The Forever Changing Economy

How easy is it for smaller business men to achieve the Aamerican dream.
How to stop corporate domination. The question I pose to you is " Is the
American Dream still achievable?" The opportunity is there but for what select
few is the opportunity available to. If the resources are out there but I can\'t
tap into the resources they rae of no use to me. (Make note of the fact that we
live in a market economy.
Just about every definition of the "market" in the dictionary connotes
an oppurtunity as a place where goods are bought and sold.(cite dict.) As an
abstraction, a market is the possibility of sale. Goods "find a market", and we
say there is is a market for a service or commodity when there is a demand for
it, which means it can and will be sold. Markets are opened to those who want
to sell and a convenience for those looking to purchase.(cite 2) The market
represents "conditions as regards, opportunity for, buying and selling".(cite 2)
The market implies offering and choice. The way a market economy works is that
there are market pressures that develop for different commodities. The
pressures work in one direction for a while, but at the same time pressures are
budding that work in the opposite direction. As people look forward and see
there\'s going to be some profit made from their production, they\'ll make
decisions to increase volume, usually hiring more people, buying more materials,
often bidding up their prices. When people are competing in the same market,
that tends to generate more and more pressure in the direction of expansion.
But at the same time, as costs and possibly interest rates rise, pressures begin
to operate in the other direction, against profits.(cite 1) The public as a
whole must get their fair share of the benefits. Macroeconomic reforms should
translate into a more efficient delivery of public services, equity, social
welfare and social security.(cite 3)
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has released its findings on
American living standards. The report, issued every other year on a decline
that begsn in the late-1970\'s. The EPI\'s report also contends that the
Americans are working more for less money because of slow growth in wages since
1989. According to the report, wages in the bottom 80% of men have declined
since 1989. The report also contends that 20% of women have experienced a
decline in trsl esgrd dincr the 1980\'s, a period in which wages fell but family
income increased because of longer hours at work and increased participation of
women in the workforce. Critics assert that the report wrongly focuses on
declining wages as a gauge to the income of the American family. Such critics
find spending a more appropriate means by which to measure income.(cite 4) One
proposal would birng back the 10% income deduction for second earners that was
eliminated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.(cite 5) Under that rule, a couple
with two earners can deduct from taxable income 10 percent of the earnings of
the spouse with the lower earnings(generally, the wife) up to 30,000 of
earnings.(cite 5) Since almost all married working women earn less than 30,000,
this is equivalent to a 10 percent reduction in the wife\'s marginal tax
rate.(cite 5) To get a sense of how substansial this offset would be, consider
a typical middle-class two earner couple. The husband earns 45,000 per year,
and the wife earns $15,000 per year by working 1,000 hours at $15 per hour.
They pay tax at a marginal income tax rate of 28 percent plus a payroll tax of
7.65 percent.(cite 5) They also pay at a typical state income tax rate of 5
percent.(cite 5) As a result, the wife\'s $15 per hour wage produces only a net
of $8.90 per hour.(cite 5) If she didn\'t change her work, the deduction would
reduce her taxable earnings from $15,000 to $13,500.(cite 5) With a marginal
income tac rate of 28 percent, that would cut her tax payments by 420 per
year.(cite 5) That\'s how the current method of revenue estimation would
evaluate the revenue effect of the deduction, a $420 revenue loss. But the 10
percent cut in her effective marginal income tax rate (which would result from
deducting 10 percent of her earnings from taxable income) would raise her net
hourly take-home by a little less than 5 percent, from $8.90 per hour to $9.32
per hour.(cite 5) Statistical studies of the labor supply of married women
imply that a 5 percent increse in