Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-02-13 10:11 PM - Post#164697
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/02/opinion/tr umpka-owen...
This article is the #1 reason why you should get an education or develop a skill or trade. The government shouldn't be dictating a value for the employee, rather the employee should be creating value for themselves. And of course the article is written by a Union executive.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Cheatham Parent
enthusiast
Posts: 225
Reg: 01-23-11
|
12-03-13 09:24 AM - Post#164701
In response to Allensince1993
CBS Sunday morning had an interesting story on the minimum wage topic this weekend.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/battle-for-a-l iving-...
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-03-13 11:16 AM - Post#164704
In response to Cheatham Parent
Interesting news piece. Robert Reich, former secretary of labor under Clinton and now at UC-Berkley, says it's mainly due to the lower percentage of union members; that it's taking away their leverage to get higher wages. As Stossel would say, "Give me a break!" You want leverage to negotiate? Go to school and get an education. Make yourself valuable to the employer. This is right back to the Democrat way of giving a man fish rather than teaching them to fish. Educate, educate, educate.
Robert has a graph showing a flattening of wages since 1970 but he doesn't mention the the decline of the family unit, the stepping away from the archaic stereotype of women not working, and the increase of illegal immigration. There are many factors contributing to the flattening of wages.
The lesson is to get an education, learn a skill, or master a trade.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
SB
enthusiast
Posts: 1551
Reg: 09-07-03
|
12-03-13 11:26 AM - Post#164705
In response to Allensince1993
But the point made by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich is that elevated wages benefit most everyone in the economy because it boosts the middle class who spend a large share of their income. It is a trickle UP theory. Education and enhanced skills will usually boost one's opportunities and earnings so that motivating force remains even with an elevated minimum wage.
|
MCDUFF
enthusiast
Posts: 316
Reg: 08-21-03
|
12-03-13 02:54 PM - Post#164729
In response to SB
Isn't this take it away from me because I have it and give it to you because you deserve it for doing nothing?
|
Cheatham Parent
enthusiast
Posts: 225
Reg: 01-23-11
|
12-03-13 03:22 PM - Post#164732
In response to MCDUFF
Are you saying we should abolish the minimum wage completely?
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-03-13 04:09 PM - Post#164736
In response to Cheatham Parent
For a true Libertarian, yes you should abolish the minimum wage. I lean in that direction but recognize that checks-and-balances need to take place so I'm okay with a minimum wage. The government is good for a lot of things (don't tell my Republican friends I said that). However I disagree with SB's assessment of Reich's comments. SB, you've used another clip with him before so you might take a liking to his ideas or the left. Regardless, I'd like to take an economic approach and not a political one as Reich does all of the time.
He's a great educated man who can use graphs and charts to fit any of his theories. I refer you to my initial analysis of his graph he used to support his own agenda. Those are solid reasons why we've had what he calls 'a flattening wage.' Trickle up and trickle down does not work. Reagan was wrong and Reich is wrong. Disparity of income in a capitalistic society is always going to happen and it must happen. The more skilled and valued jobs will pay more. People get upset when an NFL QB signs a 20 million per year contract and complain teachers or police officers should get more. Our free market society has dictated what different professions pay. Leave it to a union and you'll get Detroit, a bankrupt city thanks to unsustainable pensions the unions negotiated (or else we strike!).
You can't suggest that paying them more for the lowest work available to the public will benefit all of society. Let me use an exaggerated example to illustrate a point. There's not point in scaling up with minor examples. Let's just use an extreme so it's easier to illustrate. If I were to give all minimum wager earners a 500% increase inflation would be the true market force that would keep disparity among the masses. They'd make more but the guys at the top would have to make that much more as well. Otherwise we'd all look for that low-skill job. If I give each McDonald's worker $50,000 a year to work there all other wages will go up (inflation because of more dollars in the market and to keep the separation gap for higher skilled jobs). If the McDonald's manager was making 40% more than the low-skilled position overtime that gap would get back to 40%. Overtime you are only lowering the value of the dollar because of the inflation. Raising the minimum wage is like monetary policy of printing more money and channeling it through the market.
Let me ask you this. When has the minimum wage EVER been able to support someone? Same argument then and same argument NOW. You can raise the amount but it's only artificial because inflation will correct it and you'll still have a wage gap.
The greater truth and understanding of Reich's chart is to highlight the importance of getting an education, develop a skill, or learn a trade. His party loves to feed the masses the fish so they become dependent. The other party would rather teach them how to fish so they can support themselves better. That my friend is how you benefit all of the population.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-03-13 04:31 PM - Post#164738
In response to Allensince1993
Another UC-Berkley professor: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/t he-min...
The earned-income tax credit is something to discuss but seldom talked about. Her article also highlights the small variance that 'trickle-up' would provide.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
12-04-13 09:32 AM - Post#164751
In response to Allensince1993
The other side of that coin: Paul Krugman's alternative point of view.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
12-04-13 10:27 AM - Post#164753
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
The 1% of the 1% owns and operates the government. They are the government.
If they feel it serves them in some manner, the indentured servants will get a bump in minimum wage, if they don't, they won't.
All the rest is noise. 100% pure noise.
The American Two Party Political system is the biggest scam in history. There isn't even a close second.
This latest manufactured distraction is like feeding one cup of chicken scratch to 10000 starving chickens or magnanimously feeding them 2 cups.
The extra cup is the definition of irrelevant. Even if the false hope of that extra cup is fulfilled, it changes absolutely nothing.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-04-13 01:39 PM - Post#164757
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
The 'other side'? I'm all for subsidizing through the E.I.T.C but not for raising the limit constantly. I'd rather fight that battle and keep the course, only changing it once or twice over decade, tops. This is a free market with regulations and I accept it.
But none of this changes the mindset of those on the 'left' wanting to feed fish rather than teach people to fish. We need to empower people by educating them.
I grew up as a minority (there is a mindset in the hood), on the free lunch program, and both parents were freshman dropouts. I got Pell grants, student loans, and worked my way through college. If I can do it then anyone can. We need to get more aggressive with getting people into college or trade programs.
