Conquer Club

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.

I Start this thread. I so popular.

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
Thats the thing and the reason why a minimum wage is necessary. The price of consumer goods has risen and will always rise.

How do you know it has and how do you know it will?

I dont know the sun will come up tomorrow to be honest, it is an assumption, simply based on past.

Further, there are many variables, and some have risen, and some have fallen dramatically...however, overall, the cost goes up, and unless there is great change, it is unlikely, that trend would change.

In other words, "assuming that the average price of consumers goods has been rising and will always rise, ..."

Is that a correct summary?

CBlake wrote:I Start this thread. I so popular.

It brings so many posters to your milk shakes.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
Thats the thing and the reason why a minimum wage is necessary. The price of consumer goods has risen and will always rise.

How do you know it has and how do you know it will?

I dont know the sun will come up tomorrow to be honest, it is an assumption, simply based on past.

Further, there are many variables, and some have risen, and some have fallen dramatically...however, overall, the cost goes up, and unless there is great change, it is unlikely, that trend would change.

In other words, "assuming that the average price of consumers goods has been rising and will always rise, ..."

Is that a correct summary?

No.

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
Thats the thing and the reason why a minimum wage is necessary. The price of consumer goods has risen and will always rise.

How do you know it has and how do you know it will?

I dont know the sun will come up tomorrow to be honest, it is an assumption, simply based on past.

Further, there are many variables, and some have risen, and some have fallen dramatically...however, overall, the cost goes up, and unless there is great change, it is unlikely, that trend would change.

In other words, "assuming that the average price of consumers goods has been rising and will always rise, ..."

Is that a correct summary?

No.

So how would you rephrase it?

(With economics, you have to be clear; otherwise, it's easy to make mistakes and create misunderstandings/forever changing positions--like PLAYER).

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Because why would you vote against yourself?

Because raising the minimum wage punishes those of us who have worked to educate ourselves and work in degree-dependent fields since we won't be seeing any pay increases from the increase in minimum wage. All it does is devalue the work we're currently doing while simultaneously raising our prices for everyday goods. Exact same thing goes for those people who have worked long enough to earn raises to be comfortably above minimum wage: their wages aren't going to increase just because minimum wage increased.

So that explains why its perfectly OK that millions of people can only survive by depending on government handouts?

Night Strike wrote:If people want to make more money, then they either need to work their way up or find a better place of employment. They don't get to run to the government and beg them to mandate pay increases.

People who work in the lowest wage jobs don't have those options.
Moving is expensive.. takes money. and if you leave one job, then other employers don't hire you, either. You become labeled as a "whiner".

For all your talk of fear about employees suing because they were let go, the bigger truth is that employers share data about employees.. in ways that are not necessarily even legal, but someone making only $8.00 an hour can't go out and hire a fancy attorney, despite your dreams otherwise. The people who DO sue are the higher wage employees.

thegreekdog wrote:By the way. Juan, Player - you guys should probably look into this union thing. You could double your salaries!

LOL
Unions tried to come in to several of the local plants.. ALL of whom pay at least $9.00 an hour for their fulltime employees who are not secretaries (secretaries tend to make around $8.00 an hour). They failed. I can get into that in another thread, but the short of it is that when a plant is unionized, it "magically" winds up closing shortly after for various "unrelated' reasons.

HOWEVER, calling for unions misses the biggest point. For unions to work requires a unified, large force. Those making the lowest wages are hired in few numbers spread out all over. A few work for Dollar General, a few for McDonald's, a few for just about any organization you can name, even some union companies, just in jobs not covered by the union.

AND... none of that really answers the biggest point, which is, again, that the primary reason these people do work for such low wages, CAN work for such low wages is that they are being supported elsewhere..often supported by our tax dollars.

For people claiming to be against government support, you are awfully happy to have it when it supports YOUR interests! Demanding a livable wage is about NOT depending on government subsidies. It is about making businesses pay their fair due, instead of taking the cheap route on the pretense that they are somehow "helping society".. whilst really drawing government assistance in very big ways to fortify their big checks.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Because why would you vote against yourself?

