurd. If you think you make more money in the government than you do in the public sector, then you have another thing coming. Sure, your janitors might make more, but I highly doubt that Dr. Bitzer is making more money off of NCSU than he is making off of his patents. I highly doubt that the Air Force general is making more money than the lowest Delta Airlines pilot. And I highly doubt that your average government engineer is making more money than that same engineer in the public sector.

4/16/2009 10:54:01 PM

4/17/2009 7:58:02 AM

Quote :

"I highly doubt that the Air Force general is making more money than the lowest Delta Airlines pilot."

Wrong

4/17/2009 8:57:50 AM

PILOTS ARE RICH FAT CATS. THOSE GREEDY RJ PILOTS WITH THEIR $19,000 SALARIES

4/17/2009 9:30:26 AM

Quote :

"As for electricity, it cannot be cheap enough to go without metering. A nuclear power plant takes a lot of highly paid labor to operate and it can only produce so much power without having to build another one. While I have no doubt eliminating silly regulations would make electricity cheaper, it could never make it free."

I'm just going to have to outright disagree with that.

Millstone 1 was an early nuclear plant that cost about $100 million back in the day (1970). These days we put the price of new plants in this country at maybe $5 billion or even more. Well, we correct for CPI and Millstone 1 was $500 million, and then we take into account the difference in plant sizes, and it's still about $1 billion for a large plant in today's dollars.

So you say, "that's still not cheap!" And no, it isn't, although if you could build nuclear capacity at that price today the electricity would be uber-cheap, it's only a factor of 4 or so. In history as we know it, prices went up from the early days of nuclear, but in a different world, there's no reason whatsoever that prices couldn't have fallen instead. Even in the 60s people knew that the Molten Salt Reactor would be a good commercial design. If we had ever gone to that reactor design while the public remained very pro-nuclear, there's practically no limit to how cheap the thermal energy for a nuclear plant could get. You could reduce the price to about the price of the steam system to make electricity.

It also doesn't have to get that cheap to make metering infeasible on a residential scale. It just has to be cheap enough that reading the meter is more expensive than the power your using. Too-cheap-to-meter is science fiction wishful thinking, but out of Sci. Fi. it ranks among the more possible scenarios.

4/17/2009 9:31:06 AM

Looks like a nobel prize winner is on board about the fraudsters from Wall Street

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afYsmJyngAXQ&

Btw, where is Socks'' to give us the anti Krugman talk?

4/17/2009 9:35:37 AM

^^ So then you don't disagree. You accept that building a plant is expensive but then you completely ignore the operating costs of said plant. Afterall, once the plant is built it does not run itself; you need to hire two hundred six figure a year salaried operators to sit there and watch it, to swap out the fuel, to check for leaks, to run security, to replace broken bits, and substantially more to do the paperwork.

Add in the fact that reading the meter is dirt cheap thanks to modern technology, and the meter stays, because going without it would be far more costly for society as it would wastefully divert resources away from cheap methods of saving electricity (heatpumps instead of resistive coil) towards relatively expensive production.

4/17/2009 10:10:53 AM

<--- ***is waiting for the collapse***

4/17/2009 12:49:00 PM

wow, fail boat, way to back that up with numbers and sources.
I can play that, too... Obama isn't the devil... WRONG! You aren't a child molester... WRONG! see how easy that is?

4/17/2009 4:14:27 PM

I looked the numbers up. I don't know what a generals pay rank is, but I surmised it to be in the 120k range...just guessing...the lowliest of Delta Pilots were in the 50-60k range.

I just don't feel like being the one to go out of my way to correct your knee jerk assertions you concoct to try to make a point.

4/17/2009 6:01:19 PM

and where are your sources for this? that's all I'm asking. if you can't support it, then I'll assume you are full of shit.

4/17/2009 6:08:24 PM

You made the fucking claim without a damn clue about the numbers...you literally invented it in your head in an attempt to prove a greater point about the public versus private sector. I get what point you were making, that the private sector can certainly be more lucrative. But you fucked up by choosing a general vs a simple airline pilot. I looked the numbers up, I didn't save the links, find the info yourself.

4/17/2009 6:14:13 PM

I tell you what. Put a US Airforce pilot into delta and tell me that he will make less than he did for the gov't. Prove it. THAT is my point.

^ so, in short, you are full of shit

4/17/2009 6:15:19 PM

oooooooooooooooooooooo


i c

so now it's a pilot vs a pilot


but I'm still full of shit because you said general on the first go round.

idiot

4/17/2009 6:16:59 PM

still waiting

4/17/2009 6:18:58 PM

Well you tell me what you'd like it to be...2nd L vs first year Delta Pilot or what? You're going to have to stop being a moronic, caustic, ass bag before we can accomplish anything here.

4/17/2009 6:28:10 PM

still waiting

4/17/2009 7:22:40 PM

toonces the driving president

according to a sign i saw at the tea party

4/17/2009 8:22:15 PM

For the Public vs. Private pilot question, with the conditions being an Air Force General vs. the lowest paid Delta pilot, the Air Force General wins.

An Air Force Colonel (O-6) can expect a salary of $108,000. I couldn't find the salary for General (O-10), sorry, but it has to be higher. (http://air-force-pilot-salary.wetpaint.com/?t=anon) This is presumably before benefits.