I won't argue whether or not minimum wage will help the economy. This has to be bigger than the economy. We need to help and empower the individual. Just my opinion...
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Cheatham Parent
enthusiast
Posts: 225
Reg: 01-23-11
|
12-04-13 02:46 PM - Post#164763
In response to Allensince1993
So now as a libertarian, you must feel guilty for taking entitlements as a child. You must realize now that it wasn't the governments responsibility to help feed you. You must also feel like it wasn't the government's responsibility to have provided you grants for your education along with low cost subsidized loans.  for the sarcasm.
My point is while government cannot be 100% of the solution, they are certainly not 100% of the problem either. Without some government assistance, your life might have turned out quite different.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-04-13 06:48 PM - Post#164769
In response to Cheatham Parent
So now as a libertarian, you must feel guilty for taking entitlements as a child. You must realize now that it wasn't the governments responsibility to help feed you. You must also feel like it wasn't the government's responsibility to have provided you grants for your education along with low cost subsidized loans. for the sarcasm.
My point is while government cannot be 100% of the solution, they are certainly not 100% of the problem either. Without some government assistance, your life might have turned out quite different.
Thanks for the post. I'm fine with the sarcasm but those on the left might actually that way. I'm not right, left, or a libertarian. I lean that way but I do respect the need for government to be involved. I think you've missed much of what I've been stating. I favor some subsidizing as everyone needs a 'start' especially those with a disadvantage. I also favor some kind of 'floor' for the minimum wage but not one that creates a generation dependent on it; losing incentive to strive for more on their own. Dependency on welfare has created a huge mess. You can register once per year and you have no accountability. That's 'giving fish' and not teaching them to fish. A Pell grant gives someone an opportunity to get an education. It gives them a start. I assure you my taxes paid based on the increased education was a wise investment from the government. What about the free lunch program in some school districts? For kids....all day long, every day, and I have no issue with it. How can we target mom or dad? Educate and create incentives. Don't reward stagnation and don't reward someone for having child after child after child or teach a generation to depend on the government.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
12-04-13 07:32 PM - Post#164770
In response to Allensince1993
I don't disagree with much of your sentiment. But...
One aspect your not addressing - *at all* - is the fact that not everyone has the means, or ability, or even desire for higher education and the jobs and/or income that that education might provide. There's not enough Pell grants, loans, etc. to go around. Somebody has to do those low-skill retail jobs. And for the *MILLIONS* of hard working adults - NOT takers, NOT dependent - who work their arses off but barely scrape by, their is little hope for a brighter future and less hope for their children to escape this same situation. Retirement? Forget about it. Surely, you are in touch with the insane and ever-increasing cost of higher education. It is a serious and very real obstacle.
Our economic model creates winners and losers. If you're a winner - it's convenient to say "get off your butt and create a life for your self." If you're not, it's time to go flip burgers and figure out how you're going to make it through the month. That's daily reality for so many.
I too worked my way through school, learned a trade, worked that trade for twenty years, and now own my own business. However, I see, as clear as the blue sky, that suggesting *everyone* quit their whining, go to school, and rise above is just not possible. After all, in a system that by it's very nature creates winners and losers - somebody has to wind up with the short end of the stick.
I support a graduated-over-time rise in minimum wage.
|
SB
enthusiast
Posts: 1551
Reg: 09-07-03
|
12-04-13 08:08 PM - Post#164771
In response to MCDUFF
Isn't this take it away from me because I have it and give it to you because you deserve it for doing nothing?
The rationale by Reich is that it is not a zero sum game. More for the poor worker doesn't mean less for those who are better off. The enhanced pay for the poor would energize the economy resulting in opportunity for more for everyone - including the businessman or businesswoman who has to pay their workers more.
|
rtinallentx
enthusiast
Posts: 453
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 04-08-03
|
12-05-13 12:14 AM - Post#164775
In response to SB
According to wikipedia, the national minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60/hour (its purchasing power high point). Using the Bureau of Labor & Statistics' CPI inflation calculator, that 1968 wage of $1.60/hour would need to be $10.74/hour today to have the same purchasing power. That's a far cry from the current $7.25/hour!
|
MCDUFF
enthusiast
Posts: 316
Reg: 08-21-03
|
12-05-13 11:28 AM - Post#164783
In response to SB
Where is the money for the"poor" coming from? Is it coming from you? Or since someone else has it take it away from the productive the productive has less? If anything moves from one pocket to another the first pocket is empty. It may offend some that I manage to create income but I am offended by the "He has it, take it away from him". People have reached out and grasped opportunity for all time however they no longer wants to reach out and grasp - they want a gift. I don't want a vote so I am not willing to give away a fish. Earn your way and I will give you a job!
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-05-13 11:36 AM - Post#164785
In response to rtinallentx
According to wikipedia, the national minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60/hour (its purchasing power high point). Using the Bureau of Labor & Statistics' CPI inflation calculator, that 1968 wage of $1.60/hour would need to be $10.74/hour today to have the same purchasing power. That's a far cry from the current $7.25/hour!
In 1968 the price for a gallon of milk was $1.21. Why hasn't that gone up very much? Subsidies...
Raise the E.I.T.C. and you have the same effect. Your scenario just as Reich and other economists have done have only considered GDP and factors tied into the inflation measures, none of which consider items that are subsidized or tax codes that have since been passed to give that same 1968 dollar a decent valuation (for the poor and farmers, etc.) in 2013. You can give someone more buying power by increasing the tax credit.
There are no strong arguments on either side of the minimum wage. It only affects 2.5% of our population and there have been no studies to prove that a trickle-up effect takes place nor one that proves it would hurt on the macro-level.
The minimum wage is needed to keep companies like Walmart coming into a town and creating a monopoly and then lowering wages after the other companies have left. On the flipside it has been proven that strong union power can bankrupt cities. A lot of people enjoyed making $60 per hour in Detroit. What did that lead to? Outsourcing, plants built out of the country, and an entire city down the drain.
There has to be a balance and right now we have one. The left wants to keep raising the minimum wage and the right wants no minimum wage. So we fight the raises and we allow the nominal increases along the way. The country has been middle-right for a lot of years now.
