If Trump is the president that champions this, he'll have all of the democrats and a majority of the republicans in his pocket. The majority of republicans are not going to leave a president of their party hanging very often.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Regarding voting for Donald Trump rather than voting for Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter Webster-dl
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
If Trump is the president that champions this, he'll have all of the democrats and a majority of the republicans in his pocket. The majority of republicans are not going to leave a president of their party hanging very often.
Nobody seems to understand how raising minimum wage works.
Let's give everybody a billion dollars and see what happens to the buying power of a dollar. Give them a million, and the same sort of thing, only less severe, will happen. Give everybody $8000 and the results will again be less severe, but inflation will happen and all of us NOT making minimum wage will pay the price.
Let's give everybody a billion dollars and see what happens to the buying power of a dollar. Give them a million, and the same sort of thing, only less severe, will happen. Give everybody $8000 and the results will again be less severe, but inflation will happen and all of us NOT making minimum wage will pay the price.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Increased buying power among those who spend the largest percentage of their wages also increases the overall size of the economy. The increase to $10.10 was projected to be about $22 billion a year in GDP increase. That'd be even higher if we'd actually bring manufacturing back to the US. $10 is roughly equivalent to the minimum wage of the late 1960s.
There are pro's and con's, and reasonable minds can differ on where the line is drawn. However the simple fact is we already pay a minimum wage via subsidy for the companies that do not pay a living wage. Your assumption is the supply of money will go up but that there will be no change in demand.
Some fun reading:
Forbes Welcome
Forbes Welcome
Also for fun, lay a QE chart over an inflation chart for the Quantitative Easing years after the Great Recession. They won't track. It's more complicated than money money = inflation or even more wages = inflation. Those are two among many variables.
This whole idea that minimum wage jobs could ever provide a "living wage," almost as if those jobs were ever intended as such, is pure liberal claptrap.
Minimum wage jobs are nearly always entry level, the sort of jobs that high-schoolers, retirees, and part-timers take.
The thing about these jobs is that they have low skill and experience requirements.
Paradoxically, these jobs, while not expected to pay much, are the most important jobs that anyone will ever have, since they're more often than not the very first jobs that people get.
IOW, everyone needs to start somewhere, and if the minimum wage is raised too much or too rapidly, employers aren't going to just sit back and take it in the shorts.
Instead, the employers will cut back on their work force, raise prices (assuming that the buying public will even agree to pay those raised prices instead of the business losing sales because of the raised prices), invest in automation to replace people, and some businesses less able to absorb the unexpected costs will inevitably be forced to close.
That's not really helping low skill and low experience workers who desperately need to get their foot in the door so that they can establish a work history and reputation upon which to build and move on to a higher skill job to which they can contribute greatly and receive the proper reward of a much higher wage.
Also, this perennial pet issue of the minimum wage is largely a cynical ploy to artificially increase union wages because many unions' wage scale is based upon a percentage above the minimum wage.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
We've had several threads on wages. I'll not rehash it here, but a bit of research may show some of your assumptions are off.
Get back with me about just how how off some of my assumptions are once California's new $15 minimum wage has resulted in statewide prosperity on an unprecedented scale, two or three years from now, after it's had a chance to go into effect.
I predict that the harm that it causes will be blamed on other factors, anything to avoid pointing the finger of blame where it belongs.
The second article you posted seems to me to argue exactly the point jbombelli was making.
"Inflation is simply a rise in the average price of goods and services in the macroeconomy. Which particular goods and services depends on the measure we are examining. Consumer price inflation is the one usually in the news, and it takes a weighted average of various items purchased by the typical household (the list being determined by survey and then updated periodically). The average can rise while some prices have actually fallen, and how much it reflects your personal situation is a function of how closely the basket of goods and services in the index matches your buying patterns. But, the bottom line is that we say that inflation has occurred when the average price of those goods and services has increased."
"The bottom line is that there are a number of processes that can create inflation, none of which starts with, “the money supply increases.” Someone make a conscious decision to raise a price or wage, and they must be able to make this stick. Because every higher price you pay means someone is getting more income, inflation causes a redistribution of income."
If you raise the minimum wage then you are making a conscious decision to raise the price of services. Thus, it is inflationary by definition. The only question is who benefits and who gets hurt? Raising the minimum wage is a redistribution of wealth from most of us to those that are making the minimum wage and to anyone else who's wages are indexed to it. This presumes that they do in fact keep their jobs, but I would bet the actual outcome would be a move towards fewer service jobs similar to what automation has done to manufacturing jobs as wages rose in that sector. Thus, the real winner would not be those that currently make minimum wage, but those who have jobs indexed to it.
