Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Makes Case for $22-an-hour Minimum Wage.


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#31 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 24,150 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 02:58 PM

that is actually the frustrated conservative's response.

One that is based on what has happened over the last 12 years where the country spends more than it has, and borrows like there is no tomorrow. All rules of economics seem to no longer apply. Need to get re elected? Just promise to give everyone a bunch of stuff and demonize your opponent as one who won't give you as much. Don't have the cash? Who cares. Spend it anyway.

This is the new rules for operating a country.


Is this a business discussion or a govt discussion?

#32 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,306 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 03:04 PM

Is this a business discussion or a govt discussion?


Both. Government dictates to business.

You mean we can't operate out here like the gov operates? Why?

Let's all make $50 per hour. Sounds good to me. If we happen to go out of business, the government will rescue all who get layed off, right?

I know, I am just talking crazy to illustrate the craziness I see. The more we have government stepping in, the more screwed up our country is going to be.



#33 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 24,150 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 03:08 PM

You do know the history of working conditions prior to govt intervention...right?

#34 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,538 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 19 March 2013 - 03:32 PM

Govt has created more bubbles than its cured.

Behold as I use march madness to make an economic point.

We all see the top 25 polls and then we see the seedings for thr brackets. Then we get RPI and so on.

The macro view is the poll and just a bit further into the details we get strenght of sked etc.

Then I you really want to dig check out the pomroy ratings. It won't match up with the polls that often.

So wages and the living wage argument is like debating who should be 1 or 17 in a poll.
But the Pomroy rating shows you effectiveness of possesions and utilization of turnovers and more or less its hoops sabermetrics.

Point being that when the govt frames the wage argument its always going to be big picture. Which is not very accurate. But, like the polls for hoops, its popular. So we get nowhere.

There is a poverty line but it factors nothing in regards to education or job training or skills or frivolous spending or not investing well you get my point.

I said this in the wealth inequality thread. If the living wage is that important to you then start a company and create the ripple effect.

I'm on my phone but check the article on slate.com about making goods cheaper to make the wage living.

#35 dos poptarts

dos poptarts

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 930 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 03:54 PM

If I take inflation out of this equation:
using Sen Warren's comments and the logic from Schmitt, if for low skilled labor where productivity is the same as 1960, can I pay hourly wages in 2013 commensurate of 1960 wages?

Cashier?
Janitorial services?
waiter/waitress?

If I need to adjust min wage for inflation as well, can I lower min wage if deflation occurs?
Need to understand if there are some ground rules we can agree upon before we calculate the wage.

#36 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,602 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:07 PM

that is actually the frustrated conservative's response.

One that is based on what has happened over the last 12 years where the country spends more than it has, and borrows like there is no tomorrow. All rules of economics seem to no longer apply. Need to get re elected? Just promise to give everyone a bunch of stuff and demonize your opponent as one who won't give you as much. Don't have the cash? Who cares. Spend it anyway.

This is the new rules for operating a country.


Deficit spending in itself is not a bad thing and is often needed. There is no rule of economics that says that you have to spend less than you take in.

And if you are frustrated, blame the people who deserve the blame, which is the Republican party. 1980-1992 and 2000-2008 are actually the time frames that fugged up our government spending and revenue forever.

You could make the argument Reagan's huge tax cut and military spending was needed at the time, but the Bush (43rd) tax cuts, taking us to two wars without raising any revenue to pay for it, expansion of medicare without raising any revenue to pay for it. All that fugged us.

You can complain and bitch about Obamacare and the spending that goes with it. But at least it was offset with taxes, fees, and spending restructuring. The Republicans paid for nothing reduced revenue with tax cuts and increased spending astronomically last decade and even though Obama has slowed spending to it slowest rate of growth since the 50's we still are getting crushed.

Posted Image

If you are truly worried about fiscal responsibility it is probably time you do what I and everyone else is starting to do and dump the Republican Party.

If you are full of poo, and aren't really concerned about spending and deficits, and you just want to hate Democrats, then keep carrying the Republican torch, but don't talk about fiscal responsibility.

