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 powers that be have decided to invest in the middle class in China, India, etc. as they are going to get a much better return on their investment there relative to here. That is why there are no jobs here. In order for the economy to run the way that it has we need to replace the lost income from outsourcing jobs. Upping the minimum wage a lot will do that.
upping the minimum wage will just push more jobs oconus
upping the minimum wage will just push more jobs oconus
One thing that upping the minimum wage could but not necessarily will do is to devalue the dollar. This could force China to break its currency tie with the US. Then prices of goods from China would go up faster than their inflation rate is driving them up. Also goods across the board would be going up as well. This makes the debt that we currently have much less valuable. That is what we need, less debt to income. Devalue the dollar far enough and it will be cheaper to do stuff here than there. If we are going to do this then we really need to look hard at reducing our imports of foreign oil. Running cars on domestically produced electricity is what would be good from a macroeconomic point of view.
One thing that upping the minimum wage could but not necessarily will do is to devalue the dollar. This could force China to break its currency tie with the US. Then prices of goods from China would go up faster than their inflation rate is driving them up. Also goods across the board would be going up as well. This makes the debt that we currently have much less valuable. That is what we need, less debt to income. Devalue the dollar far enough and it will be cheaper to do stuff here than there. If we are going to do this then we really need to look hard at reducing our imports of foreign oil. Running cars on domestically produced electricity is what would be good from a macroeconomic point of view.
ah
so you want to see the dollar lose more value.......
The powers that be have decided to invest in the middle class in China, India, etc. as they are going to get a much better return on their investment there relative to here. That is why there are no jobs here. In order for the economy to run the way that it has we need to replace the lost income from outsourcing jobs. Upping the minimum wage a lot will do that.
I am trying to get my head wrapped around what you have said here.
1. It's cheaper to hire workers in china and india, because the wages there are lower.
2. Upping the minimum wage here a lot so it's more costly to hire workers, will replace the lost income from outsourcing jobs?
Really?
If you make it more costly to hire workers, they outsource more jobs.
so you want to see the dollar lose more value.......
Yes I do. A weaker dollar makes our debt less valuable. It will make labor here less valuable as well it cuts the incentive to outsource. But mostly I just want to inflate away about 50% of our debt. I don’t want Zimbabwe type hyperinflation or something else like that. I don’t really care about the minimum wage or where it is set. What I want is a job and in order for that to happen we need a growing economy. Contracting debt = a contracting economy, expanding debt = an expanding economy. Do you have any ideas about how to get expanding debt? We need to do one of two things or a combination of two things in order to get back to an expanding debt side of the economy. Write off a bunch of debt as bad or two up wages so that the debt we do have is a much smaller fraction of our income on average. We need to write off a bunch of debt or inflate away a bunch of debt or do both. Pick one of those three options and you can get a growing economy. What the government is doing is trying to say we don’t need to pick one of those options. They are trying to blow one more bubble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt
I am trying to get my head wrapped around what you have said here.
1. It's cheaper to hire workers in china and india, because the wages there are lower.
2. Upping the minimum wage here a lot so it's more costly to hire workers, will replace the lost income from outsourcing jobs?
Really?
If you make it more costly to hire workers, they outsource more jobs.
Here is a metaphor from aviation. The drag for an airplane comes from two different places. One is skin friction the other is from lift. The skin friction drag goes up with speed the drag from lift goes down with increasing speed. The drag from lift goes up when you slow down. The point of lowest drag is above the stall speed on most airplanes. The point between the point of lowest drag and the stall speed is called the back side of the power curve. On the back side of the power curve if you pull back on the stick our rate of sink goes up not down. If you push on the stick your rate of sink goes down. It is backwards.
Economically we are “on the back side of the power curve.” Upping wages will make the economy grow. (After a short term contraction) Reducing wages will make the economy contract. Outsourcing reduces wages, this means that the income to service the debt leveraged on that income is gone from the economy. The cost of servicing the debt is fixed, as income goes down a higher percentage of the income goes to service the debt; less gets spent in the economy. This forces a contraction in the economy. There is a limit to the amount of work that can be outsources.
There is a difference between fair and functional. The current low minimum wage is not functional. The current high debt load is not functional as well. We need more income relative to debt. Upping the minimum wage is one way to do this. Investing in the middle class is better but the powers that be have decided not to do this so invest in the poor.