Because raising the minimum wage punishes those of us who have worked to educate ourselves and work in degree-dependent fields since we won't be seeing any pay increases from the increase in minimum wage. All it does is devalue the work we're currently doing while simultaneously raising our prices for everyday goods. Exact same thing goes for those people who have worked long enough to earn raises to be comfortably above minimum wage: their wages aren't going to increase just because minimum wage increased.

So that explains why its perfectly OK that millions of people can only survive by depending on government handouts?

Get rid of the government handouts and either employers will start paying their low-wage workers more, or those workers will find new jobs.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:If people want to make more money, then they either need to work their way up or find a better place of employment. They don't get to run to the government and beg them to mandate pay increases.

People who work in the lowest wage jobs don't have those options.
Moving is expensive.. takes money. and if you leave one job, then other employers don't hire you, either. You become labeled as a "whiner".

Moving around in this country has never been easier. Do you REALLY think it was easier to find a job elsewhere and move 20, 50, or 100 years ago? Today with the internet and basically everybody having cell phones, people can find jobs all over the country. So quit this whining BS about people not being able to move. If people have a desire to succeed, they will do the hard work and make the tough choices to make it happen. It just so happens that too many people today are too lazy and will make excuses that they deserve more than they're getting and will elect people who promise to hand them easy money. Quit making excuses for people and demanding that the government take care of them. Start promoting personal responsibility!

Night Strike wrote:Moving around in this country has never been easier. Do you REALLY think it was easier to find a job elsewhere and move 20, 50, or 100 years ago? Today with the internet and basically everybody having cell phones, people can find jobs all over the country. So quit this whining BS about people not being able to move.

You are right that transportation around the country has improved over the last century. But moving can still have a large number of hurdles.


--Andy

Night Strike wrote:Moving around in this country has never been easier. Do you REALLY think it was easier to find a job elsewhere and move 20, 50, or 100 years ago? Today with the internet and basically everybody having cell phones, people can find jobs all over the country. So quit this whining BS about people not being able to move. If people have a desire to succeed, they will do the hard work and make the tough choices to make it happen. It just so happens that too many people today are too lazy and will make excuses that they deserve more than they're getting and will elect people who promise to hand them easy money. Quit making excuses for people and demanding that the government take care of them. Start promoting personal responsibility!

Without a job, where do the initial funds to be able to afford to move and hopefully have a living situation lined up come from?

BMO

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Moving around in this country has never been easier. Do you REALLY think it was easier to find a job elsewhere and move 20, 50, or 100 years ago? Today with the internet and basically everybody having cell phones, people can find jobs all over the country. So quit this whining BS about people not being able to move. If people have a desire to succeed, they will do the hard work and make the tough choices to make it happen. It just so happens that too many people today are too lazy and will make excuses that they deserve more than they're getting and will elect people who promise to hand them easy money. Quit making excuses for people and demanding that the government take care of them. Start promoting personal responsibility!

Without a job, where do the initial funds to be able to afford to move and hopefully have a living situation lined up come from?

BMO

A small loan, living with a friend, new employer pays expenses, personal savings, future tax credits for moving. You all act like people who have little to no money have never moved around the country. If they could do it 50 years ago, why can't they do it today? People aren't just stuck where they are....they choose to be where they are.

I don't think it's necessarily laziness, then, as it is ignorance of resources. If you never know what's available to you, then you never know to look for or access it (such as future tax credits for moving).

BMO

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Because why would you vote against yourself?

Because raising the minimum wage punishes those of us who have worked to educate ourselves and work in degree-dependent fields since we won't be seeing any pay increases from the increase in minimum wage. All it does is devalue the work we're currently doing while simultaneously raising our prices for everyday goods. Exact same thing goes for those people who have worked long enough to earn raises to be comfortably above minimum wage: their wages aren't going to increase just because minimum wage increased.

If people want to make more money, then they either need to work their way up or find a better place of employment. They don't get to run to the government and beg them to mandate pay increases.

That's a complete dupe statement.