#37 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,767 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:07 PM

I agree with pstall you can't just look at the overall picture to get a grasp of the problem. You need to hammer down to the details to figure everything out and not focus on a big brush to fix it all.

One thing to keep in mind is the need for unskilled labor is dwindling away. It's always going to be there, but as a percentage of the entire workforce it's becoming trivial.

#38 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,306 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:13 PM

Deficit spending in itself is not a bad thing and is often needed. There is no rule of economics that says that you have to spend less than you take in.

And if you are frustrated, blame the people who deserve the blame, which is the Republican party. 1980-1992 and 2000-2008 are actually the time frames that fugged up our government spending and revenue forever.

You could make the argument Reagan's huge tax cut and military spending was needed at the time, but the Bush (43rd) tax cuts, taking us to two wars without raising any revenue to pay for it, expansion of medicare without raising any revenue to pay for it. All that fugged us.

You can complain and bitch about Obamacare and the spending that goes with it. But at least it was offset with taxes, fees, and spending restructuring. The Republicans paid for nothing reduced revenue with tax cuts and increased spending astronomically last decade and even though Obama has slowed spending to it slowest rate of growth since the 50's we still are getting crushed.

Posted Image

If you are truly worried about fiscal responsibility it is probably time you do what I and everyone else is starting to do and dump the Republican Party.

If you are full of poo, and aren't really concerned about spending and deficits, and you just want to hate Democrats, then keep carrying the Republican torch, but don't talk about fiscal responsibility.


Hey Sparky, how far back does 12 years go in your world?

#39 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,602 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:24 PM

Hey Sparky, how far back does 12 years go in your world?


Sparky, the deficit problem and in particular the revenue problem is an issue that comes from more than 12 years ago.

And if you were to make that argument you should have just said from 2000-2009, because that is the real issue. The current administration has been among the most frugal in spending in modern history and is still trying to find new ways to cut spending and future growth even more.

Obama has been more conservative than any Republican leadership in recent memory. Conservatives should be putting this guy on their shoulders and championing him, but they live in the Fox News, Drudge Report, Rush bubble so they think he has been spending out of control.

If anything we should be raising taxes more than making deep cuts to spending right now.

#40 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,614 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:25 PM

I'm a big fan of tying people wages to their productivity/profitability.


I think it's the heart of capitalism is it not? M


Where is Jase....

#41 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,306 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:29 PM

Sparky, the deficit problem and in particular the revenue problem is an issue that comes from more than 12 years ago.

And if you were to make that argument you should have just said from 2000-2008, because that is the real issue. The current administration has been among the most frugal in spending in modern history and is still trying to find new ways to cut spending and future growth even more.

Obama has been more conservative than any Republican leadership in recent memory. Conservatives should be putting this guy on their shoulders and championing him, but they live in the Fox News, Drudge Report, Rush bubble so they think he has been spending out of control.

If anything we should be raising taxes more than making deep cuts to spending right now.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. MSNBC is on, run along, so you will know what to say tomorrow.

#42 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,602 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:32 PM

Yeah, yeah, yeah. MSNBC is on, run along, so you will know what to say tomorrow.


I rarely if ever watch any 24 hour news. MSNBC or otherwise. That data comes from the CBO and OMB. Not MSNBC.

#43 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,622 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:47 PM

looks like stirs is left without a leg to stand on yet again, be careful before you get to G5 levels.

#44 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,223 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 19 March 2013 - 06:47 PM

The one thing that can be inferred from most if the posts in this thread.....

Either most of you did not take Economics or you failed it.

Supply and Demand dictates wages. Gov't intervention only makes it worse.

#45 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 06:54 PM

The one thing that can be inferred from most if the posts in this thread.....

Either most of you did not take Wconomics or you failed it.

Supply and Demand dictates wages. Gov't intervention only makes it worse.


Yes, if only the government would get out of the picture we could go back to the good old days of the late 1800s, when times were great for the average worker


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com