Monday, February 15, 2010
Marx in the News
Greg Burns from the Chicago Tribune posted an article today entitled Security Blanket Fraying Quickly. This article talks about how social security will begin running in the red this year. Burns addresses that fact that everyone knew this day would come, but did not expect it to come this quickly. The reason it has come quicker than expected is partly due to the recession. About 2.7 million people entered into the social security program last year. Burns predicts that Congress will not do anything about this issue, at least not until the 2012 election where it could become a big issue. Burns says that the longer Congress waits the more expense the fix for social security will be. The solution to this issue would be to increase taxes on people who are working and to cut back on benefits in the future.The problem here is that the government is going to be taxing the younger people more and more to support the increasing amount of older people who begin taking part in social security. The government is depreciating the value of our labor in a different way than Marx originally explained. The government is depreciating our labor by taking away a disproportionate amount of taxes from our income and because there will be no money around by the time we get to the age of receiving social security. They are telling us that our labor value is not worth as much as previous generations because they are taxing us more to pay for the previous generations’ social security. They are completely deprecating our labor value because the likelihood of us every receiving social security is very small.
This estranges us from our labor because not only are we not getting paid by the labor value we add to the product but we are also paying a disproportionate amount in taxes. We are paying to take care of the previous generations but we will not be taken care of because social security is already close to running in the red and will be running in the red this year. We may not have the ability to spend like other generations have because part of our income is being diverted to take care of the previous generations. Our economy will be worse because will be wearing the burden of previous generations on our shoulder.
I understand that the solution to solving the problem with social security is not to stop the tax all together and let people who thought social security would be there retirement to fend for themselves. But at the same time should our generation be burdened with the responsibility of taking care of them when we know that we will also have to save for ourselves because social security will not be around for us? Overall, the value of our labor does not seem as valuable as previous generations because we are receiving less money because the government will begin taking out more in taxes.
The problem here is that the government is going to be taxing the younger people more and more to support the increasing amount of older people who begin taking part in social security. The government is depreciating the value of our labor in a different way than Marx originally explained. The government is depreciating our labor by taking away a disproportionate amount of taxes from our income and because there will be no money around by the time we get to the age of receiving social security. They are telling us that our labor value is not worth as much as previous generations because they are taxing us more to pay for the previous generations’ social security. They are completely deprecating our labor value because the likelihood of us every receiving social security is very small.
This estranges us from our labor because not only are we not getting paid by the labor value we add to the product but we are also paying a disproportionate amount in taxes. We are paying to take care of the previous generations but we will not be taken care of because social security is already close to running in the red and will be running in the red this year. We may not have the ability to spend like other generations have because part of our income is being diverted to take care of the previous generations. Our economy will be worse because will be wearing the burden of previous generations on our shoulder.
I understand that the solution to solving the problem with social security is not to stop the tax all together and let people who thought social security would be there retirement to fend for themselves. But at the same time should our generation be burdened with the responsibility of taking care of them when we know that we will also have to save for ourselves because social security will not be around for us? Overall, the value of our labor does not seem as valuable as previous generations because we are receiving less money because the government will begin taking out more in taxes.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Locke in the News
The New York Times posted an article entitled $100 Billion Increase in Deficit Is Forecast. This article caught my attention because any increase in the deficit during a recession is a scary but somewhat necessary idea. The article predicts that the current deficit would increase by a $100 billion bringing the total deficit to somewhere in the range of $1.6 trillion. The majority of the $100 billion dollar increase in the deficit would come from President Obama’s proposed stimulus package. President Obama’s goal behind this $100 billion dollar stimulus package is to give tax cuts to business that make new hires and create new jobs and also use some of the money for infrastructure projects. The key to the success of this stimulus package is the hope that it will create more jobs and boost the overall economy.The thing that I found really interesting about this article is the proposed $100 billion stimulus package. I found it interesting because the purpose of the stimulus package is to create jobs. I believe that John Locke would find the idea of using money to create jobs pretty interesting. The reason I say this is because Locke believes that money represents labor. Locke believes that money has stored up labor value imbedded in it. He also thought that money is energy, specifically energy from labor. According to Locke, money only receives its value by contract and agreement between humans. Basically, money is only worth something because everyone agrees that it is worth something. And according to Locke, the value of money lies in labor.
It is interesting that the government is trying to use money to create the thing that gives it value, labor. There are two different ways that Locke could look at this situation. Our government is using the money to try and create jobs. Through Locke’s eyes it might seem that the government has the whole idea backwards. Labor is what gives the money that the government is spending on job creation any value at all. Labor is the primary factor not money.
The other way that Locke might address this idea of money creating jobs is that if money’s value is in labor then the best thing to invest money in would be labor. The government is trying to increase the value of money by creating more labor. If labor gives value to money then by increasing labor the government would also increase the value of money.
The thing that I found really interesting about this article is the proposed $100 billion stimulus package. I found it interesting because the purpose of the stimulus package is to create jobs. I believe that John Locke would find the idea of using money to create jobs pretty interesting. The reason I say this is because Locke believes that money represents labor. Locke believes that money has stored up labor value imbedded in it. He also thought that money is energy, specifically energy from labor. According to Locke, money only receives its value by contract and agreement between humans. Basically, money is only worth something because everyone agrees that it is worth something. And according to Locke, the value of money lies in labor.
It is interesting that the government is trying to use money to create the thing that gives it value, labor. There are two different ways that Locke could look at this situation. Our government is using the money to try and create jobs. Through Locke’s eyes it might seem that the government has the whole idea backwards. Labor is what gives the money that the government is spending on job creation any value at all. Labor is the primary factor not money.
The other way that Locke might address this idea of money creating jobs is that if money’s value is in labor then the best thing to invest money in would be labor. The government is trying to increase the value of money by creating more labor. If labor gives value to money then by increasing labor the government would also increase the value of money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)