GasBuddy Blog

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics	Add to favorite topics Post New Topic

Author	Topic: It Is Time To Raise The Minimum Wage	Post a Reply Back to Topics

SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Feb 14, 2013 9:55:33 AM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse "The argument for an increase in the minimum wage ought not to rely on or focus on economics. The political, ethical, and social reasons for higher minimum wages make the case better, more clearly and more definitively. Economists have accumulated a vast literature on the minimum wage. That literature is divided into two opposing schools. The first, comprised of paid spokespersons for business and their various allies in politics, media and the academy, strives to establish the following sort of argument. Raising minimum wages will reduce the number of jobs available to those earning the pre-rise minimum wage. This is because of the "law" of supply and demand which holds that demand for anything fall as its price rises. Raise the price of labor power, less will be demanded. In short, raising the minimum wage will push more workers out of jobs into unemployment. It is thus bad for just those in whose name the minimum wage is to be raised. Such arguments provoked liberal, labor, and radical economists to seek to prove the contrary point. They questioned the theoretical assumptions about supply and dermand as it pertains to wage determination. They also offered empirical analyses to show countless cases where wages rose and no unemployment followed, etc. Excluding unrepentant ideologues, most economists now acknowledge that the end product of the vast literature on both sides is a kind of stalemate. That is, it is not at all clear whether raising the minimum wage would help or hurt employment numbers. There is no one-to-one correlation, no clear-cut cause-and-effect relationship, between raising a wage, on the one hand, and increasing versus decreasing the number of workers employed at the raised wage, on the other. ... Given that we don't know how raising the minimum wage will play out on employment in advance, that the employment outcome will vary from case to case, the decision about raising the minimum wage ought to be made on other, non-economic grounds (political and ethical and social) where the positive effects of doing so can be more confidently described, predicted, and/or advocated." Richard Wolff on the minimum wage --People are hurting. Since it is unclear whether raising the min wage helps or hurts unemployment we should do it because it will help the economy by providing more spending power for consumers. I agree almost completely with President Obama on this. Except he says make it $9 hr and I think it should be $10.

SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:14,458
Points:253,830
Joined:Sep 2005

Message Posted: Feb 14, 2013 9:55:33 AM

Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse

"The argument for an increase in the minimum wage ought not to rely on or focus on economics. The political, ethical, and social reasons for higher minimum wages make the case better, more clearly and more definitively.

Economists have accumulated a vast literature on the minimum wage. That literature is divided into two opposing schools. The first, comprised of paid spokespersons for business and their various allies in politics, media and the academy, strives to establish the following sort of argument. Raising minimum wages will reduce the number of jobs available to those earning the pre-rise minimum wage. This is because of the "law" of supply and demand which holds that demand for anything fall as its price rises. Raise the price of labor power, less will be demanded. In short, raising the minimum wage will push more workers out of jobs into unemployment. It is thus bad for just those in whose name the minimum wage is to be raised.

Such arguments provoked liberal, labor, and radical economists to seek to prove the contrary point. They questioned the theoretical assumptions about supply and dermand as it pertains to wage determination. They also offered empirical analyses to show countless cases where wages rose and no unemployment followed, etc.

Excluding unrepentant ideologues, most economists now acknowledge that the end product of the vast literature on both sides is a kind of stalemate. That is, it is not at all clear whether raising the minimum wage would help or hurt employment numbers. There is no one-to-one correlation, no clear-cut cause-and-effect relationship, between raising a wage, on the one hand, and increasing versus decreasing the number of workers employed at the raised wage, on the other.

...

Given that we don't know how raising the minimum wage will play out on employment in advance, that the employment outcome will vary from case to case, the decision about raising the minimum wage ought to be made on other, non-economic grounds (political and ethical and social) where the positive effects of doing so can be more confidently described, predicted, and/or advocated."

Richard Wolff on the minimum wage

--People are hurting. Since it is unclear whether raising the min wage helps or hurts unemployment we should do it because it will help the economy by providing more spending power for consumers. I agree almost completely with President Obama on this. Except he says make it $9 hr and I think it should be $10.

