Hot button: GOP candidates knock glob...

Hot button: GOP candidates knock global warming

There are 46 comments on the Politico story from Aug 18, 2010, titled Hot button: GOP candidates knock global warming. In it, Politico reports that:

Fueled by anti-Obama rhetoric and news articles purportedly showing scientists manipulating their own data, Republicans running for the House, Senate and governor's mansions have gotten bolder in stating their doubts over the well-established link between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Politico.

LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#21 Aug 20, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd also see that real wages have continued to fall since this table was created in 2004.
http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Ben... +(1964-2004)
LInk is somewhat broken due to word wrap. I suggest tinyurl as a quick fix.

http://tinyurl.com/2flxhzt
Northie

Spokane, WA

#22 Aug 20, 2010
kookboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you ever read what you link too? Or do you just find them on the liberal blogs. First, this is not a report but a blog. You do know what that is, correct? It offers commentary and yes they are from ecnomists in this case but still not a "report from the fed". That being said it does not say what you think it does. You should read the entire thing.
And I quote "What's going on here? I'd argue the problem is that hourly wages or earnings are an inadequate measure of labor compensation, primarily because they exclude nonwage forms of compensation -- health care benefits, employers' share of social security contributions, and the like. These forms of compensation are an increasingly important part of what workers receive from employers in exchange for the sweat of their brows. Here's the record on total real compensation (in the nonfarm business sector):"
And then look at the third graph down.
Along with what this blogger states many employers also have a bonus system or "pay for company performance" of some type which also does not get included in normal wages. Most of us do not work for a hourly wage any more.
Liberal blog? I cited the Atlanta Federal Reserve's blog--which I chose merely to provide you a handy chart showing the long real wage decline since 1973, because you seem the type to respond better to pictures than to pawing through the BLS source tables. Forgive me, and you'll find all the data at the BLS site.

As for the phony argument that rising benefits are fair compensation for falling wages, don't even try. Those "rising benefits" are merely health insurance rising along with obscene health care costs. None of that improves the typical American's standard of living, and very little returns to boost economic activity beyond a couple of sectors like pharmaceuticals and expensive vacations for doctors and insurance execs.

The net result is still falling wages from generation to generation, even as productivity and GDP have steadily climbed. American workers have been cut out of prosperity, which does not bode well for a nation whose economy is 70% dependent upon consumer income and spending.

Not that it's likely to change your mind. You are a self-described kook, boy. Fox on.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#23 Aug 21, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberal blog? I cited the Atlanta Federal Reserve's blog
So you admit it is a blog and not a "study at this point". And "no" I wasn't refering to that blog as liberal.
As for the phony argument that rising benefits are fair compensation for falling wages, don't even try. Those "rising benefits" are merely health insurance rising along with obscene health care costs. None of that improves the typical American's standard of living, and very little returns to boost economic activity beyond a couple of sectors like pharmaceuticals and expensive vacations for doctors and insurance execs.
So you use one half of an article as a source and then try to dispute the other half. That would be the definition of cherry picking.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#24 Aug 30, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
You blame the decline in US wages on environmental regulations? That's a laugh. The facts are far simpler: technology allows each new generation of companies to employ far fewer workers, while also replacing expensive American workers with cheap Chinese or Mexican ones. The net result is rising prosperity for large shareholders while everyone else is cut out of the loop.
Lest I sound Luddite, some of the prosperity is shared, of course; it just happens to be shared with workers in China and other poor nations, not workers here. Yet even those workers are being cut out as automation marches on. For example, India is one of the fastest automating nations on Earth, despite its enormous labor surplus. This will become a very large global challenge before long. My prediction: an inexorable trend towards massive socialism, but a slow one.
While I agree that automation allows for increased production at decreased prices the timing of advances in automation does not show that it was be a key factor in the decline that started in the 70s.

And how can you not understand that environmental regulations have a real impact on the cost of production? Is that just an inconvient truth for you?
neighbour

High River, Canada

#25 Aug 30, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>

And how can you not understand that environmental regulations have a real impact on the cost of production? Is that just an inconvient truth for you?
Environmental regulations increase the short term easy-to-see dollar costs. They reduce the long term harder-to-compute costs like national medical costs, toxins in mothers' milk, birth defects.
We could manufacture our goods safely right here in North America. But it's easier to just farm those little problems out to someone who's hungry enough to ingest the poisons and not complain. Lowers the "cost" of production, too.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#26 Aug 30, 2010
neighbour wrote:
<quoted text>
Environmental regulations increase the short term easy-to-see dollar costs. They reduce the long term harder-to-compute costs like national medical costs, toxins in mothers' milk, birth defects.
We could manufacture our goods safely right here in North America. But it's easier to just farm those little problems out to someone who's hungry enough to ingest the poisons and not complain. Lowers the "cost" of production, too.
So you argee that increased environmental regulations make many of our industries less competative, but think we are better off for oursourcing our manfacturing anyway.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#27 Aug 30, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
While I agree that automation allows for increased production at decreased prices the timing of advances in automation does not show that it was be a key factor in the decline that started in the 70s.
And how can you not understand that environmental regulations have a real impact on the cost of production? Is that just an inconvient truth for you?
You think environmental regulations are responsible for the decoupling of American wages from American economic growth? Get real. If environmental regs were the problem, they would have impacted growth first, not wages. Instead, growth has continued apace since wages turned down in 1974, but all the benefits of that growth simply went to the richest Americans, whose income and wealth have soared over the past four decades.

