Question for Minimum Wage supporters

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Oxymoron, Aug 29, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    why cant they adjust????????? They just raise prices and/or cut profits to cover the wage increases
     
  2. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The time for the markets to adjust to the increase in the costs of goods/services is directly tied to the time employers have to adjust to the increase in labor costs. Barring a total economic collapse, economies don't adjust over night.

    EDIT, I wish you'd have included my entire sentence in your quote BTW.
     
  3. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    it does not have to be overnight!! You could do it over a week or month. Its not that hard to program a computer to raise prices and wages or tell your accountant to prepare new financial statements. Even if it takes 2 months so what???
     
  4. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're making my case for moderate incremental increases in the MW. If the MW jumped from what, $7.25 now, to hell, even $12.00 overnight, the burden on employers right out the gate, would be disastrous. Especially if the employer has improvements, more expansion etc. on their minds now. Especially smaller employers. The effect would work against the proposed gain.
     
  5. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    why????? they just raise prices and/or cut profits.
     
  6. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It takes time for an adjustment to result in any outright positive outcome, especially in a down economy. Initially workers/consumers would pay off bills they are behind in, & seeing as they're twitchy about the economy in the first place, instead of disposing of income on comfort, or recreational spending, would likely hold onto their newly gained riches. Thereby further reducing profits already projected to drop by employer, causing whatever expansion, or upgrades, new hires etc., to be pushed further back, & likely causing further unemployment, & larger entitlement spending by the government.

    Ted, feels like I'm bashing my head against a wall here, especially with you only using snippets of my comments in quotes... & we both know I don't prefer to carry on as such.

    Probably be best for me to just bow out with you regarding this rather than continue the track of us essentially saying the same things back & forth.

    An impass is an impass.
     
  7. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    what are you talking about?? as soon as a guy gets $1000 more in his paycheck you have a positive outcome-right???
     
  8. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    See my last.

    Your continued use of small snippets of my comments only confirms that surely from my side, I'll have to continue stating the same things over & over again. Not into that Ted, thanks for the conversation.
     
  9. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    if you are embarrassed by your small inacurate snippets why not make them accurate??
     
  10. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Have a good night Ted.
     
  11. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    if you are embarrassed by your small inaccurate snippets why not make them accurate??
     
  12. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most people appear to accept a decrease in the rate of increased spending to be sufficient for government to claim it has reduced spending.

    Any increase of revenue collection by government results in that revenue being spent. Social security, by law cannot pay out more than it has collected so it relies on having a surplus to draw from in times when the incoming revenue stream is insufficient to cover the payouts. That surplus is 'invested' in interest bearing government securities, essentially an IOU which until cashed in results in making working taxpayers responsible for the cost of the interest while the money is put toward funding other government budgeted spending unrelated to the purpose it was collected for. The intergovernmental debt, debt which government owes itself, currently amounts to $5,482,529,099,054.74 while the debt held by the public is currently $14,287,092,579,497.98 and the latter is what is usually presented vs the GDP claiming our debt is less than 100% of our GDP while in reality the combined debt owed is $19,769,621,678,552.72 and the working taxpayers are ultimately the source from which all government spending is acquired. Essentially, the two debt figures represent debt we owe others and debt we owe ourself, the former which is unlikely to be forgiven while the existence of the latter provides government additional spending means without immediately raising taxes.

    The only way government could 'pay back' the Social Security surplus revenue it has collected and spent would be to return it to those who paid it in. Cashing in the government securities which represents the excess revenue collected would only result in increasing the Public held debt and require raising the Social Security tax to cover existing commitments, or reduce the payments to what would be allowed by the incoming revenue stream.
     
  13. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because the proposal isn't based upon any logical foundation and even violates the term "minimum" that has to be applied to both the wage established and the necessity for the wage being established. Minimum wage by definition must be based upon minimum-mandatory expenditure because if it's not then it's not a "minimum wage" requirement. An arbitrary increase, such as is being proposed, potentially violates the Natural Right of Property of the People/Person based upon observations of nature.

    In nature every member of a species has a right of survival (minimum support and comfort) based upon their labor individually and/or as a group while no member of any species has a right to more than they can use for their survival (maximum support and comfort). Today, in our economy, we basically have four groups. We have the "have-nots" that don't have the minimum compensation necessary for their support and comfort. We have the "have-enough" that do have enough compensation for their minimum support and comfort. We have the "have-more-than-enough" that live a rather luxurious lifestyle but still within the criteria of support and comfort. Then we have a final group, the "Have-too-much" where they have so much that they can't conceivable "spend it all" on their support and comfort.

    Now, if you can propose a way that we can take the excess from the "Have-too-much" that only represent about 0.1% of the household but are receiving about 20% of all income, and use the excess that they don't have a Natural Right to, and increase the compensation to for the "have-enough" (after the "have-nots" become "have-enough" with a minimum wage) then you're onto something because no one's Natural Right of Property would be violated.

    Do you have such a proposal or not?

    For right now we're just addressing the "have-nots" that are having their Natural Right of Property violated by under-compensation for their labor but a good proposal for eliminating the violation of the Natural Right of Property by the "have-too-much" would also be welcome.
    .
     
  14. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BTW - While I don't have a proposal what you suggest is possible based upon the "numbers" because the top 1/10th of 1% of income households with excessive income arguably already have "enough in the bank" so they don't need another dime of income to provide for even the most lavish of lifestyles. They're currently receiving about $3.2 trillion annually that is above what Natural Law supports. Just to eliminate the "have-nots" that don't have enough income to live on, that requires perhaps $1 trillion per year, that would leave about $2 trillion to improve the compensation and lifestyle of the "have-enough" substantially without violating anyone's Natural Right of Property.

