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.
The real purpose of raising the minimum wage to 22 is to attract a massive influx of illegal immigrants who will in turn become financial wards of the state and who will, as night follows day, vote themselves more benefits.
So your only argument was that raising the minimum wage would not cause inflation?
Taking money from one place and putting it to another does not print , mine or magically create more money. There needs to be a monetary and/or fiscal component. It may depending on circumstances . For example if we have a very rich person who buys wage labor at his country club, then I might guess he was getting the larger share of the surplus and reduce his savings rate. In other words the reason he does not pay more is not because he would not pay more, but because the competition gives him the option to pay less. That might circulate more money from savings not in circulation. I would also assume savers would also add to circulation. That may increase circulation of existing dollars. However if the consumers are near indifference then I would assume the economy must shrink. They just would not buy it. Keep in mind also this is wage income which would be taxed unlike savings.
Quote:
If we are talking about an incrimental increase sure that is true but the whole post is or was supposed to be about E Warren and her 22 dollar an hour minimum wage comment. So if you were not advocating that then I take back the liberal comment. I will not back off my dislike of economists no matter what era. I am not a brainiac but I do read. If my words caused you heartache I do apologize. We both were pretty beligerent to each other but no one person did get the upper hand in any argument. Of course you will probably say you won and that is fine. I am big enough to at least say sorry.
I really don't care about winning. I'd rather lose and learn something then win and learn nothing or worse, win by worsening my understanding. What do I get by winning? The only thing I will walk away with is something truthful. My biggest complaint is I suppose that its hypocritical of us to complain about wage inflation when for 5 years we have engineered housing re-inflation. What makes it just or useful? It just bails out the banks.
My approach is to reverse the asset inflation policies of the last 5 years. Housing has to come down to a real market price and I would raise interest rates. This would certainly impact the money supply . To counter act this I would suspend FICA which would offset falling bank credit with deficits but directly in the hands of labor. I would also do this on the employer side of the withholding which would reduce costs to business.
All this would do is cut out the banks and more or less have the Federal reserve directly financing the economy with the consumers themselves as the decision makers. Giving the housing bubble I'd say banks add no value in credit creation so lets get rid of it. The economy should run on net equity.
In other words there is a market solution, not another patch work by the government.
I would agree with that with the qualification because wages are a competitive market while the other economic components are not. However my solution is to attack those monopolistic incomes which would by that measure shift real buying power to labor. Tax market values out of the ground and stop taxing labor and capital. Nothing new since that was classical economic theory precisely.
Taking money from one place and putting it to another does not print , mine or magically create more money. There needs to be a monetary and/or fiscal component. It may depending on circumstances . For example if we have a very rich person who buys wage labor at his country club, then I might guess he was getting the larger share of the surplus and reduce his savings rate. In other words the reason he does not pay more is not because he would not pay more, but because the competition gives him the option to pay less. That might circulate more money from savings not in circulation. I would also assume savers would also add to circulation. That may increase circulation of existing dollars. However if the consumers are near indifference then I would assume the economy must shrink. They just would not buy it. Keep in mind also this is wage income which would be taxed unlike savings.
I really don't care about winning. I'd rather lose and learn something then win and learn nothing or worse, win by worsening my understanding. What do I get by winning? The only thing I will walk away with is something truthful. My biggest complaint is I suppose that its hypocritical of us to complain about wage inflation when for 5 years we have engineered housing re-inflation. What makes it just or useful? It just bails out the banks.
My approach is to reverse the asset inflation policies of the last 5 years. Housing has to come down to a real market price and I would raise interest rates. This would certainly impact the money supply . To counter act this I would suspend FICA which would offset falling bank credit with deficits but directly in the hands of labor. I would also do this on the employer side of the withholding which would reduce costs to business.
All this would do is cut out the banks and more or less have the Federal reserve directly financing the economy with the consumers themselves as the decision makers. Giving the housing bubble I'd say banks add no value in credit creation so lets get rid of it. The economy should run on net equity.
In other words there is a market solution, not another patch work by the government.
Two things first our discussion to me seemed you were arguing the opposite on the bold black statement. There we agree and probably the rest though your reasoning is in a very round about way. I am a simple man. It is shades of gray to me.
The second point here is how are you hurting banks by shutting off FICA? My understanding of FICA is that is our payment to SSA. How is that getting to the banks.
The feds are already financing a lot of the economy with the spending it does. From defense to social spending the feds already finance much of the economy.
You are right there is a market solution but I would not entirely let the market run the country. There has to be some balance between government and free market. A little of both sides of the coin so to speak.
An abstract metric that we really don't understand measures the IQ of the world's developed countries as better than the underdeveloped countries. You mean to tell me that an academic thought exam favors those with classical training? Tell me more, Mr. Racist.
