Minimum Wage

Who pays for you generosity?

Not you, I'm betting.

 

It is tough for working Americans thanks to stupid trade polies that gave away millions of factory job to china and mexico

And because of the millions of immigrants illegal aliens and H1b scabs taking jobs from Americans

 

lol. not the right wing either.

let's end the drug war, right wingers.

 

It was your idea. Who do you expect to pay?

Your generosity will cost somebody $Trillions. Did you plan for it to be paid for?

 

Let us end the drug war.

 

Do you really think making meth and crack legal will pay for $Trillions of feel-good programs?

Hell, it won't even pay for the social cost of the 100,000s of new addicts.

 

With your example, you assume that Ronald is barely breaking even or making a small profit with the lower wage. And that may well be the case with some smaller businesses. The arguments presented, however, are saying that with the higher wages, employees will now go out and spend more money - they can afford Ronald's burgers and can spend money at that smaller business.

 

I am referring to simplifying Government.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States is much more cost effective and can act as an automatic stabilizer for our economy.

 

Circular reasoning.

The cost of the burger and every other item affected goes up more than the paycheck goes up, because it costs the employer well over $6.00/hr to raise an employee pay $5.00/hr.

Government can't do its own job. It has no business trying to do the business owner's job.

 

Please explain to me how a large number of Walmart employees are on food stamps, while the Waltons are living in the lap of luxury.

I conceded that there may be some negative impact on smaller businesses, but large and profitable businesses will not be hurt by a raise in their employees' wages.

 

The same reason Amazon employees are on welfare. That' the way the law was written.

Raising their pay artificially would make liberals feel good about themselves, but it won't help the working poor and would devistate fixed income and non-working people.

 

You seem to think that not having enough money is qualified need of help, regardless.

Now I fully agree that our government and many charities do a miserable job of assessing and defining need- and as a result provide more enablement than support to those you think of as poor.

Do you understand what enablement is, and what it does? Do you understand that it perpetuates dependency and embeds it even deeper in the psyche of the individual you think you are "helping"? That dependency robs the person of self-respect and dignity, or the ability to build it? That the longer it continues, the lower the prospect of the person ever getting out of their position becomes?

This is much more an issue of how the mind works than what the pocket holds, and a person does not understand that if they haven't properly matured. Such people are growing in number, because we have made it easy to not mature.

Parenting is not just having kids to play with, to love you, or for that matter for you to love. The real project is a job, one somewhat like building a house- but you are "constructing" an adult. At least, that is the way nature intends it; liberals seem to think that is unnecessary. Doing it right means that when your child reaches the age of 18 or so, they no longer need you- because they have the strength, the skill, the knowledge, the comprehension and the good judgment to care for themselves as they continue to learn and grow. IF that is true- you have done your job, and can be proud; knowing your child will be well and safe. Not without struggle or challenge, but strong enough and solid enough to deal with those things successfully. If they can't- YOU have failed to prepare them for adulthood, but THEY suffer the consequences for it.

If you have failed, then your child is a mentally immature adult, facing adult life with juvenile skills- and they will have to learn the hard way. Until they learn and become strong and independent, life will indeed be tough- and that may take 1 year, or the rest of their lives, or never, because you have taught them there is always a way around responsibility. They will never be strong and healthy until they face the challenge of life and prove themselves to themselves. There is no other way, you cannot do it for them- but you can interfere and prevent it. When you come along and hand those people support to fend off the need to do for themselves, they don't do for themselves. They won't- until nobody else will do for them, and they have no choice. Every time you hand them a way out that allows them to procrastinate, to avoid facing that challenge, you harm them. Such people aren't happy, and don't understand why. They make partnerships but can't support them, and the good things in life may be in sight but continue elude them. Core happiness is not there; replaced by the pursuit of temporary distraction- often in drugs. Many see life as being a plot against them in some way, and themselves as victims, which of course requires that there be an abuser to blame for it, and there is always somebody they can use for that. It's a miserable condition.

We have people today that aren't on formal welfare, but are still living off others. Half the nations' population doesn't pay income tax, for example, but has the same benefits as those that do. Many of those people are properly retired and have done their part. Some are honestly disabled or limited in the ability to do for themselves. However the majority are by choice just doing as little as possible to get by- and typically telling themselves that they are poor because somebody else is rich, and that is just unfair. It's like sitting on the starting line of the race and complaining because somebody else actually got up and ran, cheating you out of success. Even if we don't give those people money- we subsidize them, because somebody else is paying more tax to make up for the fact they pay none.

We now have about three generations of people where a substantial number of parents failed to raise adults- just larger children. Children raised that way also have children- and those do worse, who when they have kids, even worse again. And of course, they all need your "help", because they never learned to be adults.

Today, for the first time in American history, the number of younger adults (18-35) that are still living with their parents exceeds the number living in marriages of with significant partners. The number of grandparents raising the children of their own irresponsible children is 2.7 million households, more than double that of 1970. Those kids are often dumped with nothing on the grandparents, who don't want to see them in foster care and so turn their lives upside down, sacrifice their own retirement years to do the job their children failed to do.