The lowest paid Delta captain will earn $133 per hour, with 75 guaranteed hours paid per month, flying a DC9, totaling $119,700.

The lowest paid Delta FO will earn $55 per hour, with 75 guaranteed hours paid per month, flying a DC9 totaling $46,800 (before benefits).
(http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/legacy/delta.html)

So the lowest paid Delta captain beats a Colonel, but would probably lose to a general, especially when benefits are factored in.

4/17/2009 9:15:50 PM

I think you might be leaving other benefits out of being paid by Uncle Sam like housing allowances and generous pensions and such. Oh, and from what I saw, Delta pilots get paid a good bit more generously than many of the other airlines, so even with the dumb luck of picking a higher hourly rate airline, he still comes out losing.

Bottom line, burro lost, lets get back to the thread.

[Edited on April 17, 2009 at 10:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2009 10:05:46 PM

riiiiiiiight, captain made more, and that is what I was going for. nice try

4/17/2009 10:37:04 PM

http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypaytables.html

Quote :

"I highly doubt that the Air Force general is making more money than the lowest Delta Airlines pilot."

LOL burro again shows his foolish side. Spontaneous already debunked this, but the above link shows it better. An Air Force Colonel is an O-6, while a Brigadier General (the lowest rank of General) is an O-7. The Colonel salary that Spontaneous posted is base pay only. They also get BAH (basic allowance for housing). It depends on where you live, but mine is about $1,000/month living in Charleston and I'm only an O-1. An O-6 would make way more, and extra if they have dependents.

not to mention hazard pay, separation pay, etc.

http://images.military.com//ContenFiles/2009-bah-with-dependents.pdf

An O-6 with dependents at Pope AFB would make an extra $22,000 a year from BAH. don't forget that BAH is tax free

4/17/2009 10:45:52 PM

right, britta. and if you think that general is going to go into Delta and make less, then you are an idiot, too. Way to keep up w/ shit.

4/17/2009 10:48:27 PM

you didn't say the general would make more if he switched to Delta. you said the general made less than the lowest paid Delta pilot. way to keep up w/ shit

4/17/2009 10:52:22 PM

4/17/2009 10:52:33 PM

^^ well, it would be stupid to compare a guy who has been at a job for 30 years to a guy that's been on the job for 1 year

4/17/2009 10:53:45 PM

I don't know why I'm still arguing this, when arronburro is so good at arguing with himself

Quote :

"I highly doubt that the Air Force general is making more money than the lowest Delta Airlines pilot."

Quote :

"it would be stupid to compare a guy who has been at a job for 30 years to a guy that's been on the job for 1 year"

4/17/2009 10:56:31 PM

and, as I hinted at before, I was aiming for a guy who is in charge of the plain, namely a captain. forgive me for mispeaking, my dear. my point stands. and you are still an idiot

4/17/2009 11:07:52 PM

4/17/2009 11:10:20 PM

Quote :

"just guessing...the lowliest of Delta Pilots were in the 50-60k range."

you're wrong.

.... that's too high. airline piloting isn't the gold-plated job that we grew up thinking it was, and especially not any more with dozens of new regional carriers popping up all over the place

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2009/03/20/askthepilot313/index.html

Quote :

"One problem right now for nervous pilots at struggling carriers like US Airways, United and American is that virtually none of their competitors are actively hiring. On the contrary, there are currently more than 4,000 pilots out there either on indefinite furlough status or victimized by airline shutdowns (ATA, Aloha, etc.). And that number will be climbing, perhaps drastically, in the months ahead. Only a handful of regional carriers are still recruiting, albeit at a trickle, with opening salaries topping out at a princely $20,000 or so. Somehow I can't picture Sully taking up shop in the right seat of a 30-seater, working five days a week for $1,500 a month."

Quote :

"Later in the 1990s I flew cargo for DHL. After four years I was earning nearly $65,000 when I left that job for a position with a major passenger carrier. Starting salary at my ultimate dream job was about $29,000 -- a 50 percent pay cut. To be fair, though, I'd be doing quite well in only a few short years, above and beyond anything I would have made at my previous jobs... "

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2009/03/06/askthepilot312/index.html

Quote :

"The cuts suffered by pilots are perhaps especially notable, if for no other reason than people generally presume them to be extremely well paid. Some are, most are not, and pay scales for airline pilots have dropped sharply in the past eight years -- by 30 to 40 percent on average. It will surprise most people to learn that starting pay for a pilot at a major is somewhere around $30,000 annually. That's after the arduous, less-than-lucrative path the typical new hire has followed to get there. Historically, upward of 80 percent of major carrier new hires were recruited from the military. That number has fallen to around 50 percent in recent years. Civilian-trained pilots must first earn their various Federal Aviation Administration license and ratings, a piecemeal process that often takes years and can cost $100,000 or more. Next comes a stint as an instructor or light-plane charter pilot, followed by several years at one or more regional carriers -- those Connection and Express and Airlink affiliates -- where opening salaries are between $14,000 and $20,000 per year. There are no missing digits in those figures; a first officer at the controls of a $25 million regional jet brings home roughly what he'd make working at the mall. "

4/17/2009 11:11:46 PM