RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


thishereboi -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 8:56:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

A little off subject but I see two opposing paths to wealth in the US.

The first is the constant drum beat of marching Republicans and their supporters demanding ever increasing tax relief for business in America. The idea is making business less expensive to owners and investors which will simulate job creation… The so called trickle down economics. Creating jobs will then spur the economy and make up the reduction of tax income.

The second calls for business to pay at current or increased tax rate and to raise the minimum wage thereby giving the general public more money to spend at a business allowing said business to recoup the hit they take in taxes.

The results of the first option have been in for years and years… The money saved in taxes is not reinvested … it has not spurred job creation…it is simply taken as profit increasing the wealth of the top few percent of Americans and lowering the standard of living for the majority.

It is time to try the second option… if given a choice between making the rich richer and the rest of us poorer and trying another option… I am for increasing the minimum wage to a living wage… not just a few pennies and see how it plays put in the economy. If nothing else with this option our economy will either go up or come down together… rich and poor the same. I understand the cost of business will need to be passed on to the consumer but economic competition will keep it to a minimum. Business will survive but with a smaller profit margin per item… But the consumer will be able to by more items.

Maybe Wal-Mart will not need the consumer to use food stamps and our taxes can be used in other more important areas...Heaven forbid maybe to reduce taxes on businesses...Why not try it what do we have to loose...corporate welfare is not working so good today.

Butch



The businesses like walmart and target will survive. The little mom and pop business that are already operating on a small profit margin will not. They as consumers will not be able to buy more items because they will have declaired bankrupcy and be broke. But it will all be good because at that point we can add them to the medicaid roster and that will be more people signed up for healthcare. Good thing there will still be a walmart down the road that they can use their foodstamps at. But your right, business will survive.


Small businesses don't survive Walmart.



Walmart has been around for over 50 years and they are still around, so yea they do.

.....and for those 50 years wherever the community they go...small businesses have been going out of business.



And you think making them raise the pay of every employee is going to help how? If they are barely getting by now, increasing their expenses is only going to make it worse.




MrRodgers -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 8:56:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Maybe Wal-Mart will not need the consumer to use food stamps and our taxes can be used in other more important areas...Heaven forbid maybe to reduce taxes on businesses...Why not try it what do we have to loose...corporate welfare is not working so good today.

Butch

Corporate welfare always works...for the corporation. That's the real reason it exists and it is bought and paid for so.....?


Said by those who have never created a job.

The fortune 500 has not created one net new job in the US for over 50 years. They have been cutting and exporting those jobs for that time. And since the Bush tax cuts and as of today, corporate taxes are at a 60 year low.




GotSteel -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 8:58:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Magically make every worker more valuable.


To offset the practice of magically making money less valuable.




MrRodgers -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 8:59:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LishonTov

IMHO the debate about what the minimum wage should or should not be is ludicrous. Wages or salaries are just one sort of price. Price is the instant valuation given anything. There is no such thing as the "right price". The value of a thing (in economics obviously, not morals) is whatever the owner and the potential buyer agree on. There is no inherent value in anything. A brick of gold is just a heavy paperweight if no one is interested in buying it.
When we look at wages in these terms, the wage is the price that two parties agrees to accept, the seller (worker) and the buyer (employer).
Does any government have the Right to insert itself in the affairs of responsible adults? No. Though some governments may use the inherent threat of force to effect the marketplace, it is might without right.
If I have a pound of ________, and I want _____ dollars, and you want to pay no more than _________, we either compromise on a number we both benefit from or we do not do business. Period.
In regard to work and wages, if a responsible adult is willing to sell his time and labor for ________ and an employer will pay only _______, either they compromise on a number that both derive some benefit from, or they do not, period.
The Minimum Wage concept implies that there is some third party involved, someone who claims his decision is better than the one negotiated by the prospective buyer and seller. Though there are pragmatic reasons to oppose Minimum Wage, they are dangerous to make. By making those arguments one concedes the primary point. I say even IF Minimum Wage is increased or decreased and some socioeconomic benefit is gained, nevertheless it is gained at the expense of reality. Reality dictates prices. Fiat prices ALWAYS result in black-markets, just as water will always find its precise level.

You are correct...minimum wage should be zero. In fact, they should pay me for the training I give them. I mean after all...slaves had jobs didn't they. Then we could get our kids back to work for .12 (cents) an hr and 72 hours a week...that's the ticket to a raising MY standard of living.





MrRodgers -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 9:02:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Maybe Wal-Mart will not need the consumer to use food stamps and our taxes can be used in other more important areas...Heaven forbid maybe to reduce taxes on businesses...Why not try it what do we have to loose...corporate welfare is not working so good today.

Butch

Corporate welfare always works...for the corporation. That's the real reason it exists and it is bought and paid for so.....?


Said by those who have never created a job.

I 'create the same no. of jobs as my demand for goods and services at the same level as anybody else creates.