REPLIES (newest first)Ignore Short Messages

First

Next Last

MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 12:31:05 PM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse "Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over" Speaking of minimum wage in New York, here in New York we have over 2 dozen poor, or low income non immediate relatives with jobs. Although many didn't even graduate high school and had no skills or experience, all started at more than the minimum wage. For a school project, one of our daughters tried to find some people working for minimum wage to question/interview, but couldn't find a single person that made the minimum or less. She followed numerous leads, however all either no longer worked the jobs, or they were making more money. I was surprised how much money many of our poor relatives made per hour. Many made 10 plus per hour, but they're still struggling since they're working part-time, they've made numerous poor decisions, plus living beyond their means.
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 11:30:28 AM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse "The largest percentage of minimum wage workers are 16 to 19 year old females." --Looks like you misread the chart, MJ. What a highly misleading statement! It is important to read these things carefully. I think you took your figure from the column which shows the percentage of ALL HOURLY WORKERS being paid at minimum wage. This is different from looking only at minimum wage workers. Look at the column to the left of that which shows the breakdown of minimum wage workers. -from the BLS chart you linked: "Percent Distribution at minimum wage, (both sexes): Age: 16-19 ... 30.9% Age: 20 & over: ... 69.1% *** At minimum wage, (female) Age 16-19 ... 17.8% Age 20 & over: ... 46%" --Teens do not comprise the largest percentage of minimum wage workers. They are only 31% of the minimum wage work force. Break that down into sexes and female teens are only 18% of the minimum wage work force. Those are verifiable facts right off the chart. While it is true that female teens are the distinct age group with the largest percentage of all the age groups studied, that is different from saying that they are the largest percentage. Add all the other groups together and the percentage of teens earning minimum wage is not the majority. The chart you linked also includes another (combined) age group labelled "25 years and over". That group comprises 45% of the minimum wage workers. Were you cherry-picking when you chose to disregard that group and claim that teens were the largest group at 31%? How is 31 greater than 45? The facts do not support your statement. If you want to look only at females they comprise 63.8% of minimum wage workers. Female teens are 17.8 of those. 20 & over female teens are then [63.8 - 17.8] = 46%. [Edited by: SemiSteve at 4/2/2013 11:33:13 AM EST]
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 8:41:36 AM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse "Over 50% of minimum wage jobs are held by folks less than 25 years old. Wonder why New York state seems to not follow the US trend?" ==================================================================== The largest percentage of minimum wage workers are 16 to 19 year old females. When the article stated that 90% of New York's minimum wage workforce were adults, they likely included 18 and 19 year old workers. The article cited no sources, plus there are few sources that break down data without lumping several age groups together. It's pretty rare to see workers under 18 years old these days unless they're working under-the-table. Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers By Age and Sex: 2012
mudtoe Champion Author Cincinnati Posts:9,475 Points:1,286,415 Joined:May 2008	Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 2:06:24 PM Ignore mudtoe Report Abuse SS: "I'm really surprised Walmart doesn't have automated check-outs like Home Depot. " Some do now. I spent the winter in Florida and the Walmart there has them. SS: " Extrapolate that trend and the middle class becomes eliminated. The eventual result would be the wealthy few, a very small number of middle earners, and most people being dirt poor." That's going to happen anyway. It's only a matter of time. There is a huge untapped pool of labor available in the world, and advances in logistics, finance, and technology are rapidly making that untapped labor available to entrepreneurs. When you add that to continuous technological advances like Baxter, it spells the end of the "easy" jobs where you don't have to think and you don't have to be physically fit or accept some danger. Service sector and manufacturing sector unskilled labor jobs are soon to become an endangered species. All that will be left will be "hard" labor jobs that have to be performed on site, like construction, and jobs which involve danger, like mining, and even those jobs will eventually become targets once all the low hanging fruit in the form of manufacturing and service sector jobs have been picked. Of course one sector that will continue to employ these workers, until it goes broke, is government. If you would like to accelerate the process just keep raising the minimum wage and make the payoff for getting rid of workers even better, which will encourage investors to pour even more money into the development of Baxster and his buddies, and/or make the cost benefit of shipping those jobs overseas even more attractive. You had better hope that technology advances fast enough that all these automated factories and the like can eventually produce the necessities of life so cheaply that they can afford to be basically given away to a permanent underclass of people who contribute nothing to society; because if it doesn't they are eventually going to starve or be killed when they start rioting. Of course, by attacking energy you all on the left are doing everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen because having enough necessities of life to give it away to that many people requires a very cheap and plentiful supply of energy, which is exactly what you don't want. I think we have a far larger chance of a Soylent Green future than we do of a Star Trek future. mudtoe [Edited by: mudtoe at 4/1/2013 2:07:39 PM EST]
flyboyUT Champion Author Utah Posts:22,797 Points:1,008,710 Joined:Aug 2008	Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 1:39:44 PM Ignore flyboyUT Report Abuse Look at the pie chart Steve - that is based on National data. . Over 50% of minimum wage jobs are held by folks less than 25 years old. Wonder why New York state seems to not follow the US trend?
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 12:46:07 PM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse I'm really surprised Walmart doesn't have automated check-outs like Home Depot.
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 12:44:49 PM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse "Adults currently make up around 90% of the minimum wage workforce in New York state." --Oh, but I thought you said most minimum wage jobs were held by teens?
