We all know about the unemployment problem, 6+%. From my vantage point, the real problem is the flushing of the baby boomers from the system or at least downgrading them to lower paying and/or dead end positions.
I see article after article of the over 40 something people's hard luck stories about how they cannot get a decent job no matter what they do or how hard they try. True, they can give up and many of them do and just become underemployed but what a bitter pill to swallow.
There is a crime taking place out there and it is sort of an age based job-genocide. It is the weeding out of the older American worker.
Once they are on the street, that's it. Many will never come back, at least the way they were. How sad.
Take these people out of the statistics and it's not nearly so bad out there, percentage wise.
As for me, I'm employed in the construction equipment business. Guess what, I don't know how long I'll last and then what, Lowes as a sales clerk?
>>Does the government control business in Sweden? I didn't think so. <<
While I was there some of the people I worked with were talking about a new policy that when present property owners died, their property would be taken over by the government and leased back to the heirs. I don't know the status of that policy today, but I believe they are about as socialistic as you can be without being communist.
The had an election while I was there and elected a conservative prime minister. The Swedes I worked with were defense contractors and seemed very pleased with the results of that election. However, the new PM's regime only lasted a year or two and fell apart and the socialist were back in control again.
I was also there when King Gustav married his German bride. Quite an event.
tech hawk, I just can't imagine that someone in a very high tax bracket would not stick around so that their resources could be used to help the less fortunate. Yeah, . . . right. Just like I can't imagine someone in a socialistic system not figuring out ways to appear to be in need, and therefore finding ways to plunder the kitty. Until appearance becomes reality, and the need becomes genuine as the kitty collapses. As has happened in the USSR.
hellomorons, I saw a Ronald Reagan quote a while back by his son Ron, I think it is. Ron Jr. had asked his father, I think before he became governor of California, for an increase in his allowance. Reagan responded that he would do that just as soon as he got some relief from the 92% tax bracket he was in. (I guess his numbers included State and local taxes as well). Anyway, he was more instrumental in lowering taxes than any other president in the last half of the 20th century. I think Jack Kennedy did some good in that department on his watch as well.
>>You didn't read my post very carefully. I didn't get "wigged out" about anything. And I don't care if you want to call welfare or income redistribution or anything else "socialism". Lots of people do.
But you complimented Maguro for his "research" which consisted of looking up and posting the dictionary definition of socialism, and then proceded to use your own definition to make some point about capaitalist countries becoming more socialist. That doesn't seem to make sense to me but if it does to you, fine!
Sweden's GDP is probably less than that of Texas. Bottom line, it's easier to achieve higher percentages of growth when starting from a lower base. US economy is probably on the order of $12 Trillion dollars (US budget is on the order of $2.5T, or ~20% GDP - WAY TOO high in my view). Talk to some Swedes and see how happy they are with their confiscatory tax policies. Productive and/or richer Swedes are relocating to other countries (Bjorn Borg comes to mind here).
Chips, what in the world are you talking about? You got all wigged out about the Hillary comment, but yessir, they do have expanded welfare systems and income re-distribution. That's why their tax rates are sky-high (which is the best factual display of income re-distribution one could hope to force on a population). You may be quoting the dictionary description, but what I pointed to was the facts on the ground.
Good luck on TXN, of course.
warbucks: Hopefully, most of us will be dead and gone by the time the good ol' USofA becomes too socialist."
I thought those were the good-old days?
Some thoughts to determine if we were more socialist in the past:
1913 Income Tax: Only those making over $50,000 (1913 USD) paid tax.
1944 Upper tax bracket: 94% for income over $200K
1950 Upper tax bracket: 84.4% for income over $400K
1955 Upper tax bracket: 91% for income over $400K
1965 Upper tax bracket: 70% for income over $200K
1970 Upper tax bracket: 72% for income over $200K
1975 Upper tax bracket: 70% for income over $200K
1980 Upper tax bracket: 70% for income over $215K
1985 Upper tax bracket: 50% for income over $169K
1990 Upper tax bracket: 31% for income over $124K