Most Americans Will Now Retire Poorer Than Their Parents - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Biggy · 02-19-2013, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Well, Obama proposed raising the min wage, and the Rethugs wailed and gnashed teeth. That falls under economics, right?

While raising the minimum wage sounds noble, many will benefit, many will lose.

1. If a company keeps everything the same, then those workers now enjoy higher benefits.
2. If a company cuts it workforce, cut back hours, or chooses to hire illegal workers, because their labor costs are too high, all those people lose. Business owners don't like taking step backs in their business when it comes to profit, just like workers don't like taking lower pay. This is capitalism.

There's the intended benefit, and the unintended benefit.

You can argue the higher wage rate is great and Repubs are assholes.
Repubs will argue people will lose their jobs, or hours, and the Dems are assholes.

Neither is really wrong. It's physics, for every reaction there is an equal reaction.

The reality is we all grow together. When the boom was happening, unemployment was at it lowest and the middle class benefitted. The middle class also lost when it was taken away as did all the banks. It happens together. If the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer, you can most certainly look at the tax code.

However, your Mitt Romneys and your Warren Buffetts still pay incredibly low taxes. They still dont pay anywhere near 40%, becuase they aren't exposed to ordinary US tax rates. The tax bill was 2-300 pages long, with all sorts of special exceptions carved for big business and the super rich - these guys donate to everyone. Every small business owner just got burned. Minte got fucked, your average restaurant owner got fucked, and everyone making their $ the hard way got fucked (i.e. not investing, not speculating, etc). It was the republicans who were calling for real tax reform - closing these loopholes to raise the $, and not nominally higher tax rates on ordinary income, which fucked over every real (non-financial) business owner in this country. They proposed $800B in new tax revenues, without technically raising any tax rates. Obama, after winning an election, told them to fuck off, and wall street and financial companies were barely touched, and every small business owner got burned. They applied the higher taxes to the wrong group of people, the people who are already paying the highest %wise.

The long and short of it is this: we have a very complex tax code. The politicians dumb it down for the average person to understand, but in reality, the complexities of these policies are very different. Obama played the mob against the few, and the few that got burned, were the good guys. Wll street/ private equity / venture capitalists, and every other major financial investor, only got touched marginally.

When Obama wants another huge spending bill, guess where the $ will flow to? His donors and the people he knows. He is a shill, but he is a shill who is fucking over the hard working entrepreneurs of this country. How about we lower taxes on entrepreneurs to spark people to create businesses, and tax wall street more heavy? It will never happen, wall street donates too much $. Obama is not the answer. Obama is an idiot, who wants to be loved. He isn't really helping people. He is the school president promising free candy to everyone. The answer might be in a Cuomo, who prosecuted Wall Street, when he was prosecutor in NYC.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/01/the...e-team-thanks/

12clicks · 02-19-2013, 11:47 AM

most americans don't work as hard as their parents did.
its only logical that they won't have as much.
look at all of you losers pretending to work "on the internet"
90% of you would be better off working at mcDonalds.

Robbie · 02-19-2013, 12:05 PM

I've always thought that common sense dictates that every time you raise the minimum wage...companies raise the prices of everything to offset it.

So now a guy makes "x" amount of money which is "y" more than he did before. BUT...the cost of everything also went up "y". So it doesn't change anything, just makes our money more worthless in terms of buying power.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. But it just seems like common sense.

Raising the minimum wage isn't the same as a valued worker busting ass and getting a raise as a reward for his hard work and loyalty.

_Richard_ · 02-19-2013, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I've always thought that common sense dictates that every time you raise the minimum wage...companies raise the prices of everything to offset it.

So now a guy makes "x" amount of money which is "y" more than he did before. BUT...the cost of everything also went up "y". So it doesn't change anything, just makes our money more worthless in terms of buying power.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. But it just seems like common sense.

Raising the minimum wage isn't the same as a valued worker busting ass and getting a raise as a reward for his hard work and loyalty.

so you're saying lowering the minimum wage to nothing makes it more profitable for major businesses?

Robbie · 02-19-2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

so you're saying lowering the minimum wage to nothing makes it more profitable for major businesses?

Richard, do you go out of your way to put words in other people's mouths? lol

No, I'm saying EXACTLY what I typed:

It seems like common sense to me that if you raise the minimum wage, companies will raise prices to offset the new cost. Which means that you now make more money for minimum wage...BUT everything now costs more so it's all a wash.

The problem with that is: For us in the adult online industry we can't raise our prices. So we still bring in the same amount of money, but our money buys LESS because the price of everything has gone up.

