[layevymed]

Not enough bloodshed.

[Andrew1978]

It wouldn't help much as I don't see former $50K a year financial industry workers taking up contruction jobs, even if they pay similarly. The country could use the infrastructure work. I know my state, Illinois, has tons of roadwork projects just awaiting funding.

[KignPeeseeamn]

Originally posted by Swissy
It wouldn't help much as I don't see former $50K a year financial industry workers taking up contruction jobs, even if they pay similarly. The country could use the infrastructure work. I know my state, Illinois, has tons of roadwork projects just awaiting funding. Ok, so finance people would have trouble finding jobs. Meanwhile, maybe a whole bunch of poor people would suddenly find themselves with available jobs that paid decently. Then, when the economy turns around (which it eventually will in any case), those $50k/year finance people would find jobs. Trick up economics.

I don't know if it would work... the economic effects of FDR's public works programs were unclear, IIRC. But, given that there does seem to be a need for infrastructure investment, I figure try it.

-Arrian

[Stengapsept]

Originally posted by Swissy
It wouldn't help much as I don't see former $50K a year financial industry workers taking up contruction jobs 50K a year? What are they, working in a financial sweatshop?

[CGH1KZzy]

There doesn't seem to be much stomach here in the States yet for a New New Deal, or even a serious roll-back of Reagan-era changes.

Maybe in other countries it is different.

[NumsAmenniams]

Originally posted by Arrian

Ok, so finance people would have trouble finding jobs. Meanwhile, maybe a whole bunch of poor people would suddenly find themselves with available jobs that paid decently. Then, when the economy turns around (which it eventually will in any case), those $50k/year finance people would find jobs. Trick up economics.

I don't know if it would work... the economic effects of FDR's public works programs were unclear, IIRC. But, given that there does seem to be a need for infrastructure investment, I figure try it.

-Arrian Modern societies are incapable of New Deal like planning. People just don't think like that any more.

Take 1970 as your cut off date and look at the public projects done before and after it. The ones done before 1970 have for the most part a sense of optimism about them, and a conviction that public works can improve people's lives. The ones after are for the most part postmodern or utilitarian crap.

I still find it astonishing that more or less the same people who organized the moon landings now whine and ***** about miniscule increases in taxation to fund schools and public works.

Postmodern citizens lack virtue in every conceivable sense. Predictably, none of the Polytubbies who worship Nietzsche seem to have realized we are living in the age of the last man.

[nickayary]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't think jobs paid decently in the Depression. The room and board such jobs provided was more than enough for many WPA and CCC workers -- the small pay rather a bonus. Lots used it for cigarettes as half the population smoked at that time.

We are still a ways from huge bread and soup lines, unions seizing plants to keep owners from closing them, in excess of 20% unemployment, and a significant rise in arrests for petty theft related to stealing food. These were all ongoing and concerning to the "powers that be" in 1932. Public and elite attitudes relating to the more "Socialist" aspects of the "New New Deal" will be more positive if that happens again. In the meantime, any proposal to create "make work" to improve the infrastructure will be labeled as "Communist." Congress won't touch something like that until the public gets desparate.

[Fosavoa]

It's like the 70s was a different Universe...

[indianstory]

Have you heard of any recent serious push for price controls, for instance? Not price controls, but Obama is on board with government regulation of wages.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- It's baaaack!! Yes, "comparable worth," which faded out around the same time the Bay City Rollers were disbanding, is making a comeback, under the euphemism "pay equity". To wit: the Fair Pay Act of 2007. Introduced by Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in April (Illinois Sen. and Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is one of 15 co-sponsors) the Act notes the existence of wage differentials between men and women.

This is true; according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 female full-time wage and salary workers made 81% of what men did. What is more dubious, though, is the assumption that is the heart of the Fair Pay Act: that discrimination is the reason for all or most of the difference. And the act's remedies are absurdly misguided, injecting the federal government into the most routine pay decisions.

Granted, Obama did not write the bill, but he did sign on to it - the only presidential wannabe of either party to do so. Obama is a serious man and a serious candidate who presumably did not go out of his way to associate himself with this legislation in a burst of whimsy. But the Fair Pay Act, despite its anodyne title (who's against fair pay?) is the result of profoundly unserious economic thinking. That Obama put his name to it has to give pause. http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/04/maga...tune/index.htm

[Flistelib]

Do we have any indication that it now has garnered more support? Obama is a whacky liberal, but not many others are. I don't know if it has garnered more support since last year. At any rate, the situation is going to change after the election. I hope it won't get more support, but that really depends on how liberal the expanded Democratic caucus ends up being.