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 12:43:13 PM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse From mud's link: "Erik Brynjolfsson, director of the MIT Center for Digital Business and co-author of Race Against the Machine, has been warning economists about the coming job disruption for years. "Technology doesn't automatically lift the fortunes of all people," Brynjolfsson said recently to a crowd at Wharton University in San Francisco. "Profits [in the U.S.] have never been higher, innovation is roaring along, GDP is high, but job creation is lagging terribly, and the share of profits going to labor is at a 60-year low. This is one of the most important issues facing our society." " --That's the problem. One would be naive to think that human advancements in making more and more machines that can do our everyday work would lead to more leisure time for humans and less time needing to be spent on working for a living. On the contrary it seems to be the exact opposite. Instead of using our wonderful inventions to ease our need to work these innovative advancements are used to make the few greedy and powerful 1% richer. With more and more traditional jobs being eliminated by machines and population growth continuing to explode the result is more and more people chasing after fewer and fewer jobs and a predictable downward trend in wages. Extrapolate that trend and the middle class becomes eliminated. The eventual result would be the wealthy few, a very small number of middle earners, and most people being dirt poor. The minimum wage is just a bandage to prevent ruthless and greedy wealth-lusting executives from taking advantage of the situation by offering to pay people less than they can actually live on. Because there are so many job-seekers and so few jobs. If we don't raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation then it will become irrelevant.
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 12:27:51 PM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse AC-302, I want no part of running a business. And that is the voice of experience. I have run two small businesses. In each case the competition from much larger businesses made it nearly impossible to grow the business. I'm no MBA and I did it all with my own money. Nothing borrowed. I made a living but in each case reached a ceiling imposed by the market. It is probably also true that if I really wanted to become rich I would have entered neither of those areas of business and I would have had to outlay a lot more money and/or borrow the start-up capital. I am too valued as a worker to take such risks. I have a perfectly good life on what I can make as an employee at another business. I never had the ambition to do what it takes to get vastly rich. I am happy doing my own job and I don't mind working hard when it is called for. And then when the work is done I am very happy to go my own way and let somebody else have all the stress of running a business with employees. I see what the owners of the business do. They have no life. They spend nights, weekends working. It doesn't matter how hard I work, they work harder. I'm glad they do. They work as much as twice as hard as I do. And they probably earn twice what I am paid. Or maybe even a bit more than that. And I am fine with that. Should they earn 200 or 300 times what I make? No way! They couldn't possibly work that hard or justify being paid that much. They would have to slash my pay and pull all kinds of shady deals to do that.
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 8:11:15 AM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse They have automated burger machines that can replace many McWorkers. Even many of the order takers aren't necessary with touch screen terminals.
WES03 Champion Author Maryland Posts:4,831 Points:1,263,080 Joined:Feb 2009	Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 7:47:11 AM Ignore WES03 Report Abuse Not a good idea. Employers will reduce work force and/or McBurger prices wil rise and consumers will buy fewer.
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 7:30:39 AM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse Speaking of automation, we recently worked on a project at the business of a customer that expanded their business to allow for more automation, equipment, inventory and trucks. They plan on cutting 40 plus full-time workers and 10 part-time workers that won't be necessary anymore. Since they'll be moving much more volume, the only workers they need more of are truck drivers.
flyboyUT Champion Author Utah Posts:22,797 Points:1,008,710 Joined:Aug 2008	Message Posted: Mar 31, 2013 6:17:58 PM Ignore flyboyUT Report Abuse Its true - officially the loony gov of NY wants taxpayers to fund his schemes and he thinks there will be no consequences??? . >>>Under the new law, the minimum wage will rise from $7.25 an hour to $8 an hour next year. In future years, the minimum wage will be adjusted higher, reaching $9 an hour in 2016. Employers, however, can get a refundable tax credit to cover the increased labor costs between the old and the new wage. In other words, the state taxpayers will cover the labor costs for the new higher wage, but only for those workers aged 16-19. If you're an employer, giving a job to an 18-year-old will cause the state to subsidize part of your labor costs. If you hire a 20-year-old, however, there is no subsidy. What possible incentive do you have to hire a 20-year-old if someone 18 or 19 is available? In addition, what incentive do you have to continue to employ a 19-year-old after her 20th birthday? Adults currently make up around 90% of the minimum wage workforce in New York state. What will that number look like next year, when employers can get a refundable tax credit on some portion of the wages paid to those under 20? It isn't a total win for teenagers, though. The subsidy only applies to those workers making exactly the minimum wage. If a teen is making $8.10 an hour, for example, the employer can't file for the subsidy. Roughly 65,000 teens currently make between $8 and $10 an hour. It is likely some of these teens will have their wages cut to allow their employer to access the taxpayer subsidy.<<< I wonder if these uber liberal rich fat cats will ever learn the laws of unintended consequences.
mudtoe Champion Author Cincinnati Posts:9,475 Points:1,286,415 Joined:May 2008	Message Posted: Mar 31, 2013 12:48:32 PM Ignore mudtoe Report Abuse Here is capitalism's response to SS's socialism call to raise the minimum wage: The Robot Reality: Service Jobs Are Next to Go mudtoe
AC-302 Champion Author Los Angeles Posts:26,559 Points:2,899,920 Joined:Aug 2004	Message Posted: Mar 31, 2013 10:50:56 AM Ignore AC-302 Report Abuse SemiSteve continued to wail: "Funny how effective giant corporations are at influencing the way you think, AC-302." and "Ask 100 low wage workers if the minimum wage should be raised and they will probably ALL tell you yes." and further: "Have compassion. Don't side with the ruthless." --Why do you think corporate "giants" are influencing my though pattern, Steve? Me? I think for myself and I use LOGIC. I realize that how you "feel" and what "feels good" is how most liberals, such as yourself, think and act. And the world takes all kinds of different people to function. But to Cirdan's point, do you get that raising the minimum wage IS a form of charity? What you're doing is FORCING companies (who are not charities) to fork over more money for exactly the same work. And you still have not acknowledged that minimum wage is not and should not be a "living wage". It's a starting point, period. And most full time workers are not making minimum. As well, you fail to realize (or acknowledge) that there are some jobs in America that are not really intended to be careers and are not high paying. From what you espouse, it would seem that you want flipping burgers at McDonald's to be a "living wage"? Why is that? How about parking lot attendant or stocking shelves at the grocery (not that you can't move up at the grocery store)? There are just some lower skilled jobs that anyone off the street can fill, Steve. And when you ask, particularly a small business, to pay significantly more, and their sales are no higher, then what do you think that logical outcome is? Hmmm??? Businesses aren't cooperatives, in general. Someone put their capital on the line to try to earn more money. Eventually they hire workers to work for them, and they agree on what is a fair rate for the job and the experience of the person filling it. By the way - out here, McDonald's is NOT a minimum wage job. The free market has worked. Workers won't work for that kind of money, so they must pay more. Is it ruthless? No. It's common sense, man! Here, now. Maybe what you need to do, Steve, is start your own business. Let's talk machinery for a second. OK, let's say you go into business for yourself after your boss retires - or maybe he sells the business to you. YOU now become the boss. Presumably you have a mortgage on your new business. So are you going to want to pay your workers more than you are making? Are you going to have performance based incentives for them (productivity, profitability or some such measure)? Are you going to let your workers fly first class in order to be "humanisitic"? And what about your office staff (presuming you grow big enough)? Are you going to pay your receptionist the same money you are paying the service engineers? If not, why not? She's a valued member of the team, too?