It was pointed out (I agree), we have losers and we have winners in a 'true' capitalistic society'. We have a lot of needed regulations to give many good opportunities so we are a capitalistic society with an asterisks. You can't punish the winners and you can't punish the losers but you have checks in place to keep one from going into an extreme. The rich pay a rising scale of taxes the more they make and the poor get more subsides.
Sorry to bring it up but Romney was right. We have safety nets in place; welfare, Medicaid, social security if you stick to FDR's original idea, and other help. The problem is some people mistake the safety net for a hammock.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
12-06-13 12:56 AM - Post#164797
In response to Allensince1993
There has to be a balance and right now we have one.
What exactly do you mean by balance?
Eye opener...
Watch the video - the actual numbers are staggering
|
MCDUFF
enthusiast
Posts: 316
Reg: 08-21-03
|
12-06-13 07:49 AM - Post#164801
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
This whole thread sounds a bit sanctimonious. It appears to some that others have too much. It does matter how they got - it is too much so they must give it away. So, how much is enough? What level of mediocrity do they sink too in order to accommode equality. But maybe they should continue to outperform so they can give even more away.
Albert E. N. Gray of the Prudential defined the successful man as one who did what the unwilling and unable refused to do. We have a lot of unwilling.
How about a mediocrity holiday and all produce at Grays Common Denominator of Success. level.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
12-06-13 08:14 AM - Post#164802
In response to MCDUFF
Everything is a great idea as long as we're talking about someone elses money.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
12-06-13 09:18 AM - Post#164803
In response to MCDUFF
This whole thread sounds a bit sanctimonious. It appears to some that others have too much. It does matter how they got - it is too much so they must give it away. So, how much is enough? What level of mediocrity do they sink too in order to accommode equality. But maybe they should continue to outperform so they can give even more away.
Good point! Predictable, given the subject matter (that question always gets asked when this subject comes up). But, I don't necessarily disagree with the asking - it makes sense.
Perhaps we should shift our perspective and ask:
How little is too little? It may not matter how they got there - but at what point do we agree that the have-nots are being gamed by the haves?
You tell me.
Important questions with even more important answers. Each one of us has to decide on our own. We are anyway, ultimately... with our lives, lived.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-06-13 10:25 AM - Post#164809
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Wow. I have some beachfront property to sell you in Allen.
The chart is flawed. That video is based on 'taxes paid' and as you know nearly half of America doesn't pay income taxes.
You lost me at the word, "distribution". You actually think the 'haves' take from the 'have-nots'? Politicians make it happen from both sides. The 'have-nots' take from the 'haves' and the 'haves' take from the 'have-nots' because of legislation. That's why I told you we have 'balance' with the minimum wage. The LEFT wants it rising ALL THE TIME. The RIGHT wants NO MINIMUM WAGE. So....as the left wants it 'up' the right fights it so over time it rises but not too much. I don't want an extreme right view(Libertarian)because I recognize that the government serves an important role in our marketplace nor do I want the extreme left views. Both sides fight hard and eventually we get to some middle ground (regarding the minimum wage). To you it might not appear enough but isn't that what all parties suggest after negotiation? This 'minimum' wage only affects 2.5% of the population. Again, there is incentive to get an education.
Lastly, there will ALWAYS be a percentage of the population that wants no help, won't help themselves, and will skew the true numbers. There are even homeless people on the street that refuse shelter and 'want' to be there. We can't help them.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-income-ineq ua...
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
12-06-13 01:48 PM - Post#164816
In response to Allensince1993
You lost me at the word, "distribution".
You mean in the video? I don't think I used that word.
James, I think we are on the same page in many ways. You and I both agree about the importance of "balance". Where we diverge is that you believe we have achieved a balance (your words above) - and I observe that by just about every measure we are not only imbalanced, but that said imbalance is growing. This is a statistical fact supported by all sorts of measures.
You actually think the 'haves' take from the 'have-nots'?
In the sense of exploitation??? Absolutely! Do you deny that labor force production and output has steadily increased since the early 70's while wages have almost completely stagnated during that entire same period. Do you deny that regardless of politics, policy is shaped to benefit those influencing policy? How do you reconcile that given your position? Forget taxes for minute - we're talking about day to day survival income. Pup has pointed out - almost as if it's new news (I've been saying this on this board for 5 years) - that "the system" is rigged. Of course it is. One word: Oligarchy.
This is very real.
It would be a mistake to believe that I am whining and bitter relative to my own circumstances. I'm good. I have always had what I needed. I'm happy with my lot. My concern is for the growing number of hard working folks - again, not takers - who are struggling to get by (regardless of whether or not they pay taxes). I am not concerned with those who after they pay huge taxes can still afford to bathe in an entire pool of $500 bills. Something tells me that they're going to be ok.
I support legislation that calls for a graduated-over-time rise in minimum wage. Unless I'm wrong - and I may be but I don't think so - a majority of Americans support a rise in federal minimum wage.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-06-13 02:17 PM - Post#164819
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
This is going much deeper than I had anticipated. Yes, we agree on a lot about the minimum wage but there are videos and graphs you're referring to that are incorrect. You can make any graph to exaggerate the inequalities and I'm suggesting that's what you've inadvertently done.
Let me take this deeper. I work with lots of people and most of my accumulation of money and investments is because when I was young I wouldn't go out to eat, Starbucks wasn't on the daily drive, and I'd not spend crazy. I see people everywhere going out to eat SO MUCH, spending money on their credit cards like there is no tomorrow, and living well beyond their means. Some complain and suggest they 'had' to so they could get by. It's sad, so many people live this way. Then we the taxpayer bail them out (bankruptcy), etc. Look what happened in the housing market. People were maxing out and getting much more than they could afford and now they want to blame the greedy lenders. Really? Were is their responsibility?
The government has safety nets in place and too many people see them as hammocks.