Exactly is not not just beneficial to the people it is beneficial to the economy. It has been shown time and time again that when more people have more money it is better for the economy as a whole where when a very small group of people control most of the money the economy sinks.
Yes I do. A weaker dollar makes our debt less valuable. It will make labor here less valuable as well it cuts the incentive to outsource. But mostly I just want to inflate away about 50% of our debt. .
but the deflated dolar is part of the problem
look at what your dollar buys now compared to 20, 30, 50 years ago
that VERY SAME house that ws 10k in 1960, is now 400k
that very same gallon of milk that was $1 , 20 years ago is now close to $4
that very same pair of Levi's that was 10 is now closer to 30
the mid size chevy of 1970 was 2,500....now a mid size chevy is 25,000
dont you think the dollar has devalued enough
you keep devaluing it and there will be no middleclass at all
Exactly is not not just beneficial to the people it is beneficial to the economy. It has been shown time and time again that when more people have more money it is better for the economy as a whole where when a very small group of people control most of the money the economy sinks.
Here is an oversimplification of what you are saying. If all the money is in the hands of a few then they want more so instead of paying wages they loan out their money with the expectation of getting it back with interest. (Debt bubble.) Paying wages is an expense not an investment to them. Ford was the first to figure out or at least to put into practice on a large enough scale the principle that you have to pay your workers enough to be able to buy the products that you are making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
but the deflated dolar is part of the problem
look at what your dollar buys now compared to 20, 30, 50 years ago
that VERY SAME house that ws 10k in 1960, is now 400k
that very same gallon of milk that was $1 , 20 years ago is now close to $4
that very same pair of Levi's that was 10 is now closer to 30
the mid size chevy of 1970 was 2,500....now a mid size chevy is 25,000
dont you think the dollar has devalued enough
you keep devaluing it and there will be no middleclass at all
Deflated dollar, inflated prices same thing. What matters is not the prices but the prices vs. the wages. //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...tribution.htmlhttp://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Income-inequality.html
We have been having for the last 40 years wealth redistribution from the middle class to the rich. Their income has been inflating faster than yours. Prices have been going up a bit faster than wages. With the recent housing bubble that was a lot.
The dollar vs. other currencies is what I care about, also debt vs. GDP. We need ½ the debt or 2X GDP. We also need a high national savings rate. One half of the current debt will allow for sustained economic growth. With inflation you can get 2X GDP real quick. What the fed is doing is trying for a small positive inflation rate. The problem with this is that the fed gives (loans out) the money to the banks that then put the money into circulation by loaning it to someone else. This increases the debt load. We have too much debt and not enough income. So now the inflation is not in employment it is in prices as the money is flowing out of the country, stagflation. Too much money drives the prices of things up. The excess money that the fed is printing is driving the prices of imports up, as the money leaves the country. (My opinion take it for what it is worth)
Front Page This article is a bit technical but it shows that the EU is in trouble with debt as well as we are. The article relates to sovereign debt. National debt, they just don't have the national income to service their national debt. We don’t as well. We need more income to be able to tax. Pushing on the minimum wage is the fastest way that I see to get more income and to get more tax base.
The European Central Bank has been buying sovereign debt. They are flirting with hyperinflation. Will no one admit that they have a problem until it is too late?
Your argument is without reason. you are talking as if I had that 10K in hand. had I put the house up for sale, it would have been months to sell, unless I took a loss, and made a negative figure. So now, I am behind, requiring money to move, requiring money to pay for security dep, lst month and first month rent, that's ridiculous. Even if i sold, and I MADE the 10K, how much does it cost to pay someone to move you?
Anyone with a modicum of common sense doesn't go to check in to cash, that's a poor argument also.
Had my car died, I would have in the same boat as any other broke non working person.
You keep missing the point I was making, and it's a point that is still valid. I was able to make do with what jobs I could find, and what money I could make. I Had no full time job, just like any other person looking for work, whether I had a house or not. I earned the same as any other person, no matter what their background was, who is making minimum wage, whether I had a house or not. I had to buy food for 3 people, that didn't change, whether I had a house or not.
I was able to scrape a living, making minimum wage, (or less as I couldn't always get 40 hours of work a week). I made what I earned work the most for my family. It doesn't matter if I pay 770 in rent or mortgage,
You may have been "making" it but you were probably a medical bill or set back from losing it. It is sad we are okay with people just barely making it in this country.
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.
excuse me?