If you are not a CEO or major stockholder, then paying minimum wage workers won't endanger your higher compensation in the least. OR, are you saying that your only sense of self-worth comes from deciding that you are not just quite a bit better off than others, but that you get to watch others actually struggling, while you do just fine?

The real fact is that the income of the top earners, the 1% has grown significantly.. beyond that, its the top of the top 1% that hold the majority, pay fewer taxes and yet claim we are supposed to keep supporting them so they can in their largess pass a bit more down to us. That is utter bull. Its the workers, not the owners that drive a company.

Skilled people are not at risk of having their wages slashed or even reduced to pay minimum wage increases. Rather, I am quite sure some jerk owners will make that claim, will even follow through.. and their business will wind up in the toilet as a result. As a result of their poor management and inability to actually do what workers need, not because of being forced to pay a bit more to the absolute bottom tier of the wage brackets.

Night Strike wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Moving around in this country has never been easier. Do you REALLY think it was easier to find a job elsewhere and move 20, 50, or 100 years ago? Today with the internet and basically everybody having cell phones, people can find jobs all over the country. So quit this whining BS about people not being able to move. If people have a desire to succeed, they will do the hard work and make the tough choices to make it happen. It just so happens that too many people today are too lazy and will make excuses that they deserve more than they're getting and will elect people who promise to hand them easy money. Quit making excuses for people and demanding that the government take care of them. Start promoting personal responsibility!

Without a job, where do the initial funds to be able to afford to move and hopefully have a living situation lined up come from?

BMO

A small loan, living with a friend, new employer pays expenses, personal savings, future tax credits for moving. You all act like people who have little to no money have never moved around the country. If they could do it 50 years ago, why can't they do it today? People aren't just stuck where they are....they choose to be where they are.

People who did it 50 years ago wound up in CA starving, literally.. and many did NOT make it.

You live in a dream world. You make it clear you have not truly had to do much real work yourself, yet you feel free to act as if everyone has had the easy road you have. It just is not so.

Night Strike wrote:Get rid of the government handouts and either employers will start paying their low-wage workers more, or those workers will find new jobs.

You're being eutopian delusional here, NS.

Jobs are being allowed to leave our country and have been for a while, with the result that there are very few jobs and many folks unemployed.

I was an engineering assistant with liquid rocket and jet engines, along with hundreds of other engineering assistants, over a thousand mechanical and electronic engineers, another close-to-thousand mechanics and over a thousand parts-makers of various crafts (forging, sheet metal, drilling, welding, etc.) and umpteen hundred paper pushers (procurement, inspection, accounting, audit, etc.)

The company I worked for "outsourced" and "downsized" so that it went from about 9,000 workers to a few hundred workers.

Where'd the jobs go? Some to another state where those workers had also been "outsourced" and "downsized," some to various Asian countries, some to Morocco, and some just gone because there just aren't enough jets and rockets being bought from the USA because some of that Asian outsourcing taught folks like the Chinese how to make rockets so now they're competing with the market.

The point is, even if I were willing to move, I'm not likely to find another "engineering assistant in liquid rockets and jet engines" position. Another engineering assistant I knew went to work for the Post Office. Some of the procurement folks I knew went to work bagging groceries at Publix. An engineer I knew shot himself after working in a grocery deli for a while... I could list more, but bottom line, those folks aren't likely to find their work again; and those folks moved DOWN the ladder as far as wages - as did I.

Do you really think the machinests and auto assemblers in various companies that used to be in Detroit and other auto locales (before their jobs got sent to Mexico about 2 decades back) are going to be able to move on to a higher wage job?

Or are they stuck making barely-above-minimum because they, too, had to become deli workers, grocery baggers, or postal workers (and isn't the Postal service about to lay off because they're stopping Saturday deliveries or something?)

Even phone banks and customer service are being outsourced, often to Pakistan or other Indic countries, rather than putting US would-be workers to work. Should they really move to Pakistan to get a job? If they do, does it "pay above minimum wage"? I highly doubt it.

