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.
.... Are you blind? Thousands of businesses go out of business every single day because what they are making isnt selling. How are you not getting that?
This is not the point, again the general comment you made is with much controversy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
That theory is only basically stating the obvious, that supply will match demand....
I'm sorry, but that is not what Say's law says. After all, in what sense does "supply match demand", i.e., at what price?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
My example IS simple, you are the one trying to introduce all of these stupid variables in to the equation when they dont belong.
I'm introducing reality into the equation. These "stupid variables" exist in the real world. Look, its obvious economic theory is not your thing. That's fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
At no point in time will another business pop up simply BECAUSE I created an accounting firm. Supply follows demand, and must adjust itself accordingly not the other way around. Period.
This is just a composition fallacy. The creation of a single accounting firm is unlikely to increase demand enough to justify another business, but it will increase aggregate demand for goods and services. It is the former that is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
If you think differently, put a thrift store right across the street from another thrift store, selling similiar merchandise for similiar prices, and see if one doesnt directly take ALL of its business from the other one.
This is funny, because this is done all the time for good theoretical reasons. Have you ever wondered by gas stations are usually right next to each other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
NEITHER were made as arguments against capitalism.
You are whining about both. Also, Walmart does not block entry. You seem to believe that a successful company is a block to entry, but this is gibberish. That is capitalism. Walmart will not stop you from creating a retail establishment. Now, look into starting a telecommunications company, you'll find actual blocks to entry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
1. I did not EVER say I "would look later" in the Levis case. I point blank said I could not find jeans prices for 1999, and therefore had to use a personal example. I said I would "look later" to counter your budget argument.
Looked back and yes your comment was to the budget. So then, in the Levis case you in fact have no real evidence, never have, yet are convinced that the prices have not gone down in the aggregate because some personal example. Precisely my point. Either, you are just believing whatever suits your fancy or you believe gross violations of logic are reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
2. I have supporting data. Its just data you choose not to accept, again, I could care less about your seal of approval on my observation.
If you think that is supporting data, I don't know what to say. A single price quote does not tell you anything about aggregate prices. Prices vary greatly from store to store. Not only that, looking at a single company's pricing does not even tell you that much in the first place. You'd need to know also how the Jeans fit in the market place. While saving on production costs, they may now be spending more on marketing enabling them to command a higher premium for their jeans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
THERE IS ONLY LIMITED DEMAND FOR ALL THINGS. BECAUSE YOU ARE A PLUMBER, DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS ENOUGH DEMAND FOR YOU, OR ANY ONE. Do you get that? I dont know how much easier I can make that.
As I said the issue is much more complex, may I suggest textbook in marcoeconomics? You continuously think about individuals and from that want to derive macro claims from it. But its just a composition fallacy. What is true of the parts, is not necessarily true of the whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
2. Depending on the wage you may STILL be begging with a sign. If the position does not pay local living wage, you simply working is not going to cover your basic costs.
If a job can't pay a "local living wage" then there is no way for that job to exist. How can someone work yet not ahem....live? The issue here is an issue of living standard, but the wages are "living". Wages have to support subsistance, that is their lower bound.
If a job can't pay a "local living wage" then there is no way for that job to exist. How can someone work yet not ahem....live? The issue here is an issue of living standard, but the wages are "living". Wages have to support subsistance, that is their lower bound.
At my company as well as others in my industry I know folks who live in apartments with sometimes 6-10 people in them because the wages are so low. Yes they are living, and able to support themselves. Most have second jobs.
They aren't living middle class lives. And this is at a wage of ~$12/hr.
Do you know that for a fact? Have you ever lived in Detroit or Cleveland? Or are you simply just going to realtor.com, and popping in a few search variables like Indianapolis and Pittsburgh.
Yes I know that for a fact, I've lived in the rust-belt recently. Although, I know Detroit less than I know Cleveland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Let me help you out. In most of the rust belt cities, the majority of housing you find in the mid 10's (such as 60k), is in terrible areas.
You are helping me out by stating something that is not true? Tell me, what is the point of paying $60k for a house in a terrible area when plenty of houses are empty in these areas? The bad areas are nearly free. In places like Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc $60k is going to put you in a middle-of-the-read area. None of these cities have areas that are "crime free", in the suburban sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
However, what is it worth to have substandard inner city education? Inner city violence? Higher insurance premiums? Out in the open in your face drugs? Gun fire? Lack of dependable infrastructure? Poor emergency response times?
As I said, I used the major cities as examples because everyone is familiar with them. The major cities are no cheaper than surrounding more rural communities, in fact they are usually more. Also, whether someone wants to live in a city or a more rural community is a personal choice. Some people like city living even though it involves being around higher levels of crime. Go to the Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc forum and you'll find many people with families that want nothing to do with suburban life.
Also, I would like to note that we are talking about a family with no education or skills. Its simply unrealistic to expect them to be able to afford an area with excellent schools, etc. Although, in many of these areas you can get homes in the $120k or so range in communities with great school districts.
They aren't living middle class lives. And this is at a wage of ~$12/hr.