From your link above it describes them using the graphs based on the Gini coefficient (index). Look what a little research describes about such:
There are some issues in interpreting a Gini coefficient. The same value may result from many different distribution curves. The demographic structure should be taken into account. Countries with an aging population, or with a baby boom, experience an increasing pre-tax Gini coefficient even if real income distribution for working adults remains constant. Scholars have devised over a dozen variants of the Gini coefficient
FROM THE ARTICLE I gave you link to:
Most studies do not take into account changes in the composition of households over the past 25 years. We have more two-earner households at the top, and more one-person households at the bottom. DECLINE OF THE FAMILY UNIT
Some the increase in measured inequality since the 1970s is due to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered top individual income-tax rates from 50% to 28%, below the 35% corporate tax rate. After 1987, it appeared that incomes rose, but some of this was small businesses filing taxes as individuals rather than as corporations.
Quintiles differ in the number of people per household and the number of earners per household, so comparisons of quintiles are misleading. Table 1 shows that in 2012, households in the lowest fifth had an average of 1.7 people, and in half these households there were no earners. The highest fifth had 3.1 persons per household, with two earners.
One reason for income inequality is the differing number of earners per household in upper and lower quintiles as women moved into the workforce in record numbers in the 1980s. If there were more one-earner households, the distribution of income would be far more even.
Another change is the shrinkage in household size at the bottom of the income scale, adding to a false perception of increased inequality. This is due to the increased longevity of today’s seniors and to the higher numbers of divorced people and single- parent households.
Figure 1 shows the increase in the percentage of one-person households between 1960 and 2012. In 1960, 13% of households had just one person. By 2011, 27% of households, more than double the previous share, had one person.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
MCDUFF
enthusiast
Posts: 316
Reg: 08-21-03
|
12-06-13 02:28 PM - Post#164820
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
There is no question some of us need help at some point in our lives but that shouldn't be legislation or regulation. The nonsense of taking from those who achieve and give it to all underachievers, regardless the root cause is pathologically destructive. A new chant could then be, "What is the highest level of mediocrity we can achieve and laughingly get away with it". We are watching the mediocre become more so and the productive having incentive being stolen from them.
|
MCDUFF
enthusiast
Posts: 316
Reg: 08-21-03
|
12-06-13 02:30 PM - Post#164821
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Jimi,
Could your last sentence read "an increase in Federal Minimum Work?"
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
12-06-13 02:40 PM - Post#164822
In response to Allensince1993
It is going deeper - but let's go with it. I want to better understand your point of view.
We live in a consumer based economy that relies on these same folks that you describe to be out there spending - regardless of whether they should or shouldn't be. The massively effective marketing industry in this country sells the masses a better lifestyle. It's a friggin science these days to get people to spend money they don't have. If they stopped and and huge portion of the public rolled back their spending habits and suddenly became financially "responsible", and began living well within their means - what do you think would happen to the economy? I'm really not sure - but I can take a guess.
We've had the conversation relative to the housing market: it's the same deal. Sure - folks should not have made decisions that got them in hot water. Nonetheless, there was/is a whole industry (it rages on as we speak) that sells people on the idea that they CAN afford it. It *markets* this idea to these folks. Think Rodney Anderson and the many radio programs that are admittedly a bit more conservative these days - but for years they sold loans in massive quantities and were as much to blame as anyone. I have told you before that my wife is a senior mortgage underwriter and I watched this very closely from about 2002 on. I could see the irresponsibility on that end - and it was over the top. Still is in my view - my wife and I agree that it is a good thing that it is more difficult to get a loan these days.
In any event, if you are going to deny or ignore certain realities relative to rising income inequality in the united states then we probably don't have much more to discuss. If a particular graph or set of statistics doesn't do it for you - just google "rising income inequality in the united states".
There is a wealth of information there - and if it's all nonsense James... well then nothing means anything anymore and I can't even rely that you are who you say you are.
Anyway, peace dude. We're just talkin here. ; - )
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
12-06-13 02:43 PM - Post#164824
In response to MCDUFF
There is no question some of us need help at some point in our lives but that shouldn't be legislation or regulation. The nonsense of taking from those who achieve and give it to all underachievers, regardless the root cause is pathologically destructive. A new chant could then be, "What is the highest level of mediocrity we can achieve and laughingly get away with it". We are watching the mediocre become more so and the productive having incentive being stolen from them.
The good news for you is that we are on the present course of increasing income inequality in this country and it doesn't seem to me that anything will change much going forward. So don't worry. I'm just expressing an opinion - not setting policy.
; - )
|
SB
enthusiast
Posts: 1551
Reg: 09-07-03
|
12-06-13 03:37 PM - Post#164827
In response to MCDUFF
Isn't this take it away from me because I have it and give it to you because you deserve it for doing nothing?
Reich and other economists believe it doesn't take from you. They describe it as NOT being a zero sum game. More per hour for Mr Fast-Food Worker would inject more money back into the economy, stimulating it, and making opportunity for everyone to get more. The pie grows more than the larger piece for the low wage earners so we can all have a little more.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-06-13 08:38 PM - Post#164846
In response to SB
Addressed this topic on cable tonight.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2902819339001/
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 5636
Loc: Allen Resident for 26 yea...
Reg: 05-30-08
|
12-09-13 09:22 PM - Post#164976
In response to Allensince1993
The idea that everyone could just go out and get an education and their wage would magically increase is really nonsense. At some point everyone would have an identical level of education and it would be worthless.
The real issue is that wages are not 100% market driven, if there is no one to bargain for higher wages then corporations set the wage.
Today we have the highest separation in average wages vs corporate leader wages in US History.
The lower 50% of wage earners went from 18% of all income earned in America in 1981 to just 13% in 2007, the peak of the housing boom.
In the same time frame the middle class share of all salaries paid in the US has decreased from around 26% to 21%
However, the top 5% have increase their percentage of the nations salary from 26% to 36% in the same time frame.
This is due largely to the fact that stock holders have learned to see labor as an unwanted expense, while the "greed is good" corporate leaders have convinced the stock holders that their salary is important, even when the company fails to meet it goals as many Wall Street firms did in 2008 yet handed out hefty bonuses.
There are a certain amount of market forces on the cost of labor, but as labor unions are at an all time low and since 1985 we began to consider 5% unemployment "full employment" take home for employees has decreased.
Of course any hick up in the market and the reductions are alway made at the bottom in wages and employees.
