U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-25-2014, 08:12 PM
 
3,764 posts, read 3,499,348 times
Reputation: 8933

Advertisements

Raising the minimum wage to $20 in all 50 states doesn't make sense. Why should it be the same in Manhattan as it is in Phoenix or Knoxville or Tulsa?

A condo in Manhattan (forget about a house) starts at $700,000 or $800,000. An apartment is $3000 or $4000.

A house in Phoenix is $100K. You need a lot less money to live there than on the coasts.

I think minimum wage, if it should even exist, which can be debated, should be a local issue, not a federal one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-25-2014, 09:03 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,284,110 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
One thing we could do to reduce inequality is stop having people send so much of their income to Washington DC, which is already the wealthiest region in the nation:

DC metro area is super-rich: 7 of the 10 ten counties are in the DC suburbs.
People don't send their income to Washington.

All federal spending is done by issuing currency. The federal government issues an order to the bank to credit the account of the party in question. Poof!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
Yes your pay is based in your market value which is supplying demand. So for those of you on the left good luck with bringing more immigrants to this country at all skill levels.
Immigrants are YOUR scapegoat.

Immigration is not the problem in our economy. Our birthrates are below replacement levels. Immigration is actually required at this point for a healthy future economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by armory View Post
This post leaves me speechless and not for it's merit - for the opposite.

What you suggest is an authoritarian takeover of the country - fascism/socialism/communism - to suit your whimsical cure all.
Did you note usage of the words 'authoritarian' and 'fascism/socialism/communism'?
Is that what you truly propose? It is what you suggest.

Your apparent lack of understanding of economic principles backed by a progressive liberal agenda makes discussion of this useless. Education is your only option and it cannot be gleaned in this thread.
Where on earth is there any suggestion for socialism or communism? Do you even know what they mean?

Where did I suggest nationalizing the entire economy? Can you please point that out for me?!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
No it isn't. I like income and wealth inequality. It gave me incentive to perform extraordinarily, so I did. And I accumulated enough wealth to semi-retire in my mid 40s, and fully retire by my late 40s.

It is a very good thing.
You like healthy levels of income and wealth inequality. You wouldn't enjoy making $10 if your boss made $10 billion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
Raising the minimum wage to $20 in all 50 states doesn't make sense. Why should it be the same in Manhattan as it is in Phoenix or Knoxville or Tulsa?

A condo in Manhattan (forget about a house) starts at $700,000 or $800,000. An apartment is $3000 or $4000.

A house in Phoenix is $100K. You need a lot less money to live there than on the coasts.

I think minimum wage, if it should even exist, which can be debated, should be a local issue, not a federal one.
No, minimum wage is a standard of living wage floor. Localities can raise minimum wage above the Federal level, but that wage floor must exist. If there was no Federal minimum wage, we would have a race to the bottom scenario. Companies would move to states with no minimum wage so they could pay their workers as little as possible. There are always unemployed people willing to accept the lowest possible wage, because $1 / hour is still better than nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2014, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,351 posts, read 7,498,921 times
Reputation: 15950
The issue is one of perception rather than empirical fact; in terms of absolute benefit, a person of average means lives a much better life today than sixty years ago. simply because of better technology delivered at lower cost, Case in point: In 1955, a black-and-white TV set cost about $400; today, you can get a color portable for a fraction of that--even before factoring in inflation. And that also doesn't factor in cable. or related peripherals like wireless phones, games, or the Internet.

And remember as well that most of the "new" wealth created via entrepreneurship eventually ends up in the control of the non-profit sector via endowments, philanthropies, etc.

And that we obviously can't create society in which everyone is a credentialed professional able to hire someone else to do their unwanted tasks for them; the degree is nothing more that a ticket to the rat race. where the rule is "up or out", and the employer isn't so much interested in your ability -- as your availability

$100.000 for a house?? -- I can show you communities here in eastern Pennsylvania where habitable housing (admittedly in row houses and the like in older neighborhoods) is going for $30-$40.000. Not much to look at, but they can be improved while being remodeled. The biggest deterrent?? The double-digit annual increase in property taxes.

Most of the carping and caterwauling in threads like this one comes from people who expected a continuation of the prosperity of the Fifties and Sixties, when there was no global competition (which, in turn, can't be shut out without setting us back on a path to mercantilism and war). You can "climb the ladder" but it requires investing a much larger portion of your irreplaceable "best years", and you may one day find the destination wasn't worth the journey -- because you din't know what you really wanted..

Each of us has to figure out what's best for him/herself. while simultaneously wrestling with the issue of finding suitable partners and the desire for a legacy, It's in your hands, but it's not likely to turn out as you might expect. Just don't waste your time (or anybody else's) looking for somebody to blame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2014, 09:42 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,844,525 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
People don't send their income to Washington.

All federal spending is done by issuing currency. The federal government issues an order to the bank to credit the account of the party in question. Poof!



Immigrants are YOUR scapegoat.