[HomePageOEMfreeSOFTWARE]

Those Presidents weren't The One, though.

[STYWOMBORGOSY]

**** Dan, the Ledbetter Act (House version of the Senate's Fair Pay Act) passed 225 to 199. Luckily it got killed in committee in the Senate, but how confident are we that that will happen again?

[Kokomoxcv]

Originally posted by Ramo
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- It's baaaack!! Yes, "comparable worth," which faded out around the same time the Bay City Rollers were disbanding, is making a comeback, under the euphemism "pay equity". To wit: the Fair Pay Act of 2007. Introduced by Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in April (Illinois Sen. and Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is one of 15 co-sponsors) the Act notes the existence of wage differentials between men and women.

This is true; according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 female full-time wage and salary workers made 81% of what men did. What is more dubious, though, is the assumption that is the heart of the Fair Pay Act: that discrimination is the reason for all or most of the difference. And the act's remedies are absurdly misguided, injecting the federal government into the most routine pay decisions.

Granted, Obama did not write the bill, but he did sign on to it - the only presidential wannabe of either party to do so. Obama is a serious man and a serious candidate who presumably did not go out of his way to associate himself with this legislation in a burst of whimsy. But the Fair Pay Act, despite its anodyne title (who's against fair pay?) is the result of profoundly unserious economic thinking. That Obama put his name to it has to give pause.

Ridiculous spin of the Ledbetter Act. It's nothing more than clarifying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to specify that wage discrimination occurs whenever discriminatory wages are given, not only when it was originally set. Great Society civil rights, not New Deal wage controls. Yeah, but Gents doesn't like stuff like facts and civil rights.

[herbalviagra]

Yeah, but Gents doesn't like stuff like facts and civil rights. Yes, Ramo's message-board comments are more factually-based than my CNN article...

[Kneedycrype]

That oh so detailed summary (of the House bill, not the Senate one) doesn't provide any information on how the bill would be enforced if it were passed into law. Do you have any evidence that the following is not true?

The Fair Pay Act takes a sledgehammer to deal with this gnat-sized differential. Under its provisions, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would create criteria determining whether a given job is dominated by one sex; employers would have to send the EEOC every year a listing of each job classification, the race and sex of those holding such jobs; how much they are paid; and how such pay was determined. The goal of all this is to ensure that people in "equivalent" jobs are paid similar wages. "The term, 'equivalent jobs', according to the legislation, "means jobs that may be dissimilar, but whose requirements are equivalent, when viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions." And who would decide what is equivalent? The federal government, of course. Forget the price signal: Congress is on the job!

[Gymngatagaica]

That oh so detailed summary (of the House bill, not the Senate one) doesn't provide any information on how the bill would be enforced if it were passed into law. Do you have any evidence that the following is not true?

The summary, not surprisingly, highlights the most important provisions - in full detail. And the House and Senate versions look pretty similar (here it is: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1843: ).

It's enforced exactly like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says it should be, through the EEOC. I have no idea what exactly the point is behind your quote.

[viagradiscounttt]

I have no idea what exactly the point is behind your quote. It's pretty clear. I take it you have no evidence that the federal government won't be declaring different types of jobs to be "equivalent" and forcing those equivalent jobs to all be paid the same wage if the Fair Pay Act is brought back and passed.

[Amerworma]

You're referring to S. 1804, which has about a third as many cosponsors. The National Agriculture and Food Defense Act of 2007?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1804

I don't think I've referred to that.

[Kneedycrype]

I think we will have a new New Deal.

Obama's proposed middle-class tax break indicates a desire to return to the demand-supply economics of FDR. Put money into the pockets of the consumers so they can spend our way out of bad times. This system launched us into being an economic superpower before; no reason it won't work again.

Plus, the re-regulation of the finance industry reminds one of the Stock Market Acts of 1933 & 34. No way can we trust fat cats to run wild and still remain responsible.

[xiaoselangone]

Originally posted by DanS
Do we have any indication that it now has garnered more support? Obama is a whacky liberal, but not many others are.