I certainly can't raise the price of a paysite membership (especially with all the piracy going on). So over time as prices of goods and services go up in general, my actual spending power decreases.

And as I PLAINLY said: "maybe I'm wrong", but that sure does seem like common sense to me.

If you don't see it that way, then explain to me how I'm wrong. Are YOU saying that when companies have greater overhead that they won't raise prices...and that the new higher prices for goods and services won't offset the raise in minimum wage because now the dollar buys less than it did before?

It just makes common sense to me. But maybe you can tell me what I'm really saying instead of just reading what I'm actually saying and telling me where I'm going wrong in my line of thinking.

DTK · 02-19-2013, 04:28 PM

Not that I'm for it, but the other side of the raising minimum wage argument is: the millions of people working for miminum (or close to minimum) wage will all have a bit more money, and that money will circulate back into the economy. They're still living in poverty, so it's not like they're going to be saving most of it, just surviving.

Some rough estimates.

Per the Burea of Labor Statistics, there are about 5 million working at or below (yes, it's possible) minimum wage. IDK how many are earning $7.50-$9/hour. for round numbers, lets say another 5 million. So 10 million.
The average workweek is currently 34.5 hours. Let's just call it 30.
Again, rough numbers, let's say that averages out to a $1.50/hr raise for all.
That multiplies out to about $2340/year/person. Obviously there are payroll taxes etc, so let's call it $2000 to keep the numbers round.

That means an additional $20 Billion per year circulating through the economy. Obviously that isn't a ton of money but still, companies make a bit more money, hire more people etc...

All that said, this really seems like much ado about nothing.
Their employers have to pay another $20 billlion or so, but most of that is circulating right back into the economy. That seems pretty net-neutral to me.
And again, we're only talking about 10 million people and around $20 billion.
Prices may rise ever so slightly, but we're really talking about a comparatively tiny amount of money here.

Thus, the "outrage" over this drop in the bucket is way overblown imo.

_Richard_ · 02-19-2013, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Richard, do you go out of your way to put words in other people's mouths? lol

No, I'm saying EXACTLY what I typed:

It seems like common sense to me that if you raise the minimum wage, companies will raise prices to offset the new cost. Which means that you now make more money for minimum wage...BUT everything now costs more so it's all a wash.

The problem with that is: For us in the adult online industry we can't raise our prices. So we still bring in the same amount of money, but our money buys LESS because the price of everything has gone up.

I certainly can't raise the price of a paysite membership (especially with all the piracy going on). So over time as prices of goods and services go up in general, my actual spending power decreases.

And as I PLAINLY said: "maybe I'm wrong", but that sure does seem like common sense to me.

If you don't see it that way, then explain to me how I'm wrong. Are YOU saying that when companies have greater overhead that they won't raise prices...and that the new higher prices for goods and services won't offset the raise in minimum wage because now the dollar buys less than it did before?

It just makes common sense to me. But maybe you can tell me what I'm really saying instead of just reading what I'm actually saying and telling me where I'm going wrong in my line of thinking.

im not in a position to explain anything to anyone lol

your statement, however, states that to pay workers more money, or what could be considered a FAIR SHARE OF THE SUCCESS OF THE COMPANY, that would take valuable money outta the employers pocket

with that logic, why pay the workers anything

ditch diggers should be grateful they have a job

Biggy · 02-19-2013, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTK

Not that I'm for it, but the other side of the raising minimum wage argument is: the millions of people working for miminum (or close to minimum) wage will all have a bit more money, and that money will circulate back into the economy. They're still living in poverty, so it's not like they're going to be saving most of it, just surviving.

Some rough estimates.

Per the Burea of Labor Statistics, there are about 5 million working at or below (yes, it's possible) minimum wage. IDK how many are earning $7.50-$9/hour. for round numbers, lets say another 5 million. So 10 million.
The average workweek is currently 34.5 hours. Let's just call it 30.
Again, rough numbers, let's say that averages out to a $1.50/hr raise for all.
That multiplies out to about $2340/year/person. Obviously there are payroll taxes etc, so let's call it $2000 to keep the numbers round.

That means an additional $20 Billion per year circulating through the economy. Obviously that isn't a ton of money but still, companies make a bit more money, hire more people etc...

All that said, this really seems like much ado about nothing.
Their employers have to pay another $20 billlion or so, but most of that is circulating right back into the economy. That seems pretty net-neutral to me.
And again, we're only talking about 10 million people and around $20 billion.
Prices may rise ever so slightly, but we're really talking about a comparatively tiny amount of money here.