Now... if there was something done to prevent once-USA jobs from being sent overseas; perhaps if there were tariffs on imports of those products put back in like they used to be so that it's just as cheap and more "moral" and "patriotic" to keep jobs within the US... if that happened, then you'd be right, low income workers could move to better jobs/higher wages.

As it is now, a vast majority cannot, even if you can find a few who have done.

Anyway, because former engineers are now grocery baggers, there are folks who weren't qualified to be engineers who can't get jobs even as grocery baggers, and that's a big reason for these "government handouts."

In other words, the Job Losses came first, THEN the government handouts got massive.

Or are you speaking of programs like medicaid and WIC and foodstamps, that were put in place to try to help would-be mothers "choose life" rather than get an abortion because otherwise they couldn't afford to feed their kids or get them a flu shot? Granted, a few abuse these programs, and granted, the programs have grown, but the bottom-line reason those programs were put in place still exists, and since you've stated in other threads you oppose abortion, I'd think you'd remain extremely supportive of programs that were put in place to cut down on some of the reasons women choose abortion.

Either way, minimum wage rise won't fix the real problems, which is that CEOs and Boards of Directors have gotten more immoral and greedy about the percentage they take of a company's income, vs. the percentage spent on mere employees.

A raise to minimum wage would just mean those CEOs cut more jobs and for those who're left, the cost of their basic necessities will go up.

My only criticism against NS in the post above is that it may not be the case that employers would pay workers more if "government handouts"* were dropped. If price controls on labor were dropped, then you'd see an increase in employment--ceteris paribus.

*vague term

Assuming that the dropping of "government handouts" came with an equivalent drop in taxation, then this would free up more income for employers and employees, which in turn frees up capital for more investment and for more consumption.

If instead there was an equivalent drop in deficit spending, then future generations would gain more income for those uses.

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?

Becuase they no longer get most of their wealth from the sale of consumer goods.

Most very wealthy people don't actually do much direct hiring and firing. They are far removed from those decisions.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Because why would you vote against yourself?

Because raising the minimum wage punishes those of us who have worked to educate ourselves and work in degree-dependent fields since we won't be seeing any pay increases from the increase in minimum wage. All it does is devalue the work we're currently doing while simultaneously raising our prices for everyday goods. Exact same thing goes for those people who have worked long enough to earn raises to be comfortably above minimum wage: their wages aren't going to increase just because minimum wage increased.

So that explains why its perfectly OK that millions of people can only survive by depending on government handouts?

Get rid of the government handouts and either employers will start paying their low-wage workers more, or those workers will find new jobs.

If there were such ready new jobs, people would already work them.

You make the stupid and arrogant assumption that anyone not making a decent wage is just too stupid to see the options you can see. The truth is they are not stupid, but the options you claim are so ready are not truly there.

HOWEVER, giving people more money, which they will then spend, IS a very good way to boost the economy and pay more wages.... that, by=the-way is the dirty secret behind why there has been no serious reform to welfare and the like.. becuase too many businesses depend upon that money, either directly (grocers take food stamps just like cash, landlords are happy for a reliable section 8/HUD payment) and indirect (these subsidies allow employers to hire people for lower wages without huge protests).

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:If people want to make more money, then they either need to work their way up or find a better place of employment. They don't get to run to the government and beg them to mandate pay increases.

People who work in the lowest wage jobs don't have those options.
Moving is expensive.. takes money. and if you leave one job, then other employers don't hire you, either. You become labeled as a "whiner".

Moving around in this country has never been easier. Do you REALLY think it was easier to find a job elsewhere and move 20, 50, or 100 years ago? Today with the internet and basically everybody having cell phones, people can find jobs all over the country. So quit this whining BS about people not being able to move. If people have a desire to succeed, they will do the hard work and make the tough choices to make it happen. It just so happens that too many people today are too lazy and will make excuses that they deserve more than they're getting and will elect people who promise to hand them easy money. Quit making excuses for people and demanding that the government take care of them. Start promoting personal responsibility!

I think you have no idea of the difference between the real world an the internet.