As 1996 and 1997 show when minimum wage is increased, it is not always followed by an increase in unemployment, or an increase in costs, as unemployment dropped steadily to 3.8%.
Henry Ford helped to create the middle class by offering twice the going rate to his employees. If more businesses understood that it take people to make big picture decision and it takes people to get their hand dirty for the company to be successful we might not need a minimum wage.
As John Mackey, the President of Whole Foods says, in his book Conscious Capitalism, the CEO should never make more than 19% of the average salary of the company.
Yet the average for US corporate leaders is at 200% today over the company average, with many CEO's at 400%.
The more the companies share the salary pie with their employees the less we need a minimum wage and the stronger the economy is for everyone.
| No matter how big and tough you think you are, when a toddler hands you their ringing toy phone... you answer it. |
Edited by carygold on 12-09-13 09:23 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
SB
enthusiast
Posts: 1551
Reg: 09-07-03
|
12-09-13 10:09 PM - Post#164977
In response to carygold
As John Mackey, the President of Whole Foods says, in his book Conscious Capitalism, the CEO should never make more than 19% of the average salary of the company.
Yet the average for US corporate leaders is at 200% today over the company average, with many CEO's at 400%.
Think it should be 19x, 200x, and 400x rather than %
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-09-13 10:50 PM - Post#164979
In response to carygold
The idea that everyone could just go out and get an education and their wage would magically increase is really nonsense. At some point everyone would have an identical level of education and it would be worthless.
The real issue is that wages are not 100% market driven, if there is no one to bargain for higher wages then corporations set the wage.
Today we have the highest separation in average wages vs corporate leader wages in US History.
The lower 50% of wage earners went from 18% of all income earned in America in 1981 to just 13% in 2007, the peak of the housing boom.
In the same time frame the middle class share of all salaries paid in the US has decreased from around 26% to 21%
However, the top 5% have increase their percentage of the nations salary from 26% to 36% in the same time frame.
This is due largely to the fact that stock holders have learned to see labor as an unwanted expense, while the "greed is good" corporate leaders have convinced the stock holders that their salary is important, even when the company fails to meet it goals as many Wall Street firms did in 2008 yet handed out hefty bonuses.
There are a certain amount of market forces on the cost of labor, but as labor unions are at an all time low and since 1985 we began to consider 5% unemployment "full employment" take home for employees has decreased.
Of course any hick up in the market and the reductions are alway made at the bottom in wages and employees.
As 1996 and 1997 show when minimum wage is increased, it is not always followed by an increase in unemployment, or an increase in costs, as unemployment dropped steadily to 3.8%.
Henry Ford helped to create the middle class by offering twice the going rate to his employees. If more businesses understood that it take people to make big picture decision and it takes people to get their hand dirty for the company to be successful we might not need a minimum wage.
As John Mackey, the President of Whole Foods says, in his book Conscious Capitalism, the CEO should never make more than 19% of the average salary of the company.
Yet the average for US corporate leaders is at 200% today over the company average, with many CEO's at 400%.
The more the companies share the salary pie with their employees the less we need a minimum wage and the stronger the economy is for everyone.
What a curious first statement. You said, “The idea that everyone could just go out and get an education and their wage would magically increase is really nonsense. At some point everyone would have an identical level of education and it would be worthless.”
“Nonsense” you say? Your comment makes no sense and defies any logic. It’s called an ‘entry level’ position for a reason, Cary. The problem is lack of education, skills, or a trade keeps people stuck in the entry level position. You will never get everyone off the entry level rung of the ladder. Have you read the thread? Have you respected the ones who put careful and thoughtful analysis forward? Or are you chiming in with the same old tactics of fluffed leftwing swayed stats, leftwing theories, and dissertation-style tactics of presenting lines of nothing to appear knowledgeable and meaningful?
What logic and sense gives you the idea that the bottom earners could possibly all get into the same identical higher level of education and create an environment whereby education becomes fruitless and bears no worth on the pay?
Cary, some people will never want to advance and you can’t help them. But you can provide more opportunities to people and give them skills, a trade, or an education. Your far leftwing tactics continue to enable the weak, hold them down, and creates the victim mentality. Your theories have not only created families dependent on welfare but generations of families relying on such. Your leftwing tactics have even gone so far as to teach them to remove the victim status and make them feel entitled. You teach entitlement and the mastering of how to play victim.
I can’t discuss the rest of your fluffed statements. Even the second one, “The real issue is that wages are not 100% market driven, if there is no one to bargain for higher wages then corporations set the wage.” My goodness! Of course wages aren’t 100% market driven. The government has too much influence and they created a minimum wage. As long as the government is involved there can never be a 100% driven market. And your statement implies dependency! NO SIR. Stop teaching my fellow Americans they are powerless. They need someone to negotiate for them? WOW! You are so far left and you are killing America with statements like this. Cary, you want to teach people dependency and to keep making them drink the kool-aid. We on the right want to teach them to empower themselves. They can empower themselves by making themselves more valuable to the potential employer. Empower the people and they will get higher wages.
We teach them you have to create self worth and make yourself more valuable. Opportunities open when you have an education. You need to teach them to create value and you will get higher wages, period; end of story.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 5636
Loc: Allen Resident for 26 yea...
Reg: 05-30-08
|
12-10-13 04:02 PM - Post#164999
In response to Allensince1993
Ok, where do we agree.
We agree that people should do everything they can to increase their market value, education, experience etc.
The problem is the wage gap. In the 1950's when this nation was booming, the wage gap was about 19% and the tax burden was mostly on the high incomes.
In the 1970's as computers started replacing Accountants and inventory counters, the wages/productivity for the average American, for the first time in US history started, to flatten out. That means CEO's and other corporate leaders, began laying off workers due to automation and the profits gain from that automation were only shared with those at the top.
productivity and average real earnings
So as the economy changed due to inflation and technology, people had to buy car insurance, computers, and other technology to stay active members of society, the average pay raises did not let them keep up, while industry leaders pay increased from 19% of the Average wage in 1950 to over 200% of the average wage in 2007.