Thus, the "outrage" over this drop in the bucket is way overblown imo.

Thats a good analysis although I am unsure if I think 100% of it gets circulated. But yes if its only $20B it certainly is a drop in the bucket.

2012 · 02-19-2013, 07:26 PM

Yes. we're fucked. and the band played on................

Robbie · 02-19-2013, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

your statement, however, states that to pay workers more money, or what could be considered a FAIR SHARE OF THE SUCCESS OF THE COMPANY, that would take valuable money outta the employers pocket

You are not understanding what I am saying. You're not even close to it. I must not be conveying it clear enough.

I'm saying that ONE of the bad results of raising the minimum wage is that it will raise the price of EVERYTHING we buy. Thus the extra money the minimum wage earner gets will be nullified by the higher cost of everything he has to buy with his money.

And of course I'm not even taking into account that young people just starting out in the job market will now have a harder time finding work because there will be less available jobs than there would be otherwise.
Who wants to hire a teenager at $9 an hour to do unskilled work for his first job?

Hell, it's bad enough that the drinking law went up to 21 and cut out all the 18, 19, and 20 year olds from making good money as bartenders and waitresses at nightclubs.

There's always an unintended consequence to stuff.

My grandma used to say: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

DTK · 02-19-2013, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggy

Thats a good analysis although I am unsure if I think 100% of it gets circulated. But yes if its only $20B it certainly is a drop in the bucket.

It may not, but it's not like they'll be buying stocks or loading up their 401k's with their whopping $9/hr. And yeah, that Happy Meal may cost an extra $0.25 and that toilet paper at walmart may run an extra

, but really....

Another largely irrelevant issue, but it helps keep the partisans all riled up.

woj · 02-19-2013, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTK

Not that I'm for it, but the other side of the raising minimum wage argument is: the millions of people working for miminum (or close to minimum) wage will all have a bit more money, and that money will circulate back into the economy. They're still living in poverty, so it's not like they're going to be saving most of it, just surviving.

Some rough estimates.

Per the Burea of Labor Statistics, there are about 5 million working at or below (yes, it's possible) minimum wage. IDK how many are earning $7.50-$9/hour. for round numbers, lets say another 5 million. So 10 million.
The average workweek is currently 34.5 hours. Let's just call it 30.
Again, rough numbers, let's say that averages out to a $1.50/hr raise for all.
That multiplies out to about $2340/year/person. Obviously there are payroll taxes etc, so let's call it $2000 to keep the numbers round.

That means an additional $20 Billion per year circulating through the economy. Obviously that isn't a ton of money but still, companies make a bit more money, hire more people etc...

All that said, this really seems like much ado about nothing.
Their employers have to pay another $20 billlion or so, but most of that is circulating right back into the economy. That seems pretty net-neutral to me.
And again, we're only talking about 10 million people and around $20 billion.
Prices may rise ever so slightly, but we're really talking about a comparatively tiny amount of money here.

Thus, the "outrage" over this drop in the bucket is way overblown imo.

you are assuming that people that earn $7.50/hr now, will just get a raise to $9.00/hr...
but that's not likely what will happen, many will get a raise like you stated, but some will get laid off (or will work fewer hours)... so while lets say 8 Million people will be better off, 2 Million may lose their jobs...

so the proposed policy will not only cause a rise in inflation but also a rise in unemployment, how could that possibly be good?

DTK · 02-19-2013, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

you are assuming that people that earn $7.50/hr now, will just get a raise to $9.00/hr...
but that's not likely what will happen, many will get a raise like you stated, but some will get laid off... so while lets say 8 Million people will be better off, 2 Million may lose their jobs...

so the proposed policy will not only cause a rise in inflation but also a rise in unemployment, how could that possibly be good?

Since we're speculating....

Once again, we're talking about a comparatively microscopic amount of money here. So the idea that it's going to lead to some big bump in inflation makes no sense. Sure, companies can raise their prices slightly but, who's really gonna notice a

bump in the price of toilet paper at walmart?

I seriously doubt 2 million people would lose their jobs. Companies still need workers to stock the shelves and say 'would you like to super size that?'

I didn't know this, but 2/3 of low-wage people work for large, highly profitable corporations who not only can imperceptibly pass on the cost, they could absorb it without flinching. Not that the latter would ever happen...

Chart of the 20 largest low-wage employers.