    I don't know how to do it but do know the money's there and it's coming from the labor of the workers in America.
     
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,788
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They invest whatever is left over after supporting their "lavish lifestyles". Investment is crucial for the success of the US economy. It's much better for private investment to create wealth than the gov.
     
  16. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    why call it lavish when a a billionaire may want a bigger yacht or bank account as much as a ghetto kids wants a lavish pair of Air Jordan sneakers. Nobody should be denied the dream of being more or acquiring more, unless of course you want to stop human progress which is of course what libcommies did by killing 120 million when they had their chance. Nice that the greatest killers in human history are still represented.
     
  17. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is actually a myth because (external) "investments" don't create jobs or expand the US economy.

    "Re-investment" of revenue (profits) based upon sales (consumption) is what created jobs and expands the US economy.

    Large investors actually harm the US economy because they spend a relatively small percentage of income on goods and services (consumption) when compared to the typical American household. By not spending their income on goods and services they're not creating any demand and they're not providing any revenue to enterprises that those enterprises re-invest in expansion. Large investors don't even typically purchase stocks directly from corporations where the money actually goes to the corporation and not just some other investor that purchased the stock from anoth er prior investor from another prior investor.

    We also know that even direct investments have virtually no impact in creating jobs because only consumption (sales of goods and/or services) results in the enterprise even existing. The most famous example is Solyndra, a solar energy company, that received slightly more that One Billion Dollars in capital funding ($535 million in the form of loans backed by the US government) and it went bankrupt because it couldn't sell it's products. A billion dollars down the rat hole and not a single job exists today because of that billion dollars. Simple reason, only "consumption" (sales of goods and/or services) creates jobs and expands the economy, not investments.

    Of note about a year ago I took the time to review all of the SEC tracked investments for one month and then found all of the corporate stock offerings, where the money would go to a corporation, for that same month. If all of the stock offerings sold at the requested price by the corporation then the percentage of investments that month, out of all the investments, was less than 0.00005%. In short, if we round off at all the total investments in corporations was 0% of all investments.

    People that believe that investments are crucial for the US economy have never done any actual research on the US economy. Initial investments, that are "seed money" can be important but it's such a small and insignificant amount that we could live without it. Consumption is the engine behind jobs and economic expansion and the wealthy actually pull money out of the economy costing us jobs because they don't spend it, they invest it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    This is actually a myth because (external) "investments" don't create jobs or expand the US economy.

    "Re-investment" of revenue (profits) based upon sales (consumption) is what created jobs and expands the US economy.

    Large investors actually harm the US economy because they spend a relatively small percentage of income on goods and services (consumption) when compared to the typical American household. By not spending their income on goods and services they're not creating any demand and they're not providing any revenue to enterprises that those enterprises re-invest in expansion. Large investors don't even typically purchase stocks directly from corporations where the money actually goes to the corporation and not just some other investor that purchased the stock from anoth er prior investor from another prior investor.

    We also know that even direct investments have virtually no impact in creating jobs because only consumption (sales of goods and/or services) results in the enterprise even existing. The most famous example is Solyndra, a solar energy company, that received slightly more that One Billion Dollars in capital funding ($535 million in the form of loans backed by the US government) and it went bankrupt because it couldn't sell it's products. A billion dollars down the rat hole and not a single job exists today because of that billion dollars. Simple reason, only "consumption" (sales of goods and/or services) creates jobs and expands the economy, not investments.

    Of note about a year ago I took the time to review all of the SEC tracked investments for one month and then found all of the corporate stock offerings, where the money would go to a corporation, for that same month. If all of the stock offerings sold at the requested price by the corporation then the percentage of investments that month, out of all the investments, was less than 0.00005%. In short, if we round off at all the total investments in corporations was 0% of all investments.

    People that believe that investments are crucial for the US economy have never done any actual research on the US economy. Initial investments, that are "seed money" can be important but it's such a small and insignificant amount that we could live without it. Consumption is the engine behind jobs and economic expansion and the wealthy actually pull money out of the economy costing us jobs because they don't spend it, they invest it.
     
  18. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    100% moronic of course. Tesla is making huge huge huge investments to save the planet with solar power. 1+1=2
     
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,788
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Private investment comes from wealth creation which grows the economy. Gov investment comes from wealth confiscation and therefore does not grow the economy.

    That ^^ is truly funny.
     
  20. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,788
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you notice the quotation marks ?? And saving money in a bank account is an investment. Most of the truly rich Americans set up foundations and give their money away.
     
  21. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    yes in fact a good investment because it is not used for crippling welfare but rather multiplied by 10 and loaned out for homes cars educations businesses etc. This is how you stimulate an economy in a sustainable way.

    - - - Updated - - -

    yes very sad but true, a charity will never contribute to our standard of living the way a new business will. It shows that even the rich don't really understand capitalism.
     
  22. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The actual percentage of investment dollars actually going directly to fund corporations like Tesla is less than 0.00005% so effectively the amount of money actually funding enterprise in the United States is ZERO DOLLARS. 0+0=0
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense.

    We invest in research through our universities and other institutes.

    We invest through tax breaks given for specific behavior.

    It's true that direct grants to for-profit corporations don't represent a large percentage of our investment in our future, but they do exist, too.

    And, let's not forget that our entire investment in education should count, too. Remember that we moved to high school being required when we moved from agriculture to manufacturing, because 8th grade was not enough for our new manufacturing segment. Now, our corporations are requiring more than high school in the new segments that are becoming central to our international competitiveness.
     
  24. Ted

    Ted Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    absurd of course, all of the new products that got us from the stone age to here were made possible by huge huge investments. Now do you understand?
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're ignoring that there have to be people buying all this stuff that investment creates.

    Remember the Bush pleading for people to spend money??

    That was the call of the failing trickle down advocates.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page