The effects of these generations of immaturity and rejection of responsibility are everywhere and wide spread, and now- becoming very political. You see so many things that tell us they lack pride in themselves, they lack self-discipline, they lack values and integrity- because they weren't taught or demonstrated for them by parents who had them. Go to a public place and look for the signs that demonstrate the lack of pride, of self respect and dignity among the people. IF you don't see any- you are most likely one of them.

 

Back to the OP. I have no problem with increasing the minimum wage, but I also understand the concerns of those who are small business owners. More often than not, payroll is a companies largest expense. If the increased minimum wage results in less hours or employees lgetting laid off, the question becomes do the benefits outweigh the negatives...

Just an observation

 

Artificial inflation doesn't stablize anything.

It lowers the value of food stamps, WIC, Social Security and Disability payments.

Your idea will cause countless business to go under and fire no telling how many low wage workers. The remaining worked will be poorer than before.

It's beginner economics.

Liberalism makes the liberals feel good about themselves but rarely accomplishes it's stated objective.

 

Inflation happens, regardless; any more canards?

People won't need food stamps, with recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. It is more cost effective since means tested welfare recipients would have priority.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. It is natural. Shedding low wage jobs that don't cover the alternative cost of social services, should be a capital priority.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics; right wing fantasy, is all they have.

 

Your wish to "make America great again" means going BACKWARD, BY DEFINITION. Your ideas fail.

 

Nature doesn’t have a stock market. Sorry, this argument is ludicrous.

Get rid of the speculative nature of valuation in this country, and profit margins being the only thing that matters ever; and we can start talking about logistics.

 

There are several good reasons for US manufacturing corporations to do work in other countries.

 

NO. I said nothing even SLIGHTLY like that.

Yes - I pointed out earlier that there are big differences in the parents you get when you're born.

You can ramble on and on and on about the responsibilities parents should recognize and take action on, and that poor parenting contributes to less success.

But, that's MY point, not yours!

 

Regardless, you seem to think that the solution is for society to take over where the parents left off, so these people won't have to become self-sufficient.
That insures they never will, that the problem will never end, and that society will never achieve anything good by doing it.

I'm open to any idea that will alleviate social problems, except making them the problems of people they don't belong to.
If you have any ideas that can accomplish that, I'd be happy to applaud you.

A district court judge I knew for years told me that it was pretty simple- "The best regulator is the self-regulator. We have to have laws because many people refuse to self-regulate. If good character and personal responsibility could be prescribed like medicine, it would be the social vaccine curing a thousand ills."

The parents lay down the foundation- and the degree of flaws you get with it. However, just as in the old gambler song- Every hands a winner and every hands a loser, and the outcome depends on how you play the game. No matter where you are at when you first get on your own, it is then your choice to find what you have and make the most of it, or whine because someone else has more and do nothing. That is what makes people winners or losers. Bottom line, it's up to you just as it is up to me- and we are each responsible for what we do with our lives. Nobody else.

 

Is there any end to your assumptions?

There has been nothing ambiguous about what I've said.

If you want to address something I've said, then identify it and say something that is on topic.

 

Assumption...
No. I understand what the source of the problem is. I know would will fix it. I also know that the only people who could fix it have absolutely no intention of trying to fix it.
That means the problem is never going to go away, and the only thing really in our power is to stop making it worse by enabling and encouraging it.

Either you have a working answer to end the plight of poor people, and I will applaud that-
OR, you have an answer that will create even larger problems and bring ill effect to an even larger number of people. I will oppose that, and already do.

Which is it?
You don't understand or accept what I've tried to make clear.
So is your solution to just say we have a problem and need to find someone to blame it on?
That's already in place.
Ambiguous means "double meaning", rather than specifically identifying something- which I have done. You have not, and THAT is ambiguous.
Do you have a point besides you think it's terrible anybody is poor? What are you looking for?

 

This discussion started out on your premise that there is no luck - that anyone who wants to be successful only needs to decide to be so and nothing that could possibly happen would cause such a person to need help at any point in their lives.

I objected to that on the grounds that there are numerous categories of things that can befall a person who is making every effort to implement those things you mentioned you have on your business card - plus, there are those that don't have a copy of your card!

THEN, you suggested something related to the idea that aid doesn't need to be individualized. That hit me as strange, as you can't even tell whether someone needs aid without applying some individualized attention.

Now, you're suggesting that the fact that there are always going to be people who need help is a reason to be careful about the aid we do give.

THAT makes sense to me. I've consistently stated that cases have to be evaluated to determine how to best help.

So, I think we've made some progress!

 

None that are good for American workers

 

Having Ford make some car model in Mexico for sales in Mexico and other foreign nations is better than having Ford not make that model of car.

I'm all for American workers. But, we have to be careful about how we use blunt force to prevent corporations from doing what is profitable.

I know that a company I worked for did a far better job of competing overseas when we had groups in foreign countries who contributed to the product and seriously understood the various languages and other factors in those markets.