thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:When you raise the salary of those below you, you increase your salary as well. When you decrease it, unless you directly employ those people, you decrease your salary.
If this is the case then why aren't the evil rich people raising salaries?
Consumer goods increase for a variety of reasons, most of which don't have to do with (or, more accurately, won't be affected by) minimum wage laws.
If I want to make more money there are a number of ways to achieve my goal. Way down on that list is getting the minimum wage to be increased; even when I was making close to minimum wage, my solution was to work more hours or get a different job. A better education could also get me a higher salary. Joining a union could get me a higher salary. Taking a risk may also allow me to make more money.AAFitz wrote:I certainly hate the abuse by unions, because it undermines the economy too, however, without them, most of us would not be in the position we are in today. It was the programs that seemingly successful people benefited from, that ironically allows them to have the time to bitch about now.
I don't think the unions are abusing anything. I think union leaders are taking advantage, certainly, but I have no problem with unions or union members attempting to get better benefits for members. I'm serious when I say that. My problem with the Indiana and New Jersey situations is that there was a direct correlation between tax dollars and unions and these were merely renegotiations. I was fine with the unions' positions. I was fine with the states' positions. Anyway, that's not the point.AAFitz wrote:too much money was fleeced out of the economy in a variety of ways, both legal, and illegal, and the economy is suffering massively. The fleeced money is simply taken out of the economy, and in many cases, on foreign soil helping no one.
That doesn't seem very accurate to me. I'll let BBS do the yelling though.AAFitz wrote:And those who are even doing well, in say 300000 a year jobs, assume they are above being hurt by this, because they are employed by those corporations, but as the bottom erodes, so do the levels above. Its why we have massive unemployment. Its why we have deficits, and why the economy is not what it was. An economy is just money moving back and forth between people and people doing work for each other. When you take it out of the economy, it stops, which is exactly what happened. Sure, not every bit of it gets taken out, but quite a bit of it did, and we are in the position we are in now, and the effects are cascading up the ladder more and more everyday.
I'm not sure about this either. Way more intelligent people than me, from both sides of the aisle and unaffiliated, would say that the 2008 recession occurred for a variety of reasons, none of which had to do with salaries or wages of the lower or lower-middle class. It was a combination of the housing crisis brought on by stupid borrowers, predatory lenders, and government subsidies of both plus investment in "fake" equity (or whatever we're calling it these days) that did the economy in.
And ultimately, you could make the minimum wage $500 an hour (I know you are not advocating this), but if the jobs aren't there... if there's no demand or qualified workers to fill demand... or if someone can make money not working... you're going to be in the same boat you're in now. And I'm willing to bet that if Bob McDonaldesmployee made $36 an hour instead of $9 an hour, when the recession hit, a whole lot more McDonald's employees would be hitting the streets. Plenty of people identifying wtih the upper middle class lost their jobs and they made well more than minimum wage.
And that last sentence is ultimately why I don't believe the hype. Lawyers, bankers, accountants, CEOs, CFOs, controllers, engineers... all those upper middle class and wealthy individuals... they all lost their jobs too. You know who really didn't lose their jobs? Government employees... teachers... union workers. The former group is not unionized, but makes a good salary and has good purchasing power. The latter group tends to be unionized or living off of other peoples' tax dollars.
Making more money does not insulate you from recessions. Making more money does not mean you've succeeded or reached a pinnacle. Is it better to make more money than less? Yes, but I just can't agree with your premise at all.
The individual quoting is just not worth it at this point, but
You called them evil rich people, not me....
Also as far as why arent they raising wages, the answer is simply supply and demand, in that they dont have to. Also, some very much do benefit from not raising wages, and those are the people at the very top, who dont return as much money into the economy, which creates the cycle I referred to.
Further, you say you dont agree with my premise, but above it you post my point.
" Lawyers, bankers, accountants, CEOs, CFOs, controllers, engineers... all those upper middle class and wealthy individuals... they all lost their jobs too. "
That is my point. My point is that as money was fleeced out of the economy, and now sits idle, at a slightly higher percent than it was, there was not enough to support those jobs.
In any case, I dont care if you agree with it, and I dont expect you to. It is just a theory after all, and a rambling one at that. However, overall, its based on the history of the economy, and while youve constructed a theory of your own, it is false, and has proven to be false, and is playing out to be so every day, and unfortunately will continue to do so, until, as with every situation, it is so bad, people finally act.
Human nature is simply to wait till bad things happen, and not act before. While I never expect anyone to say, oh you were right, just keep in the back of your mind in ten years...that...well, I am.