If anything has hampered US economic growth, it is the fact that the early 1970s were the point at which the US turned from being the world's largest oil exporter to being the world's largest oil importer. It's no coincidence that we went from being the world's leading creditor to being the world's largest debtor at precisely the same time. Still, the fact that growth has remained healthy throughout all that is testament to the strength of US business. It'd just be nice to share some of those gains with the workers who made it possible.

American workers have been cut out of rising prosperity due to the new technological ability to integrate global production systems and bypass costly workers.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#28 Aug 30, 2010
Northie wrote:
If anything has hampered US economic growth, it is the fact that the early 1970s were the point at which the US turned from being the world's largest oil exporter to being the world's largest oil importer. It's no coincidence that we went from being the world's leading creditor to being the world's largest debtor at precisely the same time.
Offshoring, downsizing, etc have been what has depressed wages as well as globalization which has allowed attacks on the labor unions under the threat of moving jobs to another country. There are also effects from the consequent rise in contract work and 'permatemps' as well as the shift to service industries from technology leadership.

Going into a debt situtaion vis a vis oil is somewhat secondary, in my opinion, to the 'globalization' of labor.
neighbour

High River, Canada

#29 Aug 30, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
So you argee that increased environmental regulations make many of our industries less competative, but think we are better off for oursourcing our manfacturing anyway.
I could have worded my post better. I don't think Americans are better off losing their manufacturing base. I think the corporations that owned your manufacturing base are better off doing that, but not the majority of the American people.

But relaxing environmental regulations would be an example of the cure being worse than the disease. It would be better to level the field by bringing the rest of the world up to decent environmental and human rights standards.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#30 Aug 31, 2010
neighbour wrote:
<quoted text>
I could have worded my post better. I don't think Americans are better off losing their manufacturing base. I think the corporations that owned your manufacturing base are better off doing that, but not the majority of the American people.
But relaxing environmental regulations would be an example of the cure being worse than the disease. It would be better to level the field by bringing the rest of the world up to decent environmental and human rights standards.
How would you do that?
neeighbour

High River, Canada

#31 Aug 31, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you do that?
Me? Your country is being gutted of industry faster than mine is.

Do it the same way that environmental protection and human rights were developed here. Slowly, with courage and conviction and the willingness to take the consequences of facing a ruthless political enemy.
But if your way of dealing with overwhelming problems is denial and excuses, you won't exactly be leading this struggle.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#32 Sep 1, 2010
neeighbour wrote:
<quoted text>
Me? Your country is being gutted of industry faster than mine is.
Do it the same way that environmental protection and human rights were developed here. Slowly, with courage and conviction and the willingness to take the consequences of facing a ruthless political enemy.
But if your way of dealing with overwhelming problems is denial and excuses, you won't exactly be leading this struggle.
So you cheer while we export our industrial base overseas by making our manufacturers less competitive by way of additional domestic environmental regulations while at the same time slowly trying to force environmental restrictions on the rest of the world without a plan or any enforcement method. Thats exactly what we are doing, while we also are simultaneously commiserating that we have lost our manufacturing base, and try to blaming the very manufacturers that we have made less competitive.

It sounds like you are the one in denial about the very real impact of environmental restrictions and the actual cost of regulations.

I think that we need to base our policy decisions on real data and rational projections of the actual costs and benefits of the changes, instead of basing it on blind ideology (no matter how courageous you think it might be) without reguard to the consquences.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#33 Sep 1, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
You think environmental regulations are responsible for the decoupling of American wages from American economic growth? Get real. If environmental regs were the problem, they would have impacted growth first, not wages. Instead, growth has continued apace since wages turned down in 1974, but all the benefits of that growth simply went to the richest Americans, whose income and wealth have soared over the past four decades.
If anything has hampered US economic growth, it is the fact that the early 1970s were the point at which the US turned from being the world's largest oil exporter to being the world's largest oil importer. It's no coincidence that we went from being the world's leading creditor to being the world's largest debtor at precisely the same time. Still, the fact that growth has remained healthy throughout all that is testament to the strength of US business. It'd just be nice to share some of those gains with the workers who made it possible.
American workers have been cut out of rising prosperity due to the new technological ability to integrate global production systems and bypass costly workers.
Think about what you wrote.

How can you honesly say that increasing evironmental reglation and increasing labor costs will lead to a larger manfacturing base?

