|
DesideriScuri -> RE: High unemployment is a good thing (11/13/2013 1:31:43 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffBC
A) Pull all the subsidies
OK, so what happens is, in theory, the people now quit these jobs because it is unsustainable. But what happens next? In a war of attrition like that you and I both know who's going to win. The Walton's could never make another penny starting now and live better than kings for the rest of eternity. In the mean time, the workers are starving TONIGHT. Sure, in some theoretical economics model eventually prices would fall, yada yada. But long before then there'd be rioting and looting in the streets.
There is a need for the subsidies, though, Jeff. There are plenty of people out there who are not capable of sustaining themselves. Those people need (and should get) our help.
quote:
B) Enforce higher wages
This makes "a living wage" a requirement of a job (which is kind of common sense). The Walton's are required to build business plans which actually work in the real world without govt. subsidies. Prices will undoubtedly rise, to some degree, in the walmarts but since everyone has more money it's just not that big of a deal. The walton's are still fabulously wealthy by any measure. This also raises the cost of american goods overseas... a strong argument against free trade in my mind. Free trade was a doomed idea from the beginning although it appealed to the humanitarian in me for a while before I remembers the lessons of history.
That will only make matters worse, as the number of the lowest paying jobs will be reduced, pushing unemployment higher. As long as prices don't rise enough to make the new "minimum wage" not an actual increase in real wages, then there might be more money in everyone's hands. If prices rise to the point that the minimum wage has the same buying power as the old minimum wage, then you're not doing anyone a damn bit of good, in fact, you'll be hurting those on fixed incomes.
quote:
For all of your charts and graphs, reality remains and it is staring you in the face. People are getting poorer and poorer day by day in the united states. The wealth is being concentrated in a smaller and smaller group. Would you put any reins at all on the existing power interests or is it "straight to slavery" in your world? Given that you are NOT in the group of people bubbling to the top, do you have a plan for yourself because you're not immune from these country and global trends.
Do you have a third option? Surely you understand that "trickle down economics" was a fantasy from the very beginning. When the rich get richer they do not give some of their money to the poor. Rather, they use that money to consolidate their power base and get richer still. What would you do about the fact that the middle class is non-existent in the US if we were to go by historical standards for "middle class"? More to the point, what are you planning on doing about the fact that YOU ARE FUCKED if the trends continue -- and they are not simply continuing but accelerating -- thank you Obama.
The poor and downtrodden minimum wage earners aren't, generally, family workers, but single teens. If someone can't show that he or she has more skills than those required for a minimum wage job, then why should they get more money? If we move the minimum wage to $11.17/hour (used only because that is the cutoff for the bottom 25th percentile), then 25% of all hourly wage earners will get a raise. What happens to the person making $11.25, $12.00, or $15.00 per hour? Either you have to give them commensurate raises or you've now devalued the skills and/or experience they have worked to gain.
The rich certainly do give to the poor.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/04/24/poor-middle-class-and-rich-who-gives-and-who-doesnt/
Some will point to the lower % of income given by the rich than by the poor, but they'll ignore that 70-80% of all charitable giving is done by the rich. And, before anyone (not saying you, Jeff, would have done this), but bringing up the Biblical story of the poor woman who gave her last penny as an offering was looked upon more highly than those who gave more, but didn't give their all, that's between them and their makers, not you (general) and I. When someone gets money from a charity, do they care if it came from 3% of someone's income, or 10% of someone's income?
Increasing the minimum wage will increase costs (which lowers the real wage amount of the rate increase) for everyone, which will also increase the level determined to be "poverty" level.
|
|
|
|
