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.
NJ Best, individuals and enterprises choose to purchase, sell or trade because they perceive it’s to their best interests to do so. They’re generally most knowledgeable regarding their own businesses.
Although their best interests may diverge from those of their local communities or their states, they are domestic trade is not of net economic detriment to the nation. The U.S. Constitution, (for good reason) prohibits U.S. states or their localities from discriminating against products imported across their state borders.
USA’s trade deficit is due USA’s international outsourcing exceeding our exports. USA’S annual trade deficits are always immediate detriments to our nation’s GDP; they are particularly detrimental due to their reducing USA’s jobs and aggregate payrolls.
Refer to the discussion threads of
” Trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs”
and “Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage”.
Respectfully, Supposn
International insourcing has the same impact on GDP as international outsourcing. I see how you conveniently threw in the term "international" when I was clearing talking about outsourcing in general and never mentioned anything about exporting work to other countries. It appears this is where we are mis-communicating...
International insourcing has the same impact on GDP as international outsourcing. I see how you conveniently threw in the term "international" when I was clearing talking about outsourcing in general and never mentioned anything about exporting work to other countries. It appears this is where we are mis-communicating...
NJ Best, it ain’t so.
Generally when production relocates within a nation, it’s not detrimental to their GDP.
Domestic production for domestic or export markets are equally beneficial to the nation’s economy. Trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs.
NJ Best, it ain’t so.
Generally when production relocates within a nation, it’s not detrimental to their GDP.
Domestic production for domestic or export markets are equally beneficial to the nation’s economy. Trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs.
Respectfully, Supposn
You don't make any sense. You're saying that outsourcing, alone, affects the GDP but then you're saying the relocating production within the nation does not.
Outsourcing, on its own, has NO impact on the GDP.
Example: Ford uses computers to design their cars. Ford outsources computer support to IBM. Ford is located in Detroit and IBM is located in New York. There is NO detrimental impact on GDP.
How does Ford outsourcing to IBM in this case have a negative impact on GDP?
It's a double edged sword. You can increase the minimum wage, and pay more for goods and services. Or you can keep the minimum wage low, or abolish it, and pay more in taxes for social subsidies.
Third alternative: Do neither, and run the risk of civil unrest and an exponential increase in the crime rate.
Regardless of one's political or economic ideologies, there's no perfect solution.
It could be argued that some of the social subsidies actually fuel poor choices (out of wedlock child bearing, in particular) and hence, future social unrest.
Even folks from the liberal leaning Brookings Institution are pointing out that out of wedlock child bearing creates an underclass:
40% are Republicans who want to see the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.
No, they want to see the poor stop having kids out of wedlock for starters.
A small but growing number in the liberal media are starting to admit how this is one of the single biggest factors that keep people trapped in poverty:
Scholar Kay Hymowitz, author of Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age, turns the argument around and says it's not that harsh economic conditions lead to women having children without fathers, but that the decision to have children without fathers leads to harsh, and self-perpetuating, economic conditions.
This is 100 year old poster. Is it relevant even today???
What the poster misses is that ALL economic systems are pyramids. There is always a small elite who will game the system to their advantage...not just for money, but more importantly, for power.
No, they don't make minimum wage. But working 60 - 70 hours a week and even with their bonuses they will still be below middle class wages. You are crazy if you think any fast food managers can make middle class wages. Unless maybe they are owner, or at least a part owner.
Excuse me?? My ex wife was the store manager of a Mc Donalds in suburban Denver in the mid nineties.
Her average compensation with bonuses for making sales goals was 62,000.00 in 1994.
Because of her abilities to successfully manage a multi million dollar business for the owner/operator she was noticed by Mc Donalds Corporate and was promoted out of the store to field representative starting at 80,000.00.
Her responsibilities were many and she was gone quite a bit.
The only way field reps for Mc Donalds corporate were able to move into their positions was to come up through the ranks of store management.
Supposn - first off, reading your posts remind me of when I was grading junior college students' essays. They seem to pick random things that sound good to try to prove a point, but none of what they put in their essays have anything to do with the point they're trying to argue. They just cite lots of statistics and things that only sound right, but are not right.
To that end, I think you are missing my point entirely. I am not against raising minimum wages as long as it's nothing ridiculous like what some are suggesting in this thread. Historical data shows that when minimum wages are raised, it's raised by like $0.50 or $1.00 or $2.00 at most. What most people are arguing here is to raise it dramatically to the point where almost everyone is "middle class" - whatever that means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Daddy’s Girl, regardless of how much less USA employers’ could reduce the rates of their labor expenditures, they’d be at no competitive advantage to other USA competitors who draw their labor from the same common pool.
Huh? Can you explain that? Because what you wrote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
If Company A is in New York, and the minimum wage is $15 an hour, and Company B is in Lima, Ohio and the minimum wage there is $7.25 an hour, you're saying there is no competitive advantage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
The value of labor supervisors is dependent upon their effect upon their enterprises’ bottom line. When the labor they administrate are among their enterprises’ major expenses and/or the labor’s performance significantly affects their enterprises’ profits or losses, There are greater differences between the value of differing supervisors.
Yes, I agree. That's why supervisors pay should be based on how well they perform - NOT because the government tells you how much your supervisor SHOULD make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Small business owners generally wear many “hats”. “Mom and pop” enterprise owners are generally the labor supervisors and also they're a significant, (if not the majority) of the enterprises’ employees.
Yes, I know. I own quite a few businesses. I also was not paid any sort of salary from those businesses to keep it afloat for the first several years just to have enough to hire people and try to expand the business. So by raising the minimum wage dramatically, it will kill off most new businesses already struggling in their first 2 years - which is the most critical timeframe.
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.
