Who supports the economic stimulus package?

[Јas]

Really just an excuse to brag about Ireland, isn't it?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Here's a report on a UN study done in Sept. 2007:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

It ranks the US as first.

Seems to depend on one's particular choice of measurement...

IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, 2007

Labour Productivity 2006 – GDP (PPP) per person employed per hour (US$)
France 46.91
Ireland 45.33
USA 43.99

Worker Motivation 2007
Ireland 7.18
Netherlands 7.16
Japan 7.15
Germany 6.98
USA 6.75

Flexibility and Adaptability of Workforce when faced with new challenges
Ireland 8.43
USA 7.43
Portugal 6.92

Norwegians might be more productive on an hour for hour basis, but they are also notorious for taking up to half of a year off of work in any given year while Americans are lucky to have weekends and a week or two of vacation.

If a Norwegian and an American produce a certain product, at the end of the year, the American will have produced a substantial amount more than the Norwegian.

Also:  If you were to take the top productive hours of an American worker compared to the total number of hours worked by a Frenchman or Norwegian, the American would come out on top.

Unfortunately we are comparing apples to oranges and getting away with it by labeling it "fruit".

[opebo]

Fed just cut rates by 75 basis points.

Interest rate cuts are the only State action that right-wingers seem to accept, though redistribution of income is far more salubrious for the economy, and much more powerful.

Doesn't it seem wierd to you that money is being given out without it being earned?

Haha, no. That happens all the time - in fact all the income of the owning class is unearned, and given out by the State.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Fed just cut rates by 75 basis points.

Interest rate cuts are the only State action that right-wingers seem to accept, though redistribution of income is far more salubrious for the economy, and much more powerful.

Doesn't it seem wierd to you that money is being given out without it being earned?

I don't think it'd be such a bad thing to tax the rich and bring back things like the WPA and CCC that would focus mainly on urban dwellers and other places with high unemployment to help rebuild our nation's infrastructure.

Also, redistribution doesn't have to be taking cash from the rich and giving it to the poor to spend.  By building new infrastructure, you are creating jobs and the potential for economic growth thanks to the new infrastructure.  Redistribution can also come in the form of investments in education and health care.  This provides jobs and opportunities for the middle class and poor people, as they make up the vast majority of the population and benefit the most from well funded education and health care systems.

All income over $250,000 for single earners and $400,000 for joint filers should be subject to a total 70% federal income tax. 

I'd also support instituting a child benefit for poor people to help raise their children.  This would, of course, decrease with each additional child as not to promote rampant child bearing.

I am more than fine with having some disparity in income.  This does give incentive to work hard.  But the extremes have become much to high in this country.  There is absolutely no reason that a man should be a multi-billionaire paying relatively few taxes while other families decide between food and shelter.  It is the fatal flaw of free-market capitalism.  We need to round the edges a bit.

[Person Man]

Fed just cut rates by 75 basis points.

Interest rate cuts are the only State action that right-wingers seem to accept, though redistribution of income is far more salubrious for the economy, and much more powerful.

Doesn't it seem wierd to you that money is being given out without it being earned?

I don't think it'd be such a bad thing to tax the rich and bring back things like the WPA and CCC that would focus mainly on urban dwellers and other places with high unemployment to help rebuild our nation's infrastructure.

Also, redistribution doesn't have to be taking cash from the rich and giving it to the poor to spend.  By building new infrastructure, you are creating jobs and the potential for economic growth thanks to the new infrastructure.  Redistribution can also come in the form of investments in education and health care.  This provides jobs and opportunities for the middle class and poor people, as they make up the vast majority of the population and benefit the most from well funded education and health care systems.

All income over $250,000 for single earners and $400,000 for joint filers should be subject to a total 70% federal income tax. 

I'd also support instituting a child benefit for poor people to help raise their children.  This would, of course, decrease with each additional child as not to promote rampant child bearing.

I am more than fine with having some disparity in income.  This does give incentive to work hard.  But the extremes have become much to high in this country.  There is absolutely no reason that a man should be a multi-billionaire paying relatively few taxes while other families decide between food and shelter.  It is the fatal flaw of free-market capitalism.  We need to round the edges a bit.

Not 70%.....49.9%....but still. High infrastructure costs, and uninhibited economic decisions cause irresponsbility, unfairness and instability.

...and this is why I am considering moving to another country if the election goes badly. I need a more stable place to raise my children.

[Јas]

Norwegians might be more productive on an hour for hour basis, but they are also notorious for taking up to half of a year off of work in any given year while Americans are lucky to have weekends and a week or two of vacation.

Your choice of words is interesting, 'notorious' and 'lucky' in particular. (I'm assuming you're using hyperbole in describing the Norwegian model, but it's interesting nonetheless.)

Essentially, these societies have over time chosen their particular general work-life models. Why you seem to take the view that the Norwegians taking more time off work is a bad thing, I'm not sure.

If a Norwegian and an American produce a certain product, at the end of the year, the American will have produced a substantial amount more than the Norwegian.

Like I said, in measuring labour productivity (if that's even possible on this sort of scale) there are many rubrics with which you can measure and so many conclusions that one can draw.

I'm not sure that the stats back this particular assertion anyway.

Also:  If you were to take the top productive hours of an American worker compared to the total number of hours worked by a Frenchman or Norwegian, the American would come out on top.

Any particular basis for this claim?

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must also keep in mind that Norwegian productivity is artificially lifted by high prices on goods and large exports of oil. 

Of course I think people will be happiest and most productive when they have ample relaxation time.  This gives people time to refresh themselves and have new ideas.  Too much vacation time, however, and you lose productivity.  I don't really think Norway or America have achieved that balance.

My claim that if you took the most productive number of hours worked by Americans equaling all of those hours worked by Norwegians, the Americans would be more productive is pure conjecture.  But I think this is a common sense claim as it is probably safe to say that the hours worked above and beyond the average Norwegian are the most stressful and least productive. 

Now I have made claims akin to those made by climate scientists when describing the impacts of global warming!  It could possibly take place by 2020 when it is probable that the sea will likely rise and perhaps KILL YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN AND POLAR BEARS!!!!!