MahopacJack Champion Author New York Posts:8,005 Points:1,581,725 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 4:16:20 PM Ignore MahopacJack Report Abuse SemiSteve, >>MJack, if I am mistaken please correct me. Has the Constitutionality of the minimum wage ever been decided in a SCOTUS case?<< ************** If we had courageous politicians who lived up to their oaths of office instead of the devious sycophants that we have, we wouldn't even be discussing this. The powers granted to the Federal Government by the governed do not include the power to FORCE some citizens (ie. business owners) to give up their property to other citizens.
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 3:15:55 PM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse MJack, if I am mistaken please correct me. Has the Constitutionality of the minimum wage ever been decided in a SCOTUS case?
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 28, 2013 9:04:47 AM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse What does charity have to do with the minimum wage?
Cirdan Champion Author Nevada Posts:2,020 Points:124,585 Joined:May 2006	Message Posted: Mar 28, 2013 12:56:23 AM Ignore Cirdan Report Abuse The quote: "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." --James Madison
greentre All-Star Author Pensacola Posts:778 Points:273,545 Joined:Oct 2011	Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 9:15:52 PM Ignore greentre Report Abuse If the government is tasked with all these things. Then why does the Constitution begin with "We THE PEOPLE of the United States..." As Daniel Webster said “It is the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people." Just a thought.
MahopacJack Champion Author New York Posts:8,005 Points:1,581,725 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 3:40:00 PM Ignore MahopacJack Report Abuse SemiSteve, >>MahopacJack: (essentially) 'The minimum wage itself is unconstitutional.' --Good luck with that argument. One would think that if it were true a case would have been brought to the SCOTUS. Still waiting on that one. Don't hold your breath.<< **************** I see you've lowered yourself to making up your own facts. While I do not disagree that Federal intrusion in the workplace is unconstitutional, I was referring to your 3/19/13 rant of, "I also believe we need a maximum ratio of executive pay to average worker pay. This does not cap executive pay. It merely says that in order for executives to earn more, they MUST guide the business toward earning more so that they can share increases in profits with the workers who made those increases possible. "
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 3:12:18 PM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse MahopacJack: (essentially) 'The minimum wage itself is unconstitutional.' --Good luck with that argument. One would think that if it were true a case would have been brought to the SCOTUS. Still waiting on that one. Don't hold your breath.
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 3:09:46 PM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse Funny how effective giant corporations are at influencing the way you think, AC-302. I don't 'google' things. I perform a net-search. I don't use a kleenex for a runny nose. I use a tissue. I don't put a bandaid on cuts, I use a bandage. Corporate executives paid a lot of money to have people tossing their product names around as if these were words in the English language. Corporations also spend a lot of money on PR to do other things. Such as get people to think that raising the minimum wage would hurt our economy. Ask one corporate executive of a giant and enormously profitable corporation which employes some low wage workers if the minimum wage should be raised and he will predictably tell you it should not. Ask 100 low wage workers if the minimum wage should be raised and they will probably ALL tell you yes. The majority of the nation thinks the minimum wage should be raised. "Some 71 percent of those surveyed said they supported raising the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour from $7.25, while 27 percent opposed it, according to a Gallup Poll released Wednesday." Have compassion. Don't side with the ruthless. 71%
Cirdan Champion Author Nevada Posts:2,020 Points:124,585 Joined:May 2006	Message Posted: Mar 25, 2013 1:57:34 AM Ignore Cirdan Report Abuse James Madison made it perfectly clear in his writings that there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the Government to take money from one citizen and give it to another. General "welfare" does NOT mean what we use "welfare" for today.
MahopacJack Champion Author New York Posts:8,005 Points:1,581,725 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 24, 2013 11:13:15 AM Ignore MahopacJack Report Abuse SemiSteve, >>"It is of no concern of Government how a private company rewards its employees as long as there is no violation of laws." --Wrong. Government does more than enforce violations of laws. Government MAKES laws. According to a founding document which begins: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." --No part of "promote the general Welfare" means government should stay out of commerce among the States. Exactly the opposite. The federal government is TASKED WITH promoting the GENERAL welfare. That means widespread welfare, not just for those who get born into wealth or manage to fight, bite and scratch their way into it (often by cheating others). They are the few. That is not the general welfare. The general welfare is the many. Government should make and enforce laws which promote the welfare of the majority of the nation.<< *** Steve, we've been over this before. The Preamble states the goals of our Constitution. Article I, Section 8, enumerates the powers granted the Federal Government to accomplish the goals. It does not, however, give them "carte blanche' to do as they please. Just for the record, the Tenth Amendment clearly states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Once again, from the US Constitution, "8.3 To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" AS you (or most people) can plainly see, the Government is NOT given authority to regulate how an employer compensates its employees. If an employer were to over compensate its employees, the business would have to either or both lower its quality of goods or services, or charge more for their goods and services. The free market would almost immediately begin correcting the over compensation. Let's leave Government out of our daily decisions. It hasn't learned how to do what it is supposed to do.