That is ludicrous.

The only thing stupider would be to say that we need to redistribute the wealth of the people who still manage to make money off manfacturing, that would be on par with nutcases like Chaves and Mugabe.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#34 Sep 1, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
Think about what you wrote.
How can you honesly say that increasing evironmental reglation and increasing labor costs will lead to a larger manfacturing base?
That is ludicrous.
The only thing stupider would be to say that we need to redistribute the wealth of the people who still manage to make money off manfacturing, that would be on par with nutcases like Chaves and Mugabe.
Okay, you're another conservative extremist who's chosen environmental regulation as his diversion du jour. Got it.

However, I simply said that anyone would be hard put to make the case that environmental regs have hampered overall economic growth since 1970. Growth has remained steady. http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx...

Productivity also continued to climb. It was median wages that went down, falling behind inflation (while the wages and investment income of the very rich skyrocketed).

One could cite a hundred studies reliably attributing this to a number of factors--automation, computerized international manufacturing networks, the growth of the overseas labor pool, the turn from huge US oil export revenue to vast oil import cost, the rebuilding of the global manufacturing base after the World Wars, the rise of the information economy with its extreme concentration of wealth and income. All those are contributing factors, and anyone would have trouble ranking them, but environmental regs don't even make the list.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#35 Sep 1, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you're another conservative extremist who's chosen environmental regulation as his diversion du jour. Got it.
However, I simply said that anyone would be hard put to make the case that environmental regs have hampered overall economic growth since 1970. Growth has remained steady. http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx...
Productivity also continued to climb. It was median wages that went down, falling behind inflation (while the wages and investment income of the very rich skyrocketed).
One could cite a hundred studies reliably attributing this to a number of factors--automation, computerized international manufacturing networks, the growth of the overseas labor pool, the turn from huge US oil export revenue to vast oil import cost, the rebuilding of the global manufacturing base after the World Wars, the rise of the information economy with its extreme concentration of wealth and income. All those are contributing factors, and anyone would have trouble ranking them, but environmental regs don't even make the list.
Do you realy think that asking to use real data and make honest evaluations of cost of policy changes is conservative extremism?

And plese tell me what objective criteria you use to rank the contributing factors to the loss of our manfacturing base?

Also, please note that GDP does include the service sector, if you wich to use some data (which I doubt that you will) please be sure diferantiate. Thanks.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#36 Sep 1, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
Think about what you wrote.
How can you honesly say that increasing evironmental reglation and increasing labor costs will lead to a larger manfacturing base?
That is ludicrous.
About as ludicrous as the 'trickle down' theory where you feed money to the rich by stealing from the poor? Or the ludicrous thought that making trillions of dollars in death dealing weaponry for a totally wasteful war (WW2) would lead to an economic boom?

I admit that economics has about as much 'common sense' as quantum physics but you certainly haven't made any study of it as you are still in the 'blame + zero sum' game that started the Great Depression and kept everybody idle for several decades.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#37 Sep 1, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
About as ludicrous as the 'trickle down' theory where you feed money to the rich by stealing from the poor? Or the ludicrous thought that making trillions of dollars in death dealing weaponry for a totally wasteful war (WW2) would lead to an economic boom?
I admit that economics has about as much 'common sense' as quantum physics but you certainly haven't made any study of it as you are still in the 'blame + zero sum' game that started the Great Depression and kept everybody idle for several decades.
Oh now WW2 was just a totally wasteful war, we could have simply avoided by ignoring reality, similar to how we can just avoid the actual costs of environmental regulations when they inconveniently interfere with what we would like to be true.

Thanks Neville
Northie

Spokane, WA

#38 Sep 1, 2010
I propose a new axiom of political thought as a corollary to Godwin's Law. Called Northie's Law, it reads thus:

"As an online discussion with a conservative nut grows longer, his probability of comparing opponents to Neville Chamberlain approaches 1."
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#39 Sep 2, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh now WW2 was just a totally wasteful war..
Certainly in terms of economic development. You could have the same effect if you had just dumpted the weapons in the ocean on an ECONOMIC basis.

Please try to keep your eye on the ball.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#40 Sep 3, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly in terms of economic development. You could have the same effect if you had just dumpted the weapons in the ocean on an ECONOMIC basis.
Please try to keep your eye on the ball.
Do you see how you just ignored the actual circumstances in the real world to justify an ideological position that has no basis in reality? And you try to use this same illogic to advocate environmental policies without a rational understanding of the likely consequences.

Thanks for demonstrating my assertion so well. I should be paying you to be such an ignorant foil.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 12 min scirocco 53,489
News Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing A... 20 min Patriot AKA Bozo 22
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 54 min Earthling-1 3,830
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr NinaRocks 5,616
News At the mercy of the climate jihadists 1 hr Coal is King 19
News Forecast sees milder-than-average hurricane season 7 hr Earthling-1 1
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 8 hr Earthling-1 34,244
More from around the web