GrantMercury · 02-19-2013, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

most americans don't work as hard as their parents did.
its only logical that they won't have as much.

Not sure I agree with that. When I was growing up, Dads worked 1 full time job, moms stayed home. That was enough to buy a house that skyrocketed in value, take 2 weeks vacation, and have health coverage and a pension. Where do you see that today?

GrantMercury · 02-19-2013, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm saying that ONE of the bad results of raising the minimum wage is that it will raise the price of EVERYTHING we buy. Thus the extra money the minimum wage earner gets will be nullified by the higher cost of everything he has to buy with his money.

Seriously?

1. Companies charge what the market will bear. Always have. Always will. If raising their prices for any reason (regulations, taxes, increased min wage, or simply a desire for higher profit) results in a price the market rejects, the price will come back down. If they can get away with raising the price as a result of a higher minimum wage - they'd already be doing it and pocketing the extra $$$.

2. That "raising the minimum wage hurts the poor due to the resulting higher prices" argument only works on Limbaugh's audience. By that logic, the best thing to do for the struggling working class is CUT their wages - then think about how much better their standard of living would be with all the products they'd be able to buy dirt cheap!

woj · 02-19-2013, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTK

Since we're speculating....

Once again, we're talking about a comparatively microscopic amount of money here. So the idea that it's going to lead to some big bump in inflation makes no sense. Sure, companies can raise their prices slightly but, who's really gonna notice a

bump in the price of toilet paper at walmart?

I seriously doubt 2 million people would lose their jobs. Companies still need workers to stock the shelves and say 'would you like to super size that?'

I didn't know this, but 2/3 of low-wage people work for large, highly profitable corporations who not only can imperceptibly pass on the cost, they could absorb it without flinching. Not that the latter would ever happen...

Chart of the 20 largest low-wage employers.

2 million was a made up number, it could be 1 million or 500 thousand, but bottom line is some will lose jobs for sure...

I wouldn't call walmart for example "highly profitable", they run a 3.57% profit margin (source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WMT+Key+Statistics), so it's very unlikely they can absorb a 20% higher labor cost, all costs would get passed on to the customer...

small business are less likely to adopt to a 20% higher labor costs, so many of them could likely go out of business....

so there are multiple downsides, with no upsides to this proposal...

Robbie · 02-19-2013, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Seriously?

1. Companies charge what the market will bear. Always have. Always will. If raising their prices for any reason (regulations, taxes, increased min wage, or simply a desire for higher profit) results in a price the market rejects, the price will come back down. If they can get away with raising the price as a result of a higher minimum wage - they'd already be doing it and pocketing the extra $$$.

2. That "raising the minimum wage hurts the poor due to the resulting higher prices" argument only works on Limbaugh's audience. By that logic, the best thing to do for the struggling working class is CUT their wages - then think about how much better their standard of living would be with all the products they'd be able to buy dirt cheap!

GrantMercury...you need to own a business and then you might understand it.

Yes, I can charge UP to the point the market will bear. But if my costs go up, I'll be goddamned if I'm going to cut into my profit or worse start losing money.
I will simply raise the price.

It's happened all through the years. Whenever ANYTHING raises overhead the cost is ALWAYS passed on to the consumer.

Your theories also don't work when we are talking about food at the supermarket and other staples and necessities of life.
And if anybody makes minimum wage in this country it would be the stock boys at the grocery store...or the checkout girls.
So yes...it WILL raise the price.

The fact that you don't understand that shows your relative age and lack of experience in this world.
Give it another decade and you'll start to understand how the world really works (if you're lucky) and then maybe you too can be successful and make really good money and see how you feel then about the federal govt. redistributing that for you.

GrantMercury · 02-19-2013, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTK

Not that I'm for it, but the other side of the raising minimum wage argument is: the millions of people working for miminum (or close to minimum) wage will all have a bit more money, and that money will circulate back into the economy. They're still living in poverty, so it's not like they're going to be saving most of it, just surviving.

Exactly.

And why is it the righties hate food stamps and welfare...but they also hate the idea of paying workers more??? The scumbags are never happy.

_Richard_ · 02-19-2013, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'll be goddamned if I'm going to cut into my profit or worse start losing money.

put it on the little guy

we get it

GrantMercury · 02-19-2013, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Yes, I can charge UP to the point the market will bear. But if my costs go up, I'll be goddamned if I'm going to cut into my profit or worse start losing money.
I will simply raise the price.

And then the market will reject your overpriced product...and you'll lose money.

If you think you have room to raise your prices, why the fuck haven't you done it already? Why are you losing all that cake day after day?