At the same time Big Box stores (Walmart, Home Depot) and franchise retailers (McDonald's, Chilies), began putting Mom&Pop stores out of business. Mom and Pop now have to work for low wage jobs, because they had an High School education.
When I was a kid jobs like McDonald's were for teens only, today more Head of Households work at places like McDonalds than ever before in history.
Our education system is designed to turn out factory workers not entrepreneurs, and foreign workers are taking many of the best jobs here in the US.
The Union membership, which gave us the 40 hour work week, health insurance, vacations, and disability pay has decreased to an all time low, they set the standard, but their power is very localized today.
Of course we also have outsourcing due to Globalization and today 40% of jobs created by the largest US companies go overseas. This increase unemployment which helps to drive down wages.
Today's high unemployment and high rate of people in government safety nets is a symptom of everything I have mentioned above.
Therefore minimum wage is the only stop gap from a complete economic meltdown. If we remove minimum wage with 11 million people out of work, how much do you think a job at McDonalds will pay? $4.00/hour, $2.00
DO you think we will get a cheaper hamburger, or like with automation will the CEO's just put it in their pocket?
And when those wages drop, what about the salaries in the rest of the country for other jobs?
1/2 of the nation has less than $33,000 on their combined 1040 form every year. Remove the minimum wage and that could be $22,000 or less.
Minimum wage is not just to protect those at the bottom, it protects the whole monetary system, from the one thing you can count on, greed. Its what drove the Credit Crisis.
BTW in Australia, the minimum wage is $16.88.
| No matter how big and tough you think you are, when a toddler hands you their ringing toy phone... you answer it. |
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-10-13 05:30 PM - Post#165002
In response to carygold
Ok, where do we agree.
We agree that people should do everything they can to increase their market value, education, experience etc.
The problem is the wage gap. In the 1950's when this nation was booming, the wage gap was about 19% and the tax burden was mostly on the high incomes.
In the 1970's as computers started replacing Accountants and inventory counters, the wages/productivity for the average American, for the first time in US history started, to flatten out. That means CEO's and other corporate leaders, began laying off workers due to automation and the profits gain from that automation were only shared with those at the top.
productivity and average real earnings
So as the economy changed due to inflation and technology, people had to buy car insurance, computers, and other technology to stay active members of society, the average pay raises did not let them keep up, while industry leaders pay increased from 19% of the Average wage in 1950 to over 200% of the average wage in 2007.
At the same time Big Box stores (Walmart, Home Depot) and franchise retailers (McDonald's, Chilies), began putting Mom&Pop stores out of business. Mom and Pop now have to work for low wage jobs, because they had an High School education.
When I was a kid jobs like McDonald's were for teens only, today more Head of Households work at places like McDonalds than ever before in history.
Our education system is designed to turn out factory workers not entrepreneurs, and foreign workers are taking many of the best jobs here in the US.
The Union membership, which gave us the 40 hour work week, health insurance, vacations, and disability pay has decreased to an all time low, they set the standard, but their power is very localized today.
Of course we also have outsourcing due to Globalization and today 40% of jobs created by the largest US companies go overseas. This increase unemployment which helps to drive down wages.
Today's high unemployment and high rate of people in government safety nets is a symptom of everything I have mentioned above.
Therefore minimum wage is the only stop gap from a complete economic meltdown. If we remove minimum wage with 11 million people out of work, how much do you think a job at McDonalds will pay? $4.00/hour, $2.00
DO you think we will get a cheaper hamburger, or like with automation will the CEO's just put it in their pocket?
And when those wages drop, what about the salaries in the rest of the country for other jobs?
1/2 of the nation has less than $33,000 on their combined 1040 form every year. Remove the minimum wage and that could be $22,000 or less.
Minimum wage is not just to protect those at the bottom, it protects the whole monetary system, from the one thing you can count on, greed. Its what drove the Credit Crisis.
BTW in Australia, the minimum wage is $16.88.
You arrived to the party late. I agree a minimum wage is needed but I think the battle should always be waged to keep it in check; lower rather than higher. I don't care what the rate is in Australia.
I agree a minimum wage is needed to keep big box stores from coming into town and kicking every store out and taking advantage of the wages. On the opposite side of that argument you don't want a union owning every job in town either. Welcome to Detroit-gone-bankrupt.
You are giving me bad data. Your data is not taking into account the aging population forcing out the teenager workers. There's a reason why it's an entry level position and a reason why people aren't advancing. Lower savings rate means the older people are staying in the workforce longer. We have double the single household families and double the amount of two-income families. I love the liberation of women but it changed our demographics. The Gini coefficient that is telling me there is income inequality is not taking into consideration the changed demographics.
The ones on the left exaggerate the numbers and the ones on the right want no minimum wage. So both fight and we keep the wage intact but lower rather than where it could be. You want to help the less fortunate that are actually trying to make it but won't get an education? Increase the E.I.T.C. I'm all for it.
Make yourself employable and you get a job. Make yourself valuable and you get a better paying job.
I like you Cary. You fight a good fight. We keep fighting our battles and balance happens, sometimes it sways too far left and sometimes too far right but the battle must always happen in our system.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 5636
Loc: Allen Resident for 26 yea...
Reg: 05-30-08
|
12-17-13 03:46 PM - Post#165104
In response to Allensince1993
I disagree that Detroit went bankrupt because of Unions. Detroit went bankrupt for selling junk. Ross Perot tried to tell them in his short stay on the GM board, if they keep selling junk they would be out of business. GM laughed they were the biggest, no way they were in danger.
I travel quite a bit so I rent lots of different cars, GM is still selling junk, I will no longer rent their cars. I'm pulling for GM, but they don't have clue, even today.
Detroit cannot be blamed on Unions alone. The same people that built cars for GM are now at Honda and Toyota and make quality cars. The problem is GM's wealthy management and design ethics combined with a too big to fail ethic. You don't blame the players you fire the coach!
The fallacy is that the free market is moral, but the housing crash of 2008 is proof of that fallacy. Real estate agents pushing people into bigger houses, mortgage houses using creative sometimes illegal financing, big banks with unsecured default swaps bringing in more money to feed the greed, and buyers buying more than they can afford, because all of the above is telling them its no problem housing prices will alway go up!