AC-302 Champion Author Los Angeles Posts:26,559 Points:2,899,920 Joined:Aug 2004	Message Posted: Mar 23, 2013 1:51:31 PM Ignore AC-302 Report Abuse SemiSteve chided below: "You say there is only so much money and you think liberals don't understand that. Another misperception. This is your own reasoning but what you lack is anything to back it up. You can't offer a link that proves liberals think there is unlimited money. So why believe such a silly notion? Does it help you to demonize liberals and pretend they lack intelligence? Have you not met your match in wits against any number of us time and time again right here on these pages?" --Hmmm.. let me think.. Oh yeah (and you can google this one) wasn't it Hillary Clinton that laughed and said (during her presidential bid) "There's not enough money in America to do everything that I want to do"? Here's another example - in California, our "Bullet train to nowhere" (also known as "the BROWN streak". Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown is pushing this train that has already been proven to be not economically feasible, and will cost BILLIONS that the good citizens of CA don't have and will have to borrow. The bullet train will never be able to cover it's costs, and they know it good and well. Yet our liberal politicians are shoving this up our collective anuses, much like ObamaCare on a national level. Unsustainable and rammed through against the will of the people. And, Steve, I've matched wits with you for about 7 years on these pages. And you have said yourself that I do give you pause in especially making you think about the consequences of what you propose. Sometimes you vomit out ideas, hoping they stick to the wall. Mostly they don't, when I and others show you the real-world consequences of your proposals. Yes, I realize that your proposals sound good, and are intended to be humanistic. But is the ideal human condition REALLY to have someone over you to take care of you and force you to make decisions for the sum total of your life? I think not, nor do I think that having an overlord is "humanistic", not matter how "gentle" that beloved leader wants to be. And while you want to suggest that everyone should be "the same", the truth is that we're not all "the same". Everyone has different abilities and different capabilities. I couldn't step in today and fix your machinery. I could LEARN it quickly, but I don't know it now. And I doubt you could program some of the machines I know, nor could you diagnose problems based on outputs. Though I suspect I could teach you quite a bit about it in 6 months or so.
flyboyUT Champion Author Utah Posts:22,797 Points:1,008,710 Joined:Aug 2008	Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 5:23:31 PM Ignore flyboyUT Report Abuse Steve - we disagree - the real takers in this country are those who are supported by the rest of us and who don't contribute to pay the bills. The folks who are the innovators and company builders are the ones who ultimately support the takers. Yes there is need of regulations to protect the country and to make it a more level playing field for everyone. But IMHO the regulators are going too far these days and the economy is showing the strains. We have a very high percentage of people of working age who are not working, we have many companies moving more and more operations overseas, we have more and more regulations making it harder and harder to run a company here, youth employment is plummeting as the expense to have workers keeps going up. TANSTAAFL Steve.
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 4:46:09 PM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse Paying workers a wage which can not be lived on is taking advantage of their misfortune. It is getting rich by stepping on the poor. "It is of no concern of Government how a private company rewards its employees as long as there is no violation of laws." --Wrong. Government does more than enforce violations of laws. Government MAKES laws. According to a founding document which begins: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." --No part of "promote the general Welfare" means government should stay out of commerce among the States. Exactly the opposite. The federal government is TASKED WITH promoting the GENERAL welfare. That means widespread welfare, not just for those who get born into wealth or manage to fight, bite and scratch their way into it (often by cheating others). They are the few. That is not the general welfare. The general welfare is the many. Government should make and enforce laws which promote the welfare of the majority of the nation. And don't mistake that word for the assistance programs. As we all agree, taking wealth away from some and spreading it around to those who didn't work for it can not be sustainable on a widespread basis. Especially if the earners become fewer and fewer and the needy become more numerous. The concept is to regulate capitalism so that it flourishes and blooms with widespread opportunity; so that people have a chance to work and provide a good life for themselves and their family. That is getting more and more difficult as the greedy and powerful manipulate government. If we stopped regulating capitalism and just let the barons do whatever they feel like things would be worse. Without government protections products would be nothing but come-ons and workers would cheated out of reasonable incomes. There would be no general welfare. The real takers in this country are the greedy and powerful. Government needs to act to thwart their selfish actions to ensure healthy thriving commerce. THAT provides for the general welfare.
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 3:00:28 PM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse Here in New York we have the highest per-pupil educational costs in the nation, many @ $20,000 plus per year per pupil, plus some of the highest paid teachers in the nation, yet many of our graduation rates are extremely poor. Many of our relatives have kids that go to school systems with graduation rates of about 60%. Many of those that don't drop out barely squeak by. Like many of our job applicants, many have failed relatively simple aptitude tests. Physical fitness is very poor as well, hence why many can't pass physical fitness assessments either.
daylily2009 Champion Author Fayetteville Posts:1,399 Points:635,990 Joined:Oct 2009	Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 11:35:32 AM Ignore daylily2009 Report Abuse Why?
mudtoe Champion Author Cincinnati Posts:9,475 Points:1,286,415 Joined:May 2008	Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 11:20:35 AM Ignore mudtoe Report Abuse mj: "In many regions it's hard to find job seekers with HS diplomas, reliable transportation and driver's licenses that can pass background checks, DMV checks, drug testing, aptitude tests and physical fitness assessments, let alone find job seekers with education, knowledge, skills and experience." Just read that 80% of the kids that graduate from NY City schools can't read well enough to start college. Mind you, this percentage is among those that get their diploma. It doesn't even count the 35% or so that dropped out. That means that of those who start high school in NYC public schools only 13% leave high school with a diploma and sufficient reading skills to start college. Put another way, the vast majority of the remaining 87% who started high school will more than likely end up being takers on public assistance as soon as they are old enough to collect benefits, because they lack even the most basic skills necessary to hold a job. 80% of NYC high school graduates can't read well enough to start college mudtoe
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 22, 2013 10:31:09 AM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse I started working when I was 12 performing jobs where pay was based on the job, piece rate or performance. I picked rocks, harvested crops, tied vines, dragged trees/brush, stacked hay, fed livestock, tended to horses, delivered newspapers, shoveled snow, shoveled roofs, raked leaves, mowed lawns, painted etc. Much of my pay was based on barter, or a combination or pay and barter. I had to knock on hundreds of doors, advertise and network with others to find work. When I was 14, I hired some older classmates that could drive since I had many customers and/or many potential jobs/customers, but wasn't old enough to drive. By the time I was 16 I acquired numerous high demand skills in construction, plumbing, electrical, heating, cooling, welding, carpentry, metal fabrication, hydraulics, pneumatics, automotive/marine mechanical, heavy equipment operation - too much too list. These days it's pretty common for us to have literally dozens of job applicants for a single job that have zero high demand skills, or experience. Rules, regulations, wage mandates, liability, labor laws and brutal competition have made it tough for many to find jobs, so many will have to start in the underground self-employment economy like myself, much of my family and many of my friends and classmates did. It's pretty rare to see anyone knocking on doors looking for work like we did when we were younger.