Immigration is not the problem in our economy. Our birthrates are below replacement levels. Immigration is actually required at this point for a healthy future economy.



Where on earth is there any suggestion for socialism or communism? Do you even know what they mean?

Where did I suggest nationalizing the entire economy? Can you please point that out for me?!?!



You like healthy levels of income and wealth inequality. You wouldn't enjoy making $10 if your boss made $10 billion.



No, minimum wage is a standard of living wage floor. Localities can raise minimum wage above the Federal level, but that wage floor must exist. If there was no Federal minimum wage, we would have a race to the bottom scenario. Companies would move to states with no minimum wage so they could pay their workers as little as possible. There are always unemployed people willing to accept the lowest possible wage, because $1 / hour is still better than nothing.
I never said immigrants are the problem. They are indeed good for our economy. What I said was good luck with wanting higher wages since we do have a lot of workers as a result. We want immigration partly because we want abundant labor. Theh also pay tax and raise children for this society. I have no problem with immigration because I have no problem with its effects.

You say you want a higher birth rate, fair enough. We want more people. Then you complain that each worker gets less. More workers mean more competition and lower value for the average worker. Same thing with college degrees. The proliferation of college degrees in America has greatly reduced the value of the average degree.

Last edited by Costaexpress; 12-25-2014 at 09:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2014, 10:10 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,844,525 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
No it isn't. I like income and wealth inequality. It gave me incentive to perform extraordinarily, so I did. And I accumulated enough wealth to semi-retire in my mid 40s, and fully retire by my late 40s.

It is a very good thing.
To some degree capitalism inherently has the effects of gaps in income and wealth. Such gaps are not necessarily a bad thing.

What social democracy does is forced charity. It doesn't reward people by merit, effort, or honesty. It makes those who are better off fr whatever reason to subsidize those who are worse off either by choice or other conditions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2014, 10:26 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,034,672 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
Raising the minimum wage to $20 in all 50 states doesn't make sense. Why should it be the same in Manhattan as it is in Phoenix or Knoxville or Tulsa?

A condo in Manhattan (forget about a house) starts at $700,000 or $800,000. An apartment is $3000 or $4000.

A house in Phoenix is $100K. You need a lot less money to live there than on the coasts.

I think minimum wage, if it should even exist, which can be debated, should be a local issue, not a federal one.

In that case there would be nothing to stop middle class locals from using the minimum wage to drive out poor adults and to ensure full employment for middle class teens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2014, 01:06 AM
 
3,764 posts, read 3,499,348 times
Reputation: 8933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
No, minimum wage is a standard of living wage floor. Localities can raise minimum wage above the Federal level, but that wage floor must exist. If there was no Federal minimum wage, we would have a race to the bottom scenario. Companies would move to states with no minimum wage so they could pay their workers as little as possible. There are always unemployed people willing to accept the lowest possible wage, because $1 / hour is still better than nothing.
So what? That's what a free market is. If you get rid of minimum wage entirely, average wages would drop, but so would prices.

Just saying a wage floor must exist doesn't make it so. This is the problem with socialism; its advocates don't quite understand the real world. They see some inequality and decide to rob Peter to pay Paul, inadvertently destroying the basis of economic prosperity.

Do-gooders need to learn to help the world by opening their own wallets and stop being generous with other people's money. They've already caused great damage to our national wealth. Tax-and-spend liberalism is completely discredited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2014, 01:23 AM
 
Location: too far from the sea
19,821 posts, read 18,826,487 times
Reputation: 33709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
To some degree capitalism inherently has the effects of gaps in income and wealth. Such gaps are not necessarily a bad thing.

What social democracy does is forced charity. It doesn't reward people by merit, effort, or honesty. It makes those who are better off fr whatever reason to subsidize those who are worse off either by choice or other conditions.
To an extent. But very few are worse off by choice. Not too many (or any) people choose to be poor. People are poor due to bad health and not being healthy enough to work, incurring high medical bills, not having had opportunities to get a foothold in a decent employment situation, growing up in a bad neighborhood with no positive role models. I don't think they should have money just handed to them but they should have food to eat and clothes on their backs, decent housing. On top of that someone needs to get to the root of the problem--whatever it is. We never do seem to get to the root of the problem, we just throw money at it.

All people need the basics. But beyond that why can't anyone ever figure out a way to really help people to climb out of poverty? If all they see is poverty and hopelessness, they're not going to learn their way out.
__________________
my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2014, 03:05 AM
eok
 
6,684 posts, read 3,167,316 times
Reputation: 8459
The government could pay poor people to stay away from drugs, booze, smoking, unhealthy food, etc. If someone could invent a very cheap drug test that millions of people could take weekly or monthly that would detect all drug and booze usage, and all unhealthy food consumption, and all smoking.

And/or the government could pay poor people to further their education. When you pass a test to advance your level, you get paid for that advancement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2014, 06:31 AM
 
3,022 posts, read 2,014,166 times
Reputation: 5931
'Wealth inequality.'

Just a stupid new name for communism....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top