Greed was the market force, not some fantasy "free market" morality.
The minimum wage is about that same kind of greed, not about helping people who will not get an education. Business leaders will pay $1 an hour if they can get away with it and at the same time have no problem paying themselves Millions $$$ in bonuses.
No one can be rich on a deserted island. It takes people to be rich, business leaders, accountants, designers, sales people, mid-level supervisors and manual labor. The pay doesn't have to be equal, but right now it is more out of balance than ever in history.
Greed is the morality of the free market salaries today.
The more money average people have to spend the better the economy, but wages have been flat for the average worker for over 30 years, while a small group of people get a growing share of the salary dollar. Our current bad economy is due, in part, to the failure to pay the average worker a better salary.
When a few people have all the money, there is no economy.
I don't support minimum wages to help one group of people, I support minimum wage because its good for the economy as a whole.
| No matter how big and tough you think you are, when a toddler hands you their ringing toy phone... you answer it. |
Edited by carygold on 12-17-13 03:48 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
phantomcobra
enthusiast
Posts: 1437
Loc: Between Canada and Mexico...
Reg: 06-18-02
|
12-18-13 03:35 PM - Post#165120
In response to carygold
I side with those looking for an increase in the minimum wage. However, not the $16 that was on the signs in the demonstrations. To give everyone at the bottom $16/hr would mean giving everyone up the line a large increase as well. Washington DC has a higher minimum (they call it a living wage) but that also reflects the high cost of living in D.C.
Actually I'm surprised the higher ups don't do the $16/hr jump because it would then give them another opportunity to give themselves an addition 400% because "well we can't have the line workers earning more than their boss!"
However at $7.25/hr, a single person working full time (most minimum wage earners are NOT working full time AND do not get benefits) brings home about $235 per week or $12,220 per year. If they only work 20 hours as many do, they are bringing home closer to $6,000/yr. Can ANYONE on here live on that? Remember, these are the folks who ARE fishing but just can't catch anything. The writers on here seem to assume if you can fish, you will always catch all you need.
As for get a better education and work for a better position, as noted by some, that is not always possible for many. Not everyone gets a grant. Not everyone can qualify for a loan. And some don't get the opportunity even if they had the money. Lets look at an example. I started college at a University. Near the end of the year, I got a draft notice so I had to leave school. After the military, I attempted to go back to school. My company moved me to another state. So I dropped from that school and entered another. My company moved me again a year later. Then life did not permit the school because like those who do WORK for a living but don't get much, I worked 7 days a week without a day off for several years. When I finally had time to go back to school, I was over 60 and can't find a job at all (there IS age discrimination) so I don't have the money to go to school. If this all happened to me, you can bet there are thousands of others in the same boat. So if there is no minimum wage that is at least close to livable, what choice do we have but to let YOUR taxes take care of us?
And CaryGold, I drive a 10 year old Chevy and have had NO trouble with it. I traded an Asian model for it because the Chevy was a better car.
| Retired and living in another state by a big lake. |
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
03-04-14 11:22 AM - Post#166606
In response to phantomcobra
A lot of people on the 'left' admire Warren Buffet because of how he aligns with a lot of their views.
He is a respected businessman and understands that government needs a role in the marketplace. However he agrees that raising the minimum wage would hurt the economy.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/03/news/econo my/buffe...
I think he's spot-on.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
03-04-14 01:42 PM - Post#166610
In response to Allensince1993
A lot of people on the 'left' admire Warren Buffet because of how he aligns with a lot of their views.
He is a respected businessman and understands that government needs a role in the marketplace.
I think there may be a connection there. 
Did you actually read that article? It's a valid question. In your post about that article and Buffet's views you didn't mention that right near the top of that it says:
However, he added, he wouldn't argue with President Obama's proposal for a more modest increase, to $10.10 an hour from $7.25 an hour currently.
Then he said:
He argues for raising the Earned Income Tax Credit, which gives tax money back to those earning below a certain income level.
Does this not roughly contribute/add to those freeloaders "who pay little-to-no tax at all"?
Weird... how you left those pertinent parts out.
9 Reasons Why Raising the Minimum Wage Is a Terrible Idea
Edited by Jimi Ray Clapton on 03-04-14 02:49 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
03-04-14 02:57 PM - Post#166613
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
A lot of people on the 'left' admire Warren Buffet because of how he aligns with a lot of their views.
He is a respected businessman and understands that government needs a role in the marketplace.
I think there may be a connection there.
Did you actually read that article? It's a valid question. In your post about that article and Buffet's views you didn't mention that right near the top of that it says:
However, he added, he wouldn't argue with President Obama's proposal for a more modest increase, to $10.10 an hour from $7.25 an hour currently.
Then he said:
He argues for raising the Earned Income Tax Credit, which gives tax money back to those earning below a certain income level.
Does this not roughly contribute/add to those freeloaders "who pay little-to-no tax at all"?
Weird... how you left those pertinent parts out.
9 Reasons Why Raising the Minimum Wage Is a Terrible Idea
Maybe you missed my earlier postings about EITC and that we could raise those credits? I believe I was the only one discussing the minimum wage that 'deep' or thoroughly. This article from Buffet hits it spot-on.
Maybe you missed the earlier postings where I concede that government is necessary in our marketplace (regulation, etc.).
There is no magic bullet but the extreme right or extreme left won't get the job done. I align myself to the middle with a lean to the right. Buffet is a middle with a lean ever so slightly to the left.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
03-04-14 03:09 PM - Post#166614
In response to Allensince1993
Ah, yes. Thanks. ; - )
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
03-04-14 03:36 PM - Post#166615
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
It's a little hard to buy that there may actually be some progress on this issue, given the lackluster performance of this bunch for quite some time. But one can hope, assuming that this is actually a good thing (I certainly don't know enough to make that determination).
Obama to Republicans: You're Right, Let's Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit
President Obama to propose expanding Earned Income Tax Credit in budget plan
|
Allenite
enthusiast
Posts: 326
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 06-18-01
|
03-05-14 10:13 AM - Post#166625
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
I've read everyone's thoughtful opinions, and I realize I'm very late to the thread.