Cirdan Champion Author Nevada Posts:2,020 Points:124,585 Joined:May 2006	Message Posted: Mar 21, 2013 11:48:37 PM Ignore Cirdan Report Abuse We need "starter" jobs so unemployed people can demonstrate they are capable of working. Loved it when my nephews got jobs at McDonalds. Yeah, it's minimum wage and you can't make a career out of McDonalds. But, it teaches you to be reliable (show up), deal with customers, and work as part of a team. From McDonalds, you move onward and upward. My first job, at age 15, was washing dishes in a greasy spoon restaurant. It taught me to work, to earn my own way, and that I never wanted to do that job again. That's motivational. Now I'm a professional, manager, with multiple college degrees. It's well established among serious Economists (not Liberal pundits) that the minimum wage screws minorities and teens, because it takes away that first step -- the starter job. Too much of liberalism is wishful thinking without regard to the real world consequences. Minimum wage increase hurt, not help, the poor by denying them opportunities.
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 11:50:36 AM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse "Seventy-two percent of employers at big companies and 58 percent at small ones say there is a "great deal" or "some" opportunity for worker advancement. But, asked the same question, 67 percent of all low-wage workers said they saw "a little" or "no opportunity" at their jobs for advancement." This is just another example of the pessimistic defeatist attitudes shared by many unsuccessful workers. My 19 year old niece moved up from cashier to management in less than a year, yet many that she now manages claim they're working dead end jobs. Truth be told many never move up the ladder since they're lazy, poor performers, slow learners and turn down hours, second/third shifts, nights, weekends, overtime, holidays, transfers - too much to list.
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 11:39:54 AM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse "Yet 44 percent of employers surveyed said it's hard to recruit people with appropriate skills or experiences to do lower-wage jobs, particularly in manufacturing (54 percent)." In many regions it's hard to find job seekers with HS diplomas, reliable transportation and driver's licenses that can pass background checks, DMV checks, drug testing, aptitude tests and physical fitness assessments, let alone find job seekers with education, knowledge, skills and experience. That's the short list. Many will have a hard time finding/keeping jobs due to the way they look, act, dress, speak, write, poor attitudes, poor work ethic, poor performance. I'm amazed how many job seekers show up late for interviews.
101Speedster Champion Author Ventura Posts:30,413 Points:2,715,695 Joined:May 2005	Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 10:56:24 AM Ignore 101Speedster Report Abuse Before Obama was president, was anyone worrying about what the minimum wage was?
MahopacJack Champion Author New York Posts:8,005 Points:1,581,725 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 10:55:04 AM Ignore MahopacJack Report Abuse SemiSteve, >>So why are we here? To benefit the chosen few or to have a nation with abundant prosperity? If we want a good life for as many as possible then we MUST actively regulate commerce. We MUST raise the minimum wage and we MUST tie it to inflation thereafter.<< *** No, we MUST MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS. It is of no concern of Government how a private company rewards its employees as long as there is no violation of laws. Any employee that is underpaid or feels they deserve better can leave a company to improve themselves. If you want to persue the redistribution theme, why not begin with Federal Government? Demand (and we have the right to) they immediately put an end to their junkets, pork filled bills, free "Cadillac' Health Insurance and many other perks that we don't even know about? Maybe their austerity WITH OUR MONEY might just catch on. In the event it doesn't, there will be more money in workers pockets with which they can more prudently use to pursue happiness.
I75at7AM Champion Author Dayton Posts:66,485 Points:2,431,395 Joined:Feb 2006	Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 10:43:49 AM Ignore I75at7AM Report Abuse Regarding the employment quandaries that MarkJames has written about below: Low-Wage Workers Gloomy About Future "As a workforce sector, those earning $35,000 or less annually are generally pessimistic about their finances and career prospects. Many see themselves as worse off now than during the recession,..." "Yet 44 percent of employers surveyed said it's hard to recruit people with appropriate skills or experiences to do lower-wage jobs, particularly in manufacturing (54 percent)." If you need people with skills and experience, you need to pay them more. For workers who have been in a job for a substantial amount of time and feel stuck, with no advancement or promotion, it's time to improve the skill set and/or start looking around for a better opportunity. Several years on a job is a plus on any resumé these days.
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 8:56:32 AM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse Speaking of Cheap Labor, our laborers are only cheap if they're productive. Many highly paid laborers are very productive, so they're a bargain, while many low paid laborers are slow, can't multi-task, make mistakes etc, so they're worth zero, or negative money.
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 8:50:38 AM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse The reasons many businesses use part-timers, temps, seasonal workers and on call floaters is that demand varies by the hour, day, days, week, weeks, month, months, season etc.Part-time demand and part-time workload = part-time workers. -----At one of our businesses, once orders are selected, packed and loaded onto trucks, there's no need for any workers other than the multi-skilled workers that perform other tasks. Shifts are shorter and shorter due to automation and efficiency. Additional part-time workers are necessary in industries with high new hire washout, high turnover due to termination, quitters, high absentee rates etc. For example, yesterday due to the snowstorm we had 9 workers that said they couldn't make it to work, so we called over 20 on-call workers to fill the void. When we have no-shows at some other businesses, we often have to call a dozen floaters to find one willing/able to work an unscheduled shift, so we're incredibly overstaffed with part-timers, floaters and temps. Businesses have had to become much better at matching labor to demand due to rules, regulations, mandates, inflation, brutal competition, razor thin margins etc. Having more full-timers is like leaving lights, televisions, fans and air conditioning on when you're not home. In order to have more full-timers in many industries you need steady hourly/daily/weekly/monthly/year round demand, plus many of your full-timers need multiple skill sets so they can perform numerous other tasks when demand is low or non existent. [Edited by: MarkJames at 3/20/2013 8:52:08 AM EST]