You like to pick on me, so I will use myself as an example. Before I married, I moved around to follow jobs... every season, a completely new location, new job. Each move meant not just the money in moving, but living out of my car for a week or two while I found a cheap place to live. I made a decent wage and had a job, so renting an apartment was not that hard once I actually found one available.

Flash forward, married, with kids.. picking up myself for a week or two in my car, all my possessions packed or stored is one thing. Picking up kids and their gear something else, not to mention relocating them to a new school. (the biological "season' typcially starts anywhere from March-April and continues to September-Nov, depending on location). Ad in the fact that I am trained in restoration and the state in which I live now, PA I have found has decided to ignore all but acid mine pollution restoration, a few other types of industrial mitigation, in favor of hatcheries. Working at a hatchery means driving 1 1/2-2 hours every day, each way... in all weather, and if you are not familiar, the weather in rural PA can make roads very hazardous.

Moving closer to a location favorable for me means my husband giving up all he has here.. his job contacts, his family, his fire department.

NOTE... I am not, though you like to repeatedly make that claim, on welfare. The only type of governmetn assistance my family has ever recieved are WIC.. available to almost every family with young kids, amounting to roughly $30 a month in specific food aid, and medical assistance, for which we qualified when my husband was laid off and a "bureaucratic screwup" (lazy city worker who could not be bothered to forward documents in a timely manner) lost all our insurance, and because my kid have disabilities (disabled kids of anyone with an income of under 200K in PA can qualify for Medical assistance)

Basically, when you are single and have no kids, it is relatively easy. Once you have kids, it means turning their lives and a spouse's life topsy-turvey. Maybe worthwhile if you refer to a real job with real benefits (which most biologist jobs do NOT, I might add!).

IF you have to actually drive down for interviews, housing searches and the like.. then it become truly prohibitively expensive to move.

There is a world of difference between a professional looking for a new professional job, with nationwide contacts and a low wage worker with no contacts trying for just about any job to pay the rent. Your insistance that the abilities of each is the same or that someone not being of the professional class means its prefectly OK for them to just live on the street... which IS what would happen if government assistance were cut.

PLUS, if government assistance were cut, then you would see an increase in theft, disease and other issues as people who could not find work, who cannot find work now despite having a place to sleep, wash their clothes, etc.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Moving around in this country has never been easier. Do you REALLY think it was easier to find a job elsewhere and move 20, 50, or 100 years ago?

No it's not, but that is a technical problem as a result of home ownership and the current underwater state of many home mortgages. Even before the crash it wasn't always easy to sell a house on short notice and move. Back in the 19th century a "gold rush" would result in a mass migration of people across the continent.

Consider the following fact: The North Dakota unemployment rate was 3.2% in December 2012.

If "moving around in this country has never been easier" you would see a massive migration of people to that state and the unemployment rate would at least rise to the "full employment" level of 5%.

That is not to say that people aren't moving in to the state, they are but compare this to the California Gold Rush ...

In 1848 before the discovery of gold, California had a population of some 12,000 Mexicans - including Californians of Mexican descent, called Californios - in addition to about 20,000 Native Americans and only 2,000 Yankee frontiersmen, soldiers, and settlers.

In the next two years, thousands upon thousands of Easterners who might never have thought about migrating to such a remote territory would pour into the region. By 1850, there were more than 100,000 immigrants.

North Dakota has a 2.17% population growth; California went from a frontier to a population that qualified for admission into the union in a span of two years. I think this shows how migration is not superior now than it was then.

PLAYER57832 wrote:HOWEVER, giving people more money, which they will then spend, IS a very good way to boost the economy and pay more wages.... that, by=the-way is the dirty secret behind why there has been no serious reform to welfare and the like.. becuase too many businesses depend upon that money, either directly (grocers take food stamps just like cash, landlords are happy for a reliable section 8/HUD payment) and indirect (these subsidies allow employers to hire people for lower wages without huge protests).