I have a cynical view of the minimum wage issue: I don't buy the notion that leading Democrats care about the "working poor" and want to raise their wages for the sole benefit of the poor. Raising the minimum wage increases the amount of tax money that the Federal Government receives. Period. It's all about getting more tax dollars to spend. And the added benefit of this is that the Democrats get to persuade the poor that they need to keep voting Democrat so that they will be "cared about".
My second cynical view is of the "income gap" issue: I think those who are concerned about this need to just decide exactly how much they will allow us to earn. Put a number out there. Own it. The demonization of high income billionaires is getting ridiculous. The ability of the left to even make this an "issue" stems from what has been taught in public schools for the last 20-ish years. My kids constantly argued with me over "fairness". It wasn't "fair" that Johnny got to do something, or buy something, etc. The schools reinforce this notion that all things should be "fair". We now hear it daily from our President.
Life is not fair. Some people get childhood cancer and die. Some people grow up on a farm, while others are raised in a high-rise. Where will the "fairness police" stop? Liberals need to quit trying to be God, and accept that there are things that they cannot control. i.e. Climate, physical beauty, inner strength, physical strength, thoughts, the drive to succeed, etc, etc, etc.
|
PartyOfEight
enthusiast
Posts: 303
Reg: 12-09-07
|
03-05-14 10:48 AM - Post#166626
In response to Allenite
I really do not mind anyone being rich. It's when they buy and corrupt our democracy that I become concerned. This country's greatest period was when the richest contributed more since they are the least impacted. Greater purchasing power of the masses inevitably means more riches for the uber-rich. I think the extremely rich could ultimately view it as an investment. The super rich are not recirculating the the purchasing power even close to that of the middle class. This is an element of the wealth divide that can be controlled and ultimately betters us all. We can have this conversation about demonizing the rich when we can stop allowing them unbridled access to our collective treasures. The subsidies going out to the richest corporations in America could fund an education system that could put this country back on top again. As the divide in wealth further widens, so does our status in the world regarding health care, education, infrastructure, etc. The status of our country has continuously fallen in all these areas as the richest 1% continue to siphon off our wealth. I've spent a great deal of time in the 3rd world where the divide between the rich and poor is similar to ours and I fear we could soon experience much of the disparity I've seen in the Middle East and India. I truly hate to imagine a real social breakdown in this nation. One serious disruption in this economy could create vigilantism and lawlessness unseen in the rest of the world. There are enough weapons alone circulating in America to slaughter the majority of us. Social and wealth gaps that continue to grow based on the arbitrary value of a man's work by the super rich will eventually lead to our destruction. Civilized society which is holding on by only a thread can and will only survive when all men, women and children in this country know they possess value to our collective society. Capitalism took down Communism and it's taking major bites out of our Democracy in its current form. Oh, and the idea the rich work harder or have more ambition than the rest of society is complete BS. It's power and connections that keep the super rich super rich.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
Edward Abbey |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
03-05-14 11:06 AM - Post#166627
In response to PartyOfEight
Well said, POE. Very well said.
|
Allenite
enthusiast
Posts: 326
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 06-18-01
|
03-05-14 12:00 PM - Post#166628
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
PartofEight: Your comments are a good example of the points I try to make regarding liberal arguments: vague, unprovable, and emotion based with very little facts/data.
But, thanks for the reply. I enjoy the political battles.
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3859
Reg: 09-25-09
|
03-05-14 12:35 PM - Post#166629
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Jimi. I read Buffets comments a little differently. It sounded like he said he wouldn't argue with a more modest increase to the minimum wage, but felt that changing the earned income credit would be a better solution. It did not seem like he was suggesting both.
My take away was that buffet would be more inclined to support keeping the minimum wage where it is, but offsetting income with a different credit structure. However, if Obama were to want to do a modest increase instead, he wouldn't argue with it. Obama has not suggested the credit idea at all.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
03-05-14 01:19 PM - Post#166631
In response to mgrayar
Jimi. I read Buffets comments a little differently. It sounded like he said he wouldn't argue with a more modest increase to the minimum wage, but felt that changing the earned income credit would be a better solution. It did not seem like he was suggesting both.
My take away was that buffet would be more inclined to support keeping the minimum wage where it is, but offsetting income with a different credit structure. However, if Obama were to want to do a modest increase instead, he wouldn't argue with it. Obama has not suggested the credit idea at all.
Absolutely. I see exactly what you mean and what you're saying. If I gave the impression, I did not mean to let on that I interpreted that any other way.
I increasingly prefer clarity in these discussions and thought that James, in that particular post, was not being as clear about Buffet's views as he could have been. Also, no doubt, that clarity was a click away for those that wanted to go there.
I'll also acknowledge that I am less than clear from time to time. Apparently, this was a good example.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
03-05-14 04:55 PM - Post#166633
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
To me, the minimum wage vs. earned income tax credit debate is all about who's dangling the golden carrot that will buy the most votes.
If it wasn't, they would have addressed it in a non-election year.
But since there is an election this fall, it's pandering time.
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3859
Reg: 09-25-09
|
03-05-14 07:58 PM - Post#166639
In response to pup
To me, the minimum wage vs. earned income tax credit debate is all about who's dangling the golden carrot that will buy the most votes.
If it wasn't, they would have addressed it in a non-election year.
But since there is an election this fall, it's pandering time.
This is another good point. I do find the timing of many of these type of policy issues very convenient. Minimum wage wasn't important last year? Year before?
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
PartyOfEight
enthusiast
Posts: 303
Reg: 12-09-07
|
03-07-14 11:49 AM - Post#166697
In response to Allenite
PartofEight: Your comments are a good example of the points I try to make regarding liberal arguments: vague, unprovable, and emotion based with very little facts/data.
But, thanks for the reply. I enjoy the political battles.
I would respectfully submit that the obvious often hides in plain sight. We can all twist numbers to meet our ideological beliefs. 50+ years of living in the US and abroad has given me a perspective that questions the standard, mainstream beliefs we're spoon fed here.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
Edward Abbey |
|