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 19, 2013 4:54:38 PM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse That reasoning being that instead of having one worker at 40 hours per week with full benefits the company spends less on labor to have two or three workers whose combined total is 40 hours but they have NO benefits. This is all great for the business but takes it's toll on the workers. The business then has increased profitability potential. That increased profitability CAME OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE WORKERS. This is not a give and take situation. It is a grab and run. The business grabs this chance and runs with it. The workers have no choice but to accept it or to find a better life somehow somewhere else. They could try to get a better education. But corporations have made that overly expensive also. Unregulated and poorly regulated capitalism has produced a system where people are suppressed and if they try to better themselves they are shackled in debt for years or decades with no guarantee of success. A lousy economy is ideal for Wall Street because it ensures plentiful and cheap labor. The trend is to turn the USA into a third-world like labor market where people are willing to work long hours for pitiful wages. Nothing benefited Wall Street like the boom of cheap foreign labor and easy shipping of the 80's and 90's. Take the shipping out of the equation and Wall street will do even better. But the better it gets for Wall Street the worse it gets on Main Street. So why are we here? To benefit the chosen few or to have a nation with abundant prosperity? If we want a good life for as many as possible then we MUST actively regulate commerce. We MUST raise the minimum wage and we MUST tie it to inflation thereafter. I also believe we need a maximum ratio of executive pay to average worker pay. This does not cap executive pay. It merely says that in order for executives to earn more, they MUST guide the business toward earning more so that they can share increases in profits with the workers who made those increases possible. The minimum wage sets a standard for the poor; and the maximum ratio sets a standard for the middle class. Upper Class sets their own standard. There. Everybody is taken care of and we still have capitalism where anybody can excel if they are lucky and have the aptitude.
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 19, 2013 12:39:26 PM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse "But then when the place is slammed they are all bringing in much more than they are being paid. Hopefully it will all balance out positive. If not then another empty hulk of a failed business blots the landscape." This is why many businesses deploy more and more automation, plus why many are heavily over-staffed with part-timers, temps and floaters (on-call workers. Many workers are assigned more and more duties which can be performed during slow times and/or employers cut workers hours, plus do a better job of matching labor to demand. For example, 90 plus percent of the time the workers, registers, self checkouts and technology at a store managed by our niece are under-utilized. Many workers that once only worked as cashiers have multiple duties including working register, self checkout, bagging, stocking, carry-outs, recyclables, cart wrangling, cleaning, customer service etc. When they're busy - early in the foodstamp cycle for example they schedule more part-timers and/or call more floaters, so existing workers often don't work as hard, plus work fewer hours. Unexpected demand and/or unexpected absence is also met with an oversized pool of on-call part-timers and floaters. Workers working short 4 hour shifts are often more productive as well. Many of the workers complain that they're not getting enough hours and/or that although their hours are being cut, the store is still hiring more workers, however they don't understand the reasoning behind these hiring practices.
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 19, 2013 11:49:12 AM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse SemiSteve said: "--Doesn't seem like an appropriate question for this topic, AC-302. I mean, what's to pay for? This is like a free stimulus. It won't cost the government a dime. It could even net the government more revenue as a result of the increased economic activity. Actually, a more appropriate question might be: "What are you going to spend the extra money on?" My answer would be to apply it to the deficit." AC-302 reasoned: "Now, Steve.. again, I'm not meaning to "bust on" you, at least not too much. But look at your statement: "I mean, what's to pay for? This is like a free stimulus." There ain't no such thing as "free". Someone is going to pay for it. If nothing else, we're all going to pay for it in increased prices, creating an artificial inflation. This will net everyone a big, fat ZERO in terms of buying power. Those who are not working for minimum will be paying more, and so will those living of of minimum. Prices go up for everyone, not just for "those rich buggers" - who can afford the increase moreso than the poor worker. This is what I don't get about liberals in general. They want to give, give, give, but don't understand that 1) it ain't free and 2) there's only so much to give away "for free". Liberals in America also don't seem to understand that there is only so much money, and that it has to be apportioned. Deficits cannot go on forever. And when our economy crashes over not being able to pay even the interest on our debt, the economic fall is going to come long and hard, and it will hurt everyone." --Tut tut, my good friend. Point of order. I said it was LIKE a free stimulus. Your perception of liberal reasoning is inaccurate. LIBERALS never claim things are actually free and we know as well as anyone nothing is free. I've made this point many times. Of course there is going to be some inflation of prices following a minimum wage hike. But the AMOUNT of that induced inflation IS NOT a direct ratio to the amount of the min wage hike. We're talking about a 20% min wage hike here. You can't sit there and claim we are going to have 20% inflation! It's not going to happen. And besides the proposal also includes tying minimum wage to the COLA after that. So once the new min is established and absorbed into the economy (yes, some things priced slightly higher do that) the system will reach equilibrium. You say there is only so much money and you think liberals don't understand that. Another misperception. This is your own reasoning but what you lack is anything to back it up. You can't offer a link that proves liberals think there is unlimited money. So why believe such a silly notion? Does it help you to demonize liberals and pretend they lack intelligence? Have you not met your match in wits against any number of us time and time again right here on these pages? Yes, there is only so much money. That is painfully apparent. The barons have sequestered a significant portion of it away from circulation as the population has grown. The result is more and more people chasing after fewer and fewer dollars in circulation. And that is the very definition of a slow economy. There is less economic activity, less trading of dollars, precisely BECAUSE there are only so many dollars and so many of them have been removed from circulation by the rich and powerful. Raising the minimum wage will help to put more dollars in active circulation, INCREASE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, and the trading of dollars for goods. The result is more buying power for the public, more demand, more jobs, more revenue. This will make it easier for our government to reduce deficits and eventually (we all hope) reduce the debt. Of course we must apply pressure on our representatives to do the right thing when they have the chance. Now is not the time to try to force that to happen. When the economy is doing much better THAT is the time. And we liberals are not forgetting that when the neo-cons had the WH they took over in a much better economic situation, IGNORED the famous last words of Clinton: "Pay down the debt, pay down the debt, pay down the debt," and instead went on an unparallelled war spending spree; after which we ended up in deep do-do. All of this new-found Republican concern over the debt is really quite laughable to us. You guys had your chance and blew it. Now we are again fixing your problem as we always do, while you blame us for the problem. And the merry-go-round plays on.
