Liberal tactics

Discussion in 'Politics' started by seekingthetruth, May 17, 2012.

  1. seekingthetruth

    seekingthetruth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did all liberals skip Economics in college?

    If you raise the minimum wage to say $20/hr, do you think that people will be better off and can buy more for their families? NO!!!

    Simple. The law of supply and demand. When people have more spendable income prices go up. When employers pay out more wages the costs are passed to the consumer by raising prices of their goods and services.

    If minimum wage went up to $20/hr then prices would triple and the poverty level would triple and then $20 would not be enough.

    Folks, raising the minimum wage will never stop. The cost of living will keep pace and keep people poor.

    Who it hurts the most are skilled workers that actually make $20/hr now. Every time minimum wage goes up their pay stays the same but the cost of living goes up.

    Minimum wage is a sham used by Democrats to get the votes of poor people. But it still keeps them poor.

    I forgot to mention that every time minimum wage is rasied, the value of the dollar shrinks on the world market, and forces us to borrow even more money to cover the interest on our past borrowing when the dollar was worth more.

    We end up losing in international trade, and increasing the money we have to pay on our debts because our dollar is worth less.

    Minimum wage is bad for everyone, rich and poor alike, and most importantly our nation as a whole

    John
     
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pay for a given skill should be set by the market. The market is what people are willing to pay. It does seem out of wack what professional athletes get paid, but the market sustains their salary. The same goes for doctors, lawyers, CEO's etc. I have never understood why so many get upset at a CEO making a bonus. It is their company, and their money. If I do not like it, I respond by not buying his product or service, not passing a law putting him under a burden of retaliatory regulations.

    The market has set the order of skills and what they get paid. If I want to make more money, I either work two jobs, or improve my skills to make more for the given market. I do not pass a law making a owner of a company pay a certain amount.

    I have no problem with laws that ensure a safe work environment, and the like. I doubt the existing minimum wage laws will ever be repealed under any administration. Now, minimum wage laws are not the only thing that warp the market. How about a custodian that works for NYC government making more than a teacher in Kentucky?

    I think the best environment I have seen for a workplace is the Japanese model. In that environment, management and workers have complete trust in each other, and there is not the constant bickering and fighting that goes on in so many companies. They are union free, the company pays a high wage, management runs the company in an efficient manner, the benefits are good, and productivity and morale are very high. Usually profit is high.
     
  3. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    :thumbsup::thumbsup: Toyota over in Scott County is exactly as you say.
     
  4. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    Wish it were only econ they skipped. The biggest problem is that they skipped any class that remotely related to common sense.
     
  5. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Henry Ford claimed he got rich by paying his workers enough to buy his cars.
    Something like that.

    Should workers be paid enough to buy the products they manufacture?
     
  6. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >How about a custodian that works for NYC government making more than a teacher in Kentucky?

    Because the cost of living in NYC is much higher than in Kentucky. As is the standard of living.
     
  7. The American Dream

    The American Dream
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    16
    Everyone should be paid the highest wage the market will allow, and a reasonable profit for the company creating the jobs.
     
    #7 The American Dream, May 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2012
  8. seekingthetruth

    seekingthetruth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, should the janitor at the Rolex factory be able to afford a Rolex?

    That is socialism, and just plain dumb.

    John
     
  9. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
  10. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    billionaire tells it like it is

    http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-inequality-speech-that-ted-wont-show-you.php




    It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.

    If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

    This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.

    But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.

    In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

    I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

    That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

    So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

    Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

    That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

    Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

    If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

    Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

    I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
    Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?

    Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.

    The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification

    We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.

    So here's an idea worth spreading.

    In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.
     
  11. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    The people I know who sold small businesses last year were very happy the cap gain tax was only 15% (Bush tax cuts). They were smart to sell last year because we never know what Congress is going to do. They weren't wealthy, they were small business owners.

