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.
Without those "investors", you would not have near as many jobs because there would not be near as many companies to employ those workers.
Which is why we need more investors, not fewer investors.
When wages stagnate, you get fewer investors, because more and more of it concentrates in fewer hands. When the vast majority of our economic capital is hoarded by a handful of people, jobs aren't created. Which is where we stand today...
Which is why we need more investors, not fewer investors.
When wages stagnate, you get fewer investors, because more and more of it concentrates in fewer hands. When the vast majority of our economic capital is hoarded by a handful of people, jobs aren't created. Which is where we stand today...
economic capital hoarded by a few? Obviously you are referring to the "political class" who are still trying to raise taxes to get more.
gwynedd, are you for increasing the minimum wage?
No.
Why?
Because it does not reflect market values
Did you hear about housing?
No, I have been in a coma for 100 years. What happened?
They created laws encouraging debt financing.
??
Then they created federal agencies to buy the securities.
But, I...
Then they required nothing down.
That's....
Then they gave 110%, 40 year jumbo loans.
*#&##?????
Then they gave housing tax credits...
Don't they realize...
Then they began to create things called liar loans..
Did they make a minimum housing price law?
No, well, not really...They lowered interest rates artificialy.
<gwynedd stands bug eyed> ...
Then they bailed out the banks...
For what?
To allow banks to conform to bank accounting rules and continue to operate.
For doing what?
Creating shadow inventory to keep housing off the market to increase values while loaning the money back to us at 3%.
<gwynedd stands bug eyed and seems to be unresponsive> ..
gwynedd! Are you OK? Are you in a coma again?
No, I just can't believe they created minimum housing cost laws and that people have a problem with minimum wage.
gwynedd1, lol, democrats are hurting the poor whether you want to use your knogin or not. Does everything have to be straight lined for you to understand it?
gwynedd, are you for increasing the minimum wage?
No.
Why?
Because it does not reflect market values
Did you hear about housing?
No, I have been in a coma for 100 years. What happened?
They created laws encouraging debt financing.
??
Then they created federal agencies to buy the securities.
But, I...
Then they required nothing down.
That's....
Then they gave 110%, 40 year jumbo loans.
*#&##?????
Then they gave housing tax credits...
Don't they realize...
Then they began to create things called liar loans..
Did they make a minimum housing price law?
No, well, not really...They lowered interest rates artificialy.
<gwynedd stands bug eyed> ...
Then they bailed out the banks...
For what?
To allow banks to conform to bank accounting rules and continue to operate.
For doing what?
Creating shadow inventory to keep housing off the market to increase values while loaning the money back to us at 3%.
<gwynedd stands bug eyed and seems to be unresponsive> ..
gwynedd! Are you OK? Are you in a coma again?
No, I just can't believe they created minimum housing cost laws and that people have a problem with minimum wage.
Which is why we need more investors, not fewer investors.
When wages stagnate, you get fewer investors, because more and more of it concentrates in fewer hands. When the vast majority of our economic capital is hoarded by a handful of people, jobs aren't created. Which is where we stand today...
It is so simple really.
When people make money just because they already have money, what incentive do they have to create jobs?
I'd say, very little.
It does say what the highest 1% of wage earners make. I could probably find a metric that illustrates the point even more severely, but this is what was handy.
No, it doesn't show that.
You might want to go take a look at the graph again, to be sure you are reading it correctly. In fact, I'll post the text that's underneath it (I followed the link) so you can see it without going back; "Here, according to David Cooper, is what the federal minimum wage in the United States ($7.25) would have been under three different scenarios:
if the minimum wage had kept pace with average wages ($10.46)
if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity ($18.75)
if the minimum wage had gone up at the same rate as incomes for the top 1 percent ($28.34)"
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Absolutely, changes in technology have made them far more productive, as we've mentioned several times here.
No, the individual minimum wage worker is no more productive by himself than was the minimum wage worker of 1968. The minimum wage worker PLUS THE AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY is more efficient today than it was, and that's mostly because of the TECHNOLOGY, which has to be paid for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
I suppose if you take the view that the economy is supposed to remain the same size, and not expand to incorporate more people, then yeah that's a valid perspective.
Ridiculous.
If the need for minimum wage workers grows slower than the availability of minimum wage earners, then minimum wage has no economic or capitalistic incentive to increase. The fact is, minimum wage earners today do about the same thing they did back in 1968. The simplest, easiest to learn, beginner grunt work. Advancing technology has made that worker LESS necessary, while the population available to perform those jobs has increased.
When people make money just because they already have money, what incentive do they have to create jobs?
I'd say, very little.
Yes, so very simple. Obviously the left thinks people want to work to support them. Not me, why should I take on more responsibility of more employees if the government is going to just take money away from me... Nope, I have no incentive there.
Do we have any government officials who have the will or the balls to do anything about either of these two circumstances?
No
They are all very happy with the status quo, which is why we don't have to worry about either ever happening.
Man, I am working cheap!
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.
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.