MrRodgers -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 9:04:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

A little off subject but I see two opposing paths to wealth in the US.

The first is the constant drum beat of marching Republicans and their supporters demanding ever increasing tax relief for business in America. The idea is making business less expensive to owners and investors which will simulate job creation… The so called trickle down economics. Creating jobs will then spur the economy and make up the reduction of tax income.

The second calls for business to pay at current or increased tax rate and to raise the minimum wage thereby giving the general public more money to spend at a business allowing said business to recoup the hit they take in taxes.

The results of the first option have been in for years and years… The money saved in taxes is not reinvested … it has not spurred job creation…it is simply taken as profit increasing the wealth of the top few percent of Americans and lowering the standard of living for the majority.

It is time to try the second option… if given a choice between making the rich richer and the rest of us poorer and trying another option… I am for increasing the minimum wage to a living wage… not just a few pennies and see how it plays put in the economy. If nothing else with this option our economy will either go up or come down together… rich and poor the same. I understand the cost of business will need to be passed on to the consumer but economic competition will keep it to a minimum. Business will survive but with a smaller profit margin per item… But the consumer will be able to by more items.

Maybe Wal-Mart will not need the consumer to use food stamps and our taxes can be used in other more important areas...Heaven forbid maybe to reduce taxes on businesses...Why not try it what do we have to loose...corporate welfare is not working so good today.

Butch



The businesses like walmart and target will survive. The little mom and pop business that are already operating on a small profit margin will not. They as consumers will not be able to buy more items because they will have declaired bankrupcy and be broke. But it will all be good because at that point we can add them to the medicaid roster and that will be more people signed up for healthcare. Good thing there will still be a walmart down the road that they can use their foodstamps at. But your right, business will survive.


Small businesses don't survive Walmart.



Walmart has been around for over 50 years and they are still around, so yea they do.

.....and for those 50 years wherever the community they go...small businesses have been going out of business.



And you think making them raise the pay of every employee is going to help how? If they are barely getting by now, increasing their expenses is only going to make it worse.

With Walmart eliminating jobs in the communities the enter, a higher minimum wage will create jobs in industries that don't compete with Walmart.




MrRodgers -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 9:15:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Magically make every worker more valuable.


To offset the practice of magically making money less valuable.

Less valuable money is the result of inflation. Not only has the minimum wage not kept up with inflation, there has been little or no inflation since the last increase in minimum wage in 2009...still 25% under what would have been an inflation-adjusted minimum age. ($10.87/hr.)




thishereboi -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 9:28:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

With Walmart eliminating jobs in the communities the enter, a higher minimum wage will create jobs in industries that don't compete with Walmart.



We were not discussing industries that don't compete with Walmart so that really has no bearing on the small businesses that will be driven out of business.




MrRodgers -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 9:49:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Where... it has not been shown to me...by the way tell me when EVER the minimum wage has been a living wage in the past.

Butch


Here's one explanation of income inequality.


The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, not as I understand the MW to be. The MW puts an artificial floor for all workers. For example, does a 16 y/o, living at home, working their first job at McDonalds need a living wage?

People constantly focus on the wrong thing(s).

2/3 of minimum wage earners are single mothers. Not what's supposed to be a living wage because economy isn't supposed to provide...a 'living wage' if it doesn't want to. Economy need only provide a profit.

I was incorrect even though I remember reading that. All I've found since is that 2/3 are women which is all over the net yet tells us a lot less. Most are the working poor and still cannot support themselves let alone a family.




MrRodgers -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 9:51:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

With Walmart eliminating jobs in the communities the enter, a higher minimum wage will create jobs in industries that don't compete with Walmart.



We were not discussing industries that don't compete with Walmart so that really has no bearing on the small businesses that will be driven out of business.

Correct but is still the economic basis for raising the min. wage. And yes, even at Target, JC Penny and Sears that do compete with Walmart.




RottenJohnny -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/2/2014 10:07:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
My guess is that just about the same percentage don't trust the Democrats either.

Stop guessing, learn about reality!

I do and I have. I ask people all the time what they think. That's why I can make such a guess. What makes you an authority on the subject?




tj444 -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/3/2014 12:19:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Less valuable money is the result of inflation. Not only has the minimum wage not kept up with inflation, there has been little or no inflation since the last increase in minimum wage in 2009...still 25% under what would have been an inflation-adjusted minimum age. ($10.87/hr.)

I have read that it was in 1968 that the dollar had the most buying power..

as far as the so called inflation rate.. that is a joke.. people should keep track of their own "inflation rate".. its not the white-washed number the govt comes up with.. a bottle of mouthwash was $1.99 two months ago, I noticed recently the same bottle, same size, now is $2.59.. [8|] with of course the additional cost of sales tax on the price increase of $0.60..




Yachtie -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/3/2014 5:34:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

It's called dollar velocity. More dollars going into more hands. Basic economic fact.