    I don't know what kinds of businesses you have had and how much money you made or your net worth, but if you are wanting to help redistribute the wealth, I'll give you my address and you can drop me a check in the mail. I will be happy to take even the IRS limit on a gift for this year. I can be your little sis! :laugh:

    BTW, bill, that was the longest post I've ever seen you post here. While I don't agree with you, thank you for all the time and effort you put into it. :thumbs:
     
  12. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Thank you for this. My Dad would give you a hug, this is basically what he's been saying for years (and he's a 'yellow dog' democrat). He despises the 'trickle down' theory of economics, and he was raised in depression era Appalacia. You've given me much to think about, thanks again.
     
  13. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    Just wait a minute - who says the rich should NOT pay taxes? The problem is EXCESSIVE taxes!

    A successful business wants to hire more people - if the income allows. Remember it takes money to make money - and when an employer invests in new workers - hopefully he will see a great return - but on the other hand - he may loose a lot as well!

    Most of the exemptions go to the bottom 40% of workers - as they pay NO federal income tax!


    Back in 1960 a candy bar cost 5 cents - when the cost went up to 10 cents - we saw a 100% increase. A few years later the price went a nickle again - but at this point - the increase was only 50%. Today, if the price goes up a nickle - the % is only 2 or 3%.
    Moral of the story - we need a lot more info than just "declined by 50%
    Could it be that business are waiting to see what happens to the tax rate (and or election) before they decide to expand?

    and what is wrong with buying clothes at the Rescue mission - their profits go to pay the employees and to help the poor


    Are you saying the RICH are not consumers?
     
  14. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's obamacare. If obama loses the election, the next morning stocks will soar. And birds will sing. There will be a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. And business will sigh a sigh of relief and make plans to expand, create more jobs, open branches, put Americans to work. There will be real Hope and real Change in America and a brighter tomorrow. (sigh) :applause:
     
  15. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to mention that when minimum wage is raised, the supply of jobs reduces. The cost of labor artificially goes up, causing businesses to make cuts by laying off staff that can no longer work to suit the new wage requirements. Teenagers looking for jobs to pay for college and other poor people find the number of available jobs dwindle because companies cannot afford to hire more.

    The whole idea of a minimum wage is an artificial restriction on the ability of an employer and employee to negotiate freely.

    Central. Economic. Planning. Does. Not. Work... Period.

    Understand, bleeding heart liberals?

    Inflation is an increase in the supply of money, and that happens from the Fed through borrowing and "open market" operations. Raising the minimum wage causes supply shortages, which has effects similar to inflation just like the famine in Egypt during Joseph's time caused "the money [to] fail." Inflation does provide political excuses to raise the minimum wage perpetually.
     
  16. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    They should be paid whatever they and their employer can agree on for mutual benefit. There does not need to be a meddling third party with a gun telling one side of a transaction what to do.
     
  17. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many products on the market require a chain of production that must begin with capital formation. This capital formation begins with investment in capital goods--a scarce resource--and leads down the chain to consumer goods. The time differential between consumer demand and capital formation of capital goods does not allow for the demand-side utopia that socialists imagine.

    Also, most disruptive technologies that lead to higher standards of living for everyone do not come from consumer demand, but rather from the minds of inventors who desire to make new products and services that cut costs and/or increase supplies. One cannot demand what does not exist in reality. Demand does not create supply, it can only indicate the marginal utility of capital goods.

    Ever watch Shark Tank? ;)

    Jobs can only come from those who have saved and invested enough capital to supply the tools.

    Let's say grandma makes the best apple pie you have ever tasted. She decides to sell her pies in a mall. Some shoppers see her store and try her pies and agree that they are the best they have ever tasted. They become loyal customers and tell their friends and family about these tasty pies.

    Did demand for grandma's pies create supply? No. The demand did not exist before the supply. There was no demand for grandma's pies until she supplied them as an entrepreneur. The increased demand can increase the profit motive leading to shifting resources into further capital formation, but demand itself does not create supply. If a drought causes a bad apple season, all the demand in the world cannot create grandma's pies. The demand is dependent on the supply.

    I can demand a yacht for $10,000 as loudly as I can muster and I can get my friends to do so as well. All the demand in the world will not get me what I want if the supply of the capital, capital goods, labor, and incentive does not match the demand.