Of course people earning more money through job changes or raises is helpful to the economy, but only if it's done in a free market system. When you use the government to mandate those raises, you're artificially increasing the cost of doing business, which means the businesses must inflate their prices in order to pay for those raises. Which ultimately means that people will end up only buying the things they were buying before the raise and you'll be demanding the government give them another pay raise. Stop inflation and you'll address the problems; raising minimum wage just exacerbates the problems.

PLAYER57832 wrote:There is a world of difference between a professional looking for a new professional job, with nationwide contacts and a low wage worker with no contacts trying for just about any job to pay the rent. Your insistance that the abilities of each is the same or that someone not being of the professional class means its prefectly OK for them to just live on the street... which IS what would happen if government assistance were cut.

Actually, you're the one who wants to insist that they are the same by using the government to mandate wages. Jobs aren't equal, so it's not the government's job to equal out the pay. There will always be jobs that pay a small amount because they are for people who just need part time work and don't need specialized skills. Legislating those jobs away through artificial pay increases only harms the economy and everybody of every wage.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You like to pick on me,

That's only because you keep complaining about how tough you have it and how you have to rely on the government to mandate that everyone else take care of you. Maybe if you relied on yourself and your family to take care of yourselves instead of using the government to mandate that I provide for you, we wouldn't have this problem. Why do others have to work to provide for both themselves and you?

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:You like to pick on me,

That's only because you keep complaining about how tough you have it and how you have to rely on the government to mandate that everyone else take care of you. Maybe if you relied on yourself and your family to take care of yourselves instead of using the government to mandate that I provide for you, we wouldn't have this problem. Why do others have to work to provide for both themselves and you?

Because from PLAYER's perspective a life of not having the state coerce others' into giving her and her family additional income is not fair. To her, it's justified because she/her family have some genetic problem which makes their insurance/medical bills relatively more expensive than other people's. Of course, she'll buff out that coercion with an invisible social contract and wax it with a good helping of Redistributive Justice.

(She may change tactics since I mentioned this regular angle of hers, so let's see what happens).

Night Strike wrote: Stop inflation and you'll address the problems;

You know, that's the real underlying cause of most of our problems as a society, the debasement and destruction of our currency. The very medium which assigns a value to our sweat, our ideas and our lives.

That's why until we finally use something other than a debt based currency, there are no fixes for our problems. We have to fix that first and then we'll have a real chance at addressing all the other problems.

Of course, there are too many people who rely on such a system to keep power and use that power to keep the rest of us divided enough to never amass the support, knowledge and wisdom to finally throw off the shackles of economic slavery. Too many are too comfortable and too familiar with their chains.....

tzor wrote:

Night Strike wrote: Moving around in this country has never been easier. Do you REALLY think it was easier to find a job elsewhere and move 20, 50, or 100 years ago?

No it's not, but that is a technical problem as a result of home ownership and the current underwater state of many home mortgages. Even before the crash it wasn't always easy to sell a house on short notice and move. Back in the 19th century a "gold rush" would result in a mass migration of people across the continent.

That was Nightstrike you quoted, not me.. made the correction.

However, there is a LOT more than home mortgages involved in moving. Note that "owning my homw" was not one of the factors, because I could easily rent out my house.

... and you have to remember that home ownership provides a lot of benefits that are now too often dismissed. Everything from the fact that kids who live in homes their families own tend to do better in school to better community support and involvement from home-owners, etc... etc.

tzor wrote:Consider the following fact: The North Dakota unemployment rate was 3.2% in December 2012.

If "moving around in this country has never been easier" you would see a massive migration of people to that state and the unemployment rate would at least rise to the "full employment" level of 5%.

That is not to say that people aren't moving in to the state, they are but compare this to the California Gold Rush ...

In 1848 before the discovery of gold, California had a population of some 12,000 Mexicans - including Californians of Mexican descent, called Californios - in addition to about 20,000 Native Americans and only 2,000 Yankee frontiersmen, soldiers, and settlers.

In the next two years, thousands upon thousands of Easterners who might never have thought about migrating to such a remote territory would pour into the region. By 1850, there were more than 100,000 immigrants.

North Dakota has a 2.17% population growth; California went from a frontier to a population that qualified for admission into the union in a span of two years. I think this shows how migration is not superior now than it was then.