That's not velocity, velocity being the rate with which dollars pass through an economy. You could have more dollars going into more hands, being stashed as savings. Those dollars saved would not increase velocity as they are not being continually passed.




Lucylastic -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/3/2014 5:38:29 AM)

SAVINGS? poor people on minimum wage have money for savings?
in which century?




Yachtie -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/3/2014 5:40:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

SAVINGS? poor people on minimum wage have money for savings?
in which century?



Is that the point I was making? Or, perhaps, was it something else?[8|]




Lucylastic -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/3/2014 5:47:24 AM)

welll obfuscation has been such a problem for you, I thought I would ask you to clarify, just to make certain




Yachtie -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/3/2014 6:00:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

welll obfuscation has been such a problem for you, I thought I would ask you to clarify, just to make certain


Comprehension is yours. A problem I have no interest in trying to correct.




Lucylastic -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/3/2014 6:31:52 AM)

LOL..thank you for clarifying...[:D][:D][:D][8|]




Yachtie -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/3/2014 7:34:43 AM)

Look, folks, it's not that complicated, though I'm amazed so many do not understand.

For the past few decades, some saying, and I agree here to a point, it began with Nixon (R) going completely off the gold standard, credit has been made easier. Access to cheap credit, mostly done as an aid to the ~middle class and the poor. It was said such would help them raise their standard of living over time. For a while, it did. (note: one of the later iterations in the scheme was the low interest, zero down mortgage. Everyone can own their own home)

For quite some time that accessed credit was serviceable. Slowly it began eating up discretionary spending. That would not have happened had the USD been stable in its purchasing power. Had that been the case however, there could not also have been the dramatic increase in the living standard accross the board. Just as an aside here, my opinion for wanting the dramatic increase was sociological in nature; coming out of the 60s.

Eventually, beginning with the poor, many needed help as their debt limits were reached. Programs were developed to do just that, allowing their funds to service the debt while also, and being trite here, letting them eat. Why was that happening? Simple. As the econonmy expanded by increasing consumption, more dollars (made available by easy credit) were passing through the economy (increasing velocity) as the standard of living increased. The country was on a consumption binge. This put pressure on purchasing power as inflation was slowly increasing (more dollars, rising prices).

For the past few decades, since Reagan (he did us no good service economically), there has been virtually no real growth, it being illusion. The poor and middle class have slowly been falling behind, their debt being harder and harder to service. None of this happens overnight. One answer has been to increase the available cheap credit. Keep the economy pumped up. It's all coming home to roost now as the debt is no longer serviceable. The poor, being first, followed by the middle class, have not seen any real purchasing power increase as to service the debt. Wages (incomes) have not kept up. (In the environment that has been created, they can't) Consumption is falling. Wages are falling, for many seen as an increase in their hours worked for the same pay as before. Others are having their hours reduced, and that includes other reasons. Many have been laid off, and so many have dropped out of the workforce. The pressures on government services are immense. How can anyone not see it? The gnashing of teeth as some program is cut (serviceability) while also clamoring how it hurts people (damages their ability to consume). It's demanding a win in a no win situation.

The brick wall has been reached.

In this environment, raising the minimum wage is not an answer. Yes, it can, for a short time reduce some of the pressure on the poor and middle class. But to what end? Soon we shall be right back where we are. All the while the poor and middle class shall fall behind even more as those short term increases shall not be capable of again raising the stand of living which has been falling but only allow them to increase servicing their debt, for a little while. Some may even try taking on more debt, adding fuel to the problem.

The one thing that is running through it all is this - Cheap Credit. Cheap credit benefits no one except... and drum roll please... the banks, insurance companies, The Big Boys (as in Corporate) and even the 1%. All the discussion about taxes (paying one's fair share), pointing at the 1%, how evil Capitalism is, Obamacare as a fix of the medical problems, ... all miss the central problem. Cheap Credit. Every FIX that is out there, or contemplated, sucks more from the poor and middle class through inflation, taxation, increasing costs, etc.

What the FED has been fighting is the first part of the cure - deflation. As long as it does, income inequality, to the extent being experienced, shall not only continue but get worse. Deflation hurts the banks, insurance companies, government revenues (all programs), the Davos attendees, etc as it chugs along destroying debt created by cheap credit. Bankruptcies will explode, as they should. The country has been drunk on cheap credit for quite some time. The headache shall be immense when it sets in. The poor and middle class will suffer it no matter. It will be devastating.

Politically, both R and D are to blame. Each for their own failures and the mistakes they shall continue to make.








DesideriScuri -> RE: the poor are eating their bottom line....oh noes (2/3/2014 7:57:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Magically make every worker more valuable.

To offset the practice of magically making money less valuable.


You do realize, don't you, that government intervention to increase wages won't really ever keep up with government intervention to make money less valuable, right? Wouldn't it be better to stop making money less valuable, or, perish the thought, make money more valuable?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.298828E-02