$24,000/year isn't middle class.
There is no meaningful way of saying that "$X is not middle class", it has to be that "$X is not middle class in Y". I'm not trying to suggest that $24k/year is middle-class in general, but rather in much of the mid-west it can afford a lower middle-class lifestyle. The family could afford all the necessities, a home, have bit of extra money beyond necessities, etc. To me that is lower middle-class. Yes, in the case of a 4-person family it is a bit of a stretch.
My basic point is that you need to put the wages into perspective. I gave the budget I did to demonstrate that even a family of 4 could "make it" on that wage, not that they would be living in luxury. Someone with no education and no skills should not be living in luxury! But the individual making $12/hour in the mid-west can actually live pretty comfortably, where as other areas you can hardly afford a studio apartment on that wage. I'd suggest a family of 4 can live comfortably on around $18~20k/hour in the mid-west, but that is about what skilled labor gets paid in the area.
I'd suggest a family of 4 can live comfortably on around $18~20k/hour in the mid-west, but that is about what skilled labor gets paid in the area.
This I agree with - anyone could live comfortably on $20,000/hr. OK to get serious $18-$20/hr would certainly be more comfortable in the midwest in an out of the way place and more in line with a lower middle class lifestyle of today.
The issue is, how many skilled jobs are there outside the cities in the midwest? Very few.
The issue is, how many skilled jobs are there outside the cities in the midwest? Very few.
Well, that is the point of the article in the OP. New factories may be coming/growing in the area. But the idea that an uneducated, unskilled worker would start at $12/hour was meant with hostility as if this was some how dangerous for society. But its the other way around, a heavily unionized rent-seeking labor force is dangerous as can easily be seen by the collapse (or likely collapse in the case of Ford) of the American auto makers.
People want to complain a lot about out-sourcing, yet one reason why jobs have been out-sourced is to avoid the draconian practices of many unions. You can only seek rents to a point before the system breaks...and it broke.
I take the news in this article as rather good. Plants may be opening up that have a real chance of competing on a global scale.
Well, that is the point of the article in the OP. New factories may be coming/growing in the area. But the idea that an uneducated, unskilled worker would start at $12/hour was meant with hostility as if this was some how dangerous for society. But its the other way around, a heavily unionized rent-seeking labor force is dangerous as can easily be seen by the collapse (or likely collapse in the case of Ford) of the American auto makers.
People want to complain a lot about out-sourcing, yet one reason why jobs have been out-sourced is to avoid the draconian practices of many unions. You can only seek rents to a point before the system breaks...and it broke.
I take the news in this article as rather good. Plants may be opening up that have a real chance of competing on a global scale.
I see what you are saying. Yes unskilled labor is certainly not deserving of a middle class lifestyle. That is the point - it's unskilled! If you want to improve your life there are various means to go about that in the US, which is one of the things that make it a great place to live.
However, keep in mind that Ford started the practice of paying its workers a true living wage so they could in fact become buyers of its product.
Here's the rub - there is no way even the midwest can compete with the likes of Chinas or Indias labor force. The foreign workers make pennies on the dollar of even our unskilled labor force.
The solution is not to have our poor become closer to third world poor, the solution is to extract the collected wealth from the top of the pyramid accumulating it all, and allow EVERYONE to have a comfortable middle class lifestyle, rather then a few of us be insanely rich, while 45% of us inch closer to living like Sub Saharan bushmen.
The so-called rich pay almost all of the income taxes in this country. In fact, the top 1% highest-earning Americans pay a whopping 37% of all individual income taxes collected. The top 10% pay 67%. In other words, 10% of Americans pay two-thirds of the taxes. Half of all taxpayers – those in the bottom 50% of earnings – account for less than 4% of income tax revenues. This means no matter how taxes are cut, it’s nearly impossible for those cuts to primarily benefit lower-earning taxpayers. Tax cuts necessarily benefit those who pay the overwhelming bulk of the taxes. This simple truth allows the left to attack each and every tax cut proposal on the grounds that it disproportionately benefits the rich.
The so-called rich pay almost all of the income taxes in this country. In fact, the top 1% highest-earning Americans pay a whopping 37% of all individual income taxes collected. The top 10% pay 67%. In other words, 10% of Americans pay two-thirds of the taxes. Half of all taxpayers – those in the bottom 50% of earnings – account for less than 4% of income tax revenues. This means no matter how taxes are cut, it’s nearly impossible for those cuts to primarily benefit lower-earning taxpayers. Tax cuts necessarily benefit those who pay the overwhelming bulk of the taxes. This simple truth allows the left to attack each and every tax cut proposal on the grounds that it disproportionately benefits the rich.
Do you know what percentage of income the top 1% and 10% account for? I'm not being smart, I'm just curious as to how that number compares to the percentage of taxes paid.
I actually think the poor should pay more as a % of income. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you should pay less for police, fire, etc. since their income bracket is probably using the majority of those services.
Before anyone lashes out I was poor just a few short years ago. After I graduated college. I would've gladly paid more taxes to have access to healthcare services.
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.