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 19, 2013 11:04:33 AM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse "Many people tend to think in terms of dollars per hour, but what matters to employers is worker performance/value vs compensation vs demand. This value can vary substantially hour to hour, day to day, week to week and month to month based on demand, hence why much of our work force consists of part-timers, temps, floaters, subs and seasonal workers." --That's a good point. How many times have you gone into a business, say a restaurant, and noticed that there are more workers than customers? In that instant the workers are costing the business more than the business is bringing in. So they are all negative. But then when the place is slammed they are all bringing in much more than they are being paid. Hopefully it will all balance out positive. If not then another empty hulk of a failed business blots the landscape. But this is such an innocent sounding reason to screw workers. "Oh, the demand fluctuates. We know it is part of the risk we take in return for big profits; but what we'd really like to do is place the burden of that fluctuation upon you, the worker, while we, the business owners, don't share any of the rewards of when the business is operating at maximum profitability with you in return for that." A nice trick. Slough off all the bad onto the worker but keep all the good for the employer. This is an example of capitalism at it's sleaziest. And just one more reason that raw unregulated capitalism is not the ideal economic system; (as we all know) and hence rarely found under a sophisticated government. It shows why it is so important to have actively evolving regulation to keep up with the imaginations of the greedy - those who are more concerned with profits than people.
AC-302 Champion Author Los Angeles Posts:26,559 Points:2,899,920 Joined:Aug 2004	Message Posted: Mar 19, 2013 10:38:40 AM Ignore AC-302 Report Abuse SemiSteve said: "--Doesn't seem like an appropriate question for this topic, AC-302. I mean, what's to pay for? This is like a free stimulus. It won't cost the government a dime. It could even net the government more revenue as a result of the increased economic activity. Actually, a more appropriate question might be: "What are you going to spend the extra money on?" My answer would be to apply it to the deficit." --Now, Steve.. again, I'm not meaning to "bust on" you, at least not too much. But look at your statement: "I mean, what's to pay for? This is like a free stimulus." There ain't no such thing as "free". Someone is going to pay for it. If nothing else, we're all going to pay for it in increased prices, creating an artificial inflation. This will net everyone a big, fat ZERO in terms of buying power. Those who are not working for minimum will be paying more, and so will those living of of minimum. Prices go up for everyone, not just for "those rich buggers" - who can afford the increase moreso than the poor worker. This is what I don't get about liberals in general. They want to give, give, give, but don't understand that 1) it ain't free and 2) there's only so much to give away "for free". Liberals in America also don't seem to understand that there is only so much money, and that it has to be apportioned. Deficits cannot go on forever. And when our economy crashes over not being able to pay even the interest on our debt, the economic fall is going to come long and hard, and it will hurt everyone.
MarkJames Champion Author Albany Posts:1,299 Points:24,060 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Mar 19, 2013 9:59:03 AM Ignore MarkJames Report Abuse To help businesses struggling due to rules, regulations, mandates, inflation, competition, lack of demand etc and/or to keep their jobs, employees can also increase their performance, take wage/days/hours cuts, work unpaid hours - too much to list. These options are better than the alternative for many which is Unemployed. Many people tend to think in terms of dollars per hour, but what matters to employers is worker performance/value vs compensation vs demand. This value can vary substantially hour to hour, day to day, week to week and month to month based on demand, hence why much of our work force consists of part-timers, temps, floaters, subs and seasonal workers. Sometimes workers are worth $10 per hour and other times they're worth zero, or negative money due to lack of demand, inactivity, mistakes, risk, liability.
flyboyUT Champion Author Utah Posts:22,797 Points:1,008,710 Joined:Aug 2008	Message Posted: Mar 18, 2013 4:26:55 PM Ignore flyboyUT Report Abuse What the heck Steve - make life easy for all. Just have the govt say that as of right now each dollar is worth ten newdollars and instantly everyone has lots of money - see problem solved....
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 18, 2013 11:26:45 AM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse SS: " Yeah, we've got a lot of debt but look at the assets. We have a positive net worth." mudtoe: "Define the "we" who have the positive net worth. Folks, what he means is that while the debt is public, the assets he speaks of are private property. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that what he's saying is that public debt doesn't matter as long as there are sufficient private assets to seize to cover it. Or put another way, all assets belong to government and can be used to collateralize debt. " --Another futile attempt to put words into my mouth that I never said. Trying to pin things on me that you really said seems to be one of your peskiest undesirable habits, mudtoe. Pointless, really. What's the matter? Can't you find enough of what I actually said to disagree with? So you have to make up things and try to pin them on me? It will never work. I will call you out on it every time. The government has assets of more value than the government's debt. You add up all the ships, planes, missiles, bombs, rockets, weaponry, buildings, land, and devices that the government owns and it is worth more than the debt. The USA is net positive. And if we raise the minimum wage, the economy will grow and generate more revenue. The deficit will fall and we will move closer to wiping it out all together.
MiddletownMarty Champion Author Connecticut Posts:17,541 Points:268,855 Joined:Jul 2008	Message Posted: Mar 18, 2013 10:58:05 AM Ignore MiddletownMarty Report Abuse "Of course, since the employer must either raise the cost of their product or cut employees." Those aren't the only options. The employer can also reduce his profits. These are, after all, austere times... at least for some.
SemiSteve Champion Author Tampa Posts:14,458 Points:253,830 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 18, 2013 10:42:39 AM Ignore SemiSteve Report Abuse AC-302: "SemiSteve - Let me ask you the question I always ask, and you mostly don't really have an answer for: "How you gonna pay for it?" " --Doesn't seem like an appropriate question for this topic, AC-302. I mean, what's to pay for? This is like a free stimulus. It won't cost the government a dime. It could even net the government more revenue as a result of the increased economic activity. Actually, a more appropriate question might be: "What are you going to spend the extra money on?" My answer would be to apply it to the deficit.