Some businessman.

Robbie · 02-19-2013, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

hate the idea of paying workers more???

GM, what if you are wrong and it simply causes companies to hire LESS employees at the starter level?

The only people who make minimum wage are folks just getting started at a job. It's not like a good worker is working the same job for minimum wage year after year after year (a shitty, non-productive worker might).

Most folks work their way UP the ladder.

But I'll say it again because you are so full of hatred you don't even have an open mind to consider other viewpoints: Why would you or I hire a teenager for their first job of unskilled labor at $9 an hour???

Answer: We wouldn't. For that kind of money coming out of my pocket I'm not going to hire ANY unskilled kid that is new to the workforce and trying to get their first job. In this fucked up economy with a high jobless rate already, I'm going to choose and pick an older person with experience.

That is an unintended consequence of raising the minimum wage. Teens, uneducated people. Latinos, and young black men already can't find jobs. Now you're going to price it completely away for them?

Don't you think we should be CREATING job opportunity? Why isn't our govt. focused on THAT?

woj · 02-19-2013, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

Seriously?

1. Companies charge what the market will bear. Always have. Always will. If raising their prices for any reason (regulations, taxes, increased min wage, or simply a desire for higher profit) results in a price the market rejects, the price will come back down. If they can get away with raising the price as a result of a higher minimum wage - they'd already be doing it and pocketing the extra $$$.

All that's true in "equilibrium"... changing minimum wage changes the equilibrium... (shifts the supply and demand curves)

on the demand side: some people will have more $$, so their demand for goods will go up... (driving prices up)

supply side: selling goods is now less profitable, so supply goes down... (driving prices up)

GrantMercury · 02-19-2013, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I've always thought that common sense dictates that every time you raise the minimum wage...companies raise the prices of everything to offset it.

So now a guy makes "x" amount of money which is "y" more than he did before. BUT...the cost of everything also went up "y". So it doesn't change anything, just makes our money more worthless in terms of buying power.

Maybe I'm wrong about that.

You are.

Robbie · 02-19-2013, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

put it on the little guy

we get it

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

And then the market will reject your overpriced product...and you'll lose money.

If you think you have room to raise your prices, why the fuck haven't you done it already? Why are you losing all that cake day after day?

Some businessman.

You are both fucking ignorant. I give up. Go ahead and theorize all you want. It's why neither of you have or will have any real success.

I tried to engage both of you with a differing point of view. But obviously you guys aren't on the same level with me in this world.

GrantMercury · 02-19-2013, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

All that's true in "equilibrium"... changing minimum wage changes the equilibrium...

Ok, but the current "equilibrium" has left the middle class gasping for air, the working class living in poverty, and corporate profits at historic highs.

Corporate profits hit record as wages get squeezed
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/03/news...its/index.html

It's about fucking time the "equilibrium" shifts.

_Richard_ · 02-19-2013, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You are both fucking ignorant. I give up. Go ahead and theorize all you want. It's why neither of you have or will have any real success.

I tried to engage both of you with a differing point of view. But obviously you guys aren't on the same level with me in this world.

whatever

im not swearing.

what you're defending here is a zero sum game

good luck

GrantMercury · 02-19-2013, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You are both fucking ignorant. I give up. Go ahead and theorize all you want. It's why neither of you have or will have any real success.

I tried to engage both of you with a differing point of view. But obviously you guys aren't on the same level with me in this world.

Take your ball and go home.

BTW - I'm doing just fine for myself, TYVM.

DTK · 02-19-2013, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

2 million was a made up number, it could be 1 million or 500 thousand, but bottom line is some will lose jobs for sure...

I wouldn't call walmart for example "highly profitable", they run a 3.57% profit margin (source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WMT+Key+Statistics), so it's very unlikely they can absorb a 20% higher labor cost, all costs would get passed on to the customer...

small business are less likely to adopt to a 20% higher labor costs, so many of them could likely go out of business....

so there are multiple downsides, with no upsides to this proposal...

A more important data point in their financials is their net income(profit) - $15.7 billion last year. Let's say it costs them $3-500 million..drop in the bucket. They could make that up imperceptibly.

Just like this whole issue, it's much ado about very little.

GrantMercury · 02-19-2013, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

GM, what if you are wrong and it simply causes companies to hire LESS employees at the starter level?