Back then, people migrated with literally nothing, and many, many people plain did not make it. When they got to CA, there was no social support and many, again, starved or were forced into very harsh migrant camps, etc. You are talking about people with whom I grew up and their descendents, so its a topic I know pretty well. (note, I graduated high school in CA, despite having lived here.. and in Central agricultural CA too boot!).
That migration is, in fact a big reason why we have welfare now...and a big part of why the whole idea was not so controversial as folks like to assert today.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:HOWEVER, giving people more money, which they will then spend, IS a very good way to boost the economy and pay more wages.... that, by=the-way is the dirty secret behind why there has been no serious reform to welfare and the like.. becuase too many businesses depend upon that money, either directly (grocers take food stamps just like cash, landlords are happy for a reliable section 8/HUD payment) and indirect (these subsidies allow employers to hire people for lower wages without huge protests).

Of course people earning more money through job changes or raises is helpful to the economy, but only if it's done in a free market system. When you use the government to mandate those raises, you're artificially increasing the cost of doing business, which means the businesses must inflate their prices in order to pay for those raises. Which ultimately means that people will end up only buying the things they were buying before the raise and you'll be demanding the government give them another pay raise. Stop inflation and you'll address the problems; raising minimum wage just exacerbates the problems.

Oh please , the bottom rungs have never been subject to the free market. They take the leavings becuase they have no other choice. AND, the biggest point, the one you and BBS keep insisting is not real is that these people are only surviving because they are being subsidized by the rest of us who pay taxes. (and before you start.. yes, we DO pay taxes)

IN fact, mandating that companies pay a minimum wage IS requiring a free market.. it is simply saying that businesses have to pay workers what they really need, instead of expecting the government to pick up the extra tab so they can fill their stockholder checks more fully.

Besides, most Americans reject the idea that we should live in a society where people who don't get degrees can just go live on the street... something you seem to think is perfectly OK (oh.. wait, you think there are all kinds of imaginary well-paid jobs out there just for the taking )

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:There is a world of difference between a professional looking for a new professional job, with nationwide contacts and a low wage worker with no contacts trying for just about any job to pay the rent. Your insistance that the abilities of each is the same or that someone not being of the professional class means its prefectly OK for them to just live on the street... which IS what would happen if government assistance were cut.

Actually, you're the one who wants to insist that they are the same by using the government to mandate wages. Jobs aren't equal, so it's not the government's job to equal out the pay. There will always be jobs that pay a small amount because they are for people who just need part time work and don't need specialized skills. Legislating those jobs away through artificial pay increases only harms the economy and everybody of every wage.

Oh bull, mandating the MINIMUM is in no way mandating that all people be paid equal. Try some honesty for a change. If you think mandating that people getting paid enough to just survive when they actually work 40 hours or more a week is somehow going to take away from more educated people earning more.. then you don't have much confidence in any kind of industry period. You are just happy continuing in a welfare society under the pretense of it being some kind of "free market"

Besides, like I said above, the only reason these companies CAN pay so little is that we provide governemnt subsidies to people who work, not just those who cannot work.


and again.. no, simply cutting off that aid is not the answer. Putting millions of people on the street, starving is not what made our country great.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:You like to pick on me,

That's only because you keep complaining about how tough you have it and how you have to rely on the government to mandate that everyone else take care of you. Maybe if you relied on yourself and your family to take care of yourselves instead of using the government to mandate that I provide for you, we wouldn't have this problem. Why do others have to work to provide for both themselves and you?

Oh bull... looks like you are doing a lot more whining here. You seem to think that anyone getting even a penny more for actual work means your check will somehow be diminished. THAT is a pretty sad state of affairs.

You like to pretend I am acting the victim because it suits your worldview, even though I have never put myself up as a victim, though I do bring my examples in to refute your idiotic claims... becuase my data DOES refute your claims. Refuting your ideas of he who earns more automatically deserves it and other garbage is not "playing the victim", its expresing reality. Denying reality does not make it go away.