    Maybe the problem is that we are overburdening businesses in regulations and tax loopholes. The ones that profit the most from all this red tape garbage are lawyers. No wonder so many companies are moving overseas to countries that are embracing free enterprise more so that the U.S.

    You cannot tax and regulate an economy into prosperity. Your view about the state of business in America is complete fiction.

    Most rich people do not have "things" proportional to their total wealth the same way poor people do. If some rich people spent their money on things the way many poor do, they would be poor as well. Rich people desire security over "stuff." They want to save for a rainy day, and from this savings amass capital for risk-taking investments to attempt to increase their wealth by meeting more needs of others.

    Perhaps because the marginal utility of such vehicles for personal use is negative. The only reason you would own 3,000 cars is if you ran a fleet for some venture. Your stereotype of rich people is flawed.

    Because most wealthy people want to be smarter with their capital. The reason many people are poor (who don't have to be) is that they think they are entitled to a lifestyle beyond their means that does not lend itself to what a rich person does anyway.

    Maybe the problem is too much consumption in a bubble economy that is not conducive to actual wealth. People throw away perfectly good smart phones to pay $600 for today's model, and then complain that they are poor. Instead of saving, people buy things they don't need with credit, then get up to their eyeballs in debt, and complain that their problem is that they are not rich like the Wall Street fat cats. The problem with many people is that their priorities are out of whack.

    Sure, the engine of an economy requires both producers and consumers. The most efficient means of growth, then, is to let these two parties reach a mutual agreement for their benefit without a coercive third party getting their grubby mitts in the way.

    How about a simple flat or consumption tax system that doesn't discriminate?

    Those who need and pay for the work "create" the jobs. If there were not an offer of a job, there would be no job.

    So, let's consume our way to prosperity. Let's take Paul Krugman's advice and amass a massing defense portfolio against a false threat of an alien invasion only to find out there is no threat. Look at all the jobs that created. Look at all the scarce capital goods that were diverted from otherwise productive use into nonproductive use. While we are at it, let's entice more consumers to buy new houses, new cars, big TVs, and better smart phones that they don't need and get into more debt. That way, when the bills come due, the lenders can fail and whine for bailouts. Then, we can tax the successful savers and producers to bail them out.

    We would be so much better off.
     
  18. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Where does government get the authority to set wages? They take it!
     
  19. seekingthetruth

    seekingthetruth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Three questions for Bill

    1. What percentage of people in Appalachia actually pay any federal income tax?

    2. Has a poor person ever given you a job with benefits?

    3. You keep referring to your father and his experiences with working. Exactly what years did he work from and to? And do you think his experiences are relevant to today's economy?

    The very people you want to raise taxes on are the ONLY ones paying income taxes. 47% of Americans dont pay any taxes. IMHO, the EIC needs to be done away with, and everybody needs to pay a set percentage of their wages to fund government.

    Basically, if the poor paid their fair share, instead of nothing, then the deficit problem would go away.

    How can you say that the rich don't pay their fair share when they are the only ones paying?

    John
     
  20. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    Indirectly - lots of government welfare workers,...

    :thumbs: :thumbs: on both points

    I don't quite agree with that. What will make the defect go away is stop most of the spending.

    I am a strong supporter of the military- but there is a lot of excessive waste.
    For example - a GI is stationed at Ft Drum, NY. He gets orders to Korea for a one year (un-accompanied) tour. He is given an advance assignment that will take him back to Ft Drum. But the government will ship his wife and 4 kids as well as all his furniture back to Nevada. Upon his return to the States - then govt ships them all back to Ft Drum. (think of the cost of that- just mileage alone- .50 at 2500 miles = over $1,000.) I see that as a total waste. (this was the policy when I ETS - if it has change please correct me) There are more examples of EXCESSIVE waste - that should be addressed. But to simply cut the defense budget without specifics is absolutely wrong.
    Many of the Feds departments should be reduced or even eliminated.
     

Share This Page

Loading...