There is only one reason a company ever hires (and it's already the LAST thing they do after squeezing as much as they can out of their current workforce) - and that is to meet demand. If there is sufficient demand for a product, the company will hire to meet that demand (otherwise the company loses money in lost sales). The money to pay the increased wage doesn't come out of the pockets of the customers, it comes out of the profits of the company. That is because if the company could get away with raising the price of their goods or services after a minimum wage hike, there is absolutely no reason why they wouldn't do it before the minimum wage hike - and thereby make more money (which is the goal of every company, right)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Why would you or I hire a teenager for their first job of unskilled labor at $9 an hour???

Not everyone who works for minimum wage is a teenager. And $9/hr is miserable pay. And nearly all that money will go back into the economy, unlike the offshore tax havens the money of the wealthy often end up in. And a rising tide lifts all boats, and it's about fucking time - the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is shrinking. Meanwhile...

The rich get richer as kids face poverty
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the...rty-2012-09-12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Don't you think we should be CREATING job opportunity? Why isn't our govt. focused on THAT?

Because they're too busy sabotaging the recovery.

Quote:

The bill was called the, "Bring Jobs Home Act." It would have provided a 20% tax break for the costs of moving jobs back to the U.S. It removes tax deductions for the business expenses of jobs moving overseas. Simple enough.

Stop incentivizing jobs leaving the U.S. Start incentivizing jobs returning to the U.S. Fund it within the bill by taking away deductions for companies shipping jobs overeas. This way, it doesn't add to the deficit.

The president can never directly bring the jobs back. However, he and Congress can create the conditions through policy that create job magnetism.

This is the most common sense solution on the planet to create the conditions to draw jobs home.

Americans now realize that Republicans just voted to protect companies that outsource jobs. Maybe, citizens won't want Republican leadership in Congress anymore given how they have used their time.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/11...merican-public

GrantMercury · 02-19-2013, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTK

Nitpicking. That's microscopic compared to what I'm talking about, and I think you know that.

No, actually. You're taking economics. The Dems try to help the working people of this country economically. Raising the minimum wage is just one way. Supporting organized labor is another. And supporting strong public education, community colleges and libraries. And getting the uninsured health coverage. And subsidized school lunches. And heating assistance. And payday loan reforms. All those things (and if I had more time I could come up with many more) have economic implications. The GOP would never support any of that stuff. The two parties are not the same.

02-19-2013, 12:05 PM	#103
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,845	I've always thought that common sense dictates that every time you raise the minimum wage...companies raise the prices of everything to offset it. So now a guy makes "x" amount of money which is "y" more than he did before. BUT...the cost of everything also went up "y". So it doesn't change anything, just makes our money more worthless in terms of buying power. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But it just seems like common sense. Raising the minimum wage isn't the same as a valued worker busting ass and getting a raise as a reward for his hard work and loyalty. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

02-19-2013, 04:28 PM	#106
DTK Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: The 510 Posts: 4,545	Not that I'm for it, but the other side of the raising minimum wage argument is: the millions of people working for miminum (or close to minimum) wage will all have a bit more money, and that money will circulate back into the economy. They're still living in poverty, so it's not like they're going to be saving most of it, just surviving. Some rough estimates. Per the Burea of Labor Statistics, there are about 5 million working at or below (yes, it's possible) minimum wage. IDK how many are earning $7.50-$9/hour. for round numbers, lets say another 5 million. So 10 million. The average workweek is currently 34.5 hours. Let's just call it 30. Again, rough numbers, let's say that averages out to a $1.50/hr raise for all. That multiplies out to about $2340/year/person. Obviously there are payroll taxes etc, so let's call it $2000 to keep the numbers round. That means an additional $20 Billion per year circulating through the economy. Obviously that isn't a ton of money but still, companies make a bit more money, hire more people etc... All that said, this really seems like much ado about nothing. Their employers have to pay another $20 billlion or so, but most of that is circulating right back into the economy. That seems pretty net-neutral to me. And again, we're only talking about 10 million people and around $20 billion. Prices may rise ever so slightly, but we're really talking about a comparatively tiny amount of money here. Thus, the "outrage" over this drop in the bucket is way overblown imo. __________________ Arguing whether the Democratic or Republican party is better is like debating which steaming pile of shit is slightly less stinky. Last edited by DTK; 02-19-2013 at 04:36 PM..

02-19-2013, 11:47 AM	#102
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,742	most americans don't work as hard as their parents did. its only logical that they won't have as much. look at all of you losers pretending to work "on the internet" 90% of you would be better off working at mcDonalds.

02-19-2013, 07:26 PM	#109
2012 So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 17,189	Yes. we're fucked. and the band played on................