I don't know why you claim to be so moderate but peddle racialist pseudo science usually promoted by extreme right wingers and then have the audacity to tell me I am being extreme?
I have nothing to add,but let me just say it really depresses me that a poster who claims to be a Dr. Believes that racist IQ nonsense.
What does IQ really have to do with Senator Warren's inquiry anyway?
Someone with a high IQ might just have to work at Mcdonalds.
Two things first our discussion to me seemed you were arguing the opposite on the bold black statement. There we agree and probably the rest though your reasoning is in a very round about way. I am a simple man. It is shades of gray to me.
It will be very easy to predict my view once you understand the principle. The problem with government isn't government. How could it be? For example we have corporations which are social organizations. Are they better because they are not democratic? That is the only difference. Is it oligarchy we want then?
Nevertheless, legislators on the House Energy, Utilities, and Telecom Committee chose to ignore the needs of communities, prefering to tell them from afar how to run their towns. Winners? Incumbents Windstream, AT&T, CenturyLink, and Comcast.
The problem is monopoly. The enemy here is clearly big business. We don't need small government; we need small governments that compete. They will be as small or as big as the best ones people choose. Which town or state can attract me? Can't choose a better federal government can I?
Classical economics and the progressive era believed that natural monopolies like road, bridges , water and natural values should have public oversight. Money is another one of those abused monopolies. That is why you should already know how I feel about public schools. Where is the natural monopoly? Schools should be a market system.
Quote:
The second point here is how are you hurting banks by shutting off FICA? My understanding of FICA is that is our payment to SSA. How is that getting to the banks.
Simple. The more money the government takes out of circulation the more bank credit must be used to grow the economy. By raising FICA, interest rates will not rise hence more bank credit and asset inflation. Lots of people think Japan's national debt is a huge threat. I have been laughing at those people for decades, and every year their "debt" grows and nothing happens. The reason is because they grow their economy with public money rather than bank credit. Its far cheaper. All money is created as debt. Which IOU money do you want to use? Mortgage debt at 5% or free money? I figure it costs us in the trillions every year just to run our economy on bank credit . If there is 60 trillion in bank credit that's 2 to 3 trillion a year skimmed off the economy to banks. People have no idea what is going on as trillions are stolen from them every year form banks.
Quote:
The feds are already financing a lot of the economy with the spending it does. From defense to social spending the feds already finance much of the economy.
Not anywhere near bank credit created through fractional reserves. That is a lot more than 17 trillion which still is not how much bank credit was created during the housing bubble. Half of that national debt came from bank credit anyway after the bailout. That was a bank credit to public debt cash to trash swap. I also think what it supplies is even worse than what government supplies. However the national debt and "government spending" is mostly total BS. Its nothing more than bank bloat rolling onto the public sector. The banks created that pig, took over our government and is now made it the scapegoat.
Quote:
You are right there is a market solution but I would not entirely let the market run the country. There has to be some balance between government and free market. A little of both sides of the coin so to speak.
I agree and my principle is governments should run natural public monopolies and take all its revenue from natural prosperity like rising land prices and any other wealth by monopoly rights it creates. If a law creates values, then that should be the tax base. For example if the government grants me a private bridge that becomes my $1 million asset then I should be taxed so that the value is within say 5-10% of the asset value tax free. So in other words a $1 million dollar asset based on ground rights should be paying $9 million in taxes which would be without taxes a $10 million asset. If its left as a $10 million untaxed asset it will just absorb bank credit and force us to tax labor and capital instead. Why give the $9 million government created monopoly to banks as interest?
I like a lot of Sen. Warren's politics, but suddenly raising the minimum wage by roughly 2.5x would be a disaster. I am in favor of raising it to around $10.00-11.00, though.
MaseMan, for good reasons the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate has never and I would hope will never be “suddenly” modified.
MidPack, I perceive as you do that Elizabeth Warren proposal’s purpose is to provide a bargaining chip. She would hope to use $22 as a position to be bargained down from.
I believe that the critical point is to achieve a federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate that’s annually evaluated and adjusted to retain its purchasing power; (i.e. a FMW rate pegged to the cost/price index).
what you fail to perceive though is that this was a year old discussion that never went anywhere.
Mr. Rational, as time passes, what was returns and what’s just has existed now seems to have disappeared (like the Malaysian Boeing passenger aircraft which I expect will be eventually found).
[I’ve been wearing suspenders for many years and I would not be surprised if bustles and spats again become fashionable].
Many of the same issues at USA’s constitutional convention still remain issues of political contention. The governor of Texas has often mentioned Texas separating from the United States of America.
Prior to the passage of the federal minimum wage laws and to the foreseeable future, all aspects of this program are subject to differing political opinions.
Respectfully, Supposn
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.