Interesting column regarding what really happened to manufacturing jobs and the chances of bringing them back: Commentaries - Weekly Commentary with Michael Hicks
There you go...Bernie's right. We need free college education so those that don't have jobs can get them to work on robotics.
Seriously though. We can argue whether raising the minimum wage will cause inflation, cause increased consumer spending, increase automation, decrease employment levels, etc. until we're blue in the face. To me all of these questions are moot at the national level. The feds have no authority to set a minimum wage in the private sector. If California or Washington wants to raise their MW, fine. Let them. If Indiana can gain business and opportunities by not, fine...Let's see who wins, in the long run.
"The “bring jobs back” promise is simply a lie. It isn’t factory workers in Juarez or Beijing who’ve stolen factory jobs. The folks with master’s degrees in robotics working in Palo Alto, California that have taken those jobs. The only way to get those jobs back is to adopt Bernie’s energy policies, which will leave many places without electricity."
If this is correct I find it hard to fathom why Carrier feels it necessary to move to Mexico. Are PhD's in robotics more plentiful there? Is electricity cheaper (and more reliable) there? Paying workers a wage well below US minimum shouldn't enter into the picture if that gentleman is correct. The active collusion of the government your company is operating under to suppress wages and any potential for unionization should not appeal to management if the relentless rise of the machines is their future plan.
If this is correct I find it hard to fathom why Carrier feels it necessary to move to Mexico. Are PhD's in robotics more plentiful there? Is electricity cheaper (and more reliable) there? Paying workers a wage well below US minimum shouldn't enter into the picture if that gentleman is correct. The active collusion of the government your company is operating under to suppress wages and any potential for unionization should not appeal to management if the relentless rise of the machines is their future plan.
He does not claim that 100% of the lost jobs are due to automation. The numbers are in the article. You can always find anecdotal evidence of something that doesn't fit the big picture and there certainly have been manufacturing jobs that have been lost due to cheaper wages, fewer environmental regs, etc. off-shore.
Another view of it all: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/
Last edited:
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
It is *a* factor, not the only factor. Roughly 1.5 million people make minimum wage, about 2% of workers. They are insufficient to increase inflation on their wage alone.
Also note most economist seem to put $10-$11/hr as a reasonable minimum wage for both workers and the economy as a whole at the national level. CA is their own animal with higher cost of living and the recent push to make it a addict/thief/homeless paradise they have issues well beyond wages.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Let's also keep in mind "wages" is the entire bucket of wages. Not the wages of a particular person. The money must become available to the economy (ie, being spent or invested) and not sitting idle.
But, if the argument is we must keep wages down because of inflation, is the bottom 2% of wage earners really where that's going to be effective?
(in millions USD)
2014 total Gross Income of Americans: 9,041,744
Top 1%: 1,976,738
Top 50% 8,037,300 (inclusive)
Bottom 50% 1,003,944 (anyone making less than $36,055 annually)
So if the argument is wages being too high hurts the rest of us, I'm guessing a few extra bucks an hour for the bottom 2% of workers isn't hurting me as much as the top 1% getting roughly twice as as much of the wage bucket as half of all workers.
But, if the argument is we must keep wages down because of inflation, is the bottom 2% of wage earners really where that's going to be effective?
(in millions USD)
2014 total Gross Income of Americans: 9,041,744
Top 1%: 1,976,738
Top 50% 8,037,300 (inclusive)
Bottom 50% 1,003,944 (anyone making less than $36,055 annually)
So if the argument is wages being too high hurts the rest of us, I'm guessing a few extra bucks an hour for the bottom 2% of workers isn't hurting me as much as the top 1% getting roughly twice as as much of the wage bucket as half of all workers.
Not voting is an American right too and according to some political analysts, historically it is one of the best ways to show politicians that the general public is very unhappy and about to do something to change things.
Deciding that you can't, in good conscience, check the box for any of the Hobson's choice, IS voting. Not participating at the polls is not, not voting. It is voting NONE OF THE ABOVE. It's not the same as apathy.
I said the same thing in 2012 defending those who couldn't vote for Romney. I didn't agree with their choice, but they have as much right to follow their conscience as you do.
Not naming names, but it is noteworthy that many of the people complaining about those who refused to vote for trump, said they would refuse to vote for Romney last time.
All true. I will say, in my opinion, not voting is indistinguishable from not caring enough to vote by the apathetic and/or clueless. That's why I said previously, I will vote. I won't vote for Hillary and I will very likely not vote for Trump but I will vote. If none of the candidates (....*cough**Johnson**cough*) are suitable, I'll write somebody in.
