Politics

Ditto. I dunno what inspired 90sAce to start arguing in this thread, but before then it was just a place to list political orientation. That would've been interesting/useful. Instead, it's just another pointless provocation. No thanks.

Not necessarily. Seems to work just fine in Britain, Australia and elsewhere. Not to mention that higher wages, equals more consumption, aka higher supply and less demand for goods, therefore lowered costs.

If businesses in the UK, Australia, etc can get by with it, then so can ours. It's on them to be financially savvy and find ways to cover it while keeping the costs reasonable, if they can't do it, well that's just capitalism.

Lowering other forms of businesses taxes and regulations would be a better idea.

Increasing the min wage to a level in which the average HS grad can afford day-to-day expenses and living and get by would be a bigger pro than con.

Subsidizing college programs with a high return on investment rate wouldn't be a bad idea either for that matter.

I don't how other countries are, but it seems here that profits are privatized, and losses nationalized (banks for example)

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

The reality is that business are going to "cover it" by raising prices or by relocating overseas, like they've been doing already.

And the money for that is coming from where?

__________________

I don't see how increasing McDonald's workers' wages would hurt most people. The workers create billions in revenue, why can't they afford a Big Mac? And I've been a business owner, so I can't even imagine how bad the accounting is for all the Fortune 500 Companies. Even vacations count as write-offs!

Besides getting more tax revenue, the average Joe or Jane would have more money to spend on superfluous things, like a McDonald's burger.

And who's choice is that? Either way it just means the average joe and jane will need to be more frugal with their money. No one "needs" to buy a Big Mac or a Subway sandwich anyway - people should learn how to cook and save money.

Hopefully mainly from the SOBs who cheered on the spending of trillions on the Iraq War, but that's just wishful thinking. lol

Info on the poverty rate in the US. Even those decent numbers are pitiful for a country of our overall wealth.

Here's one for you: "From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period."

Link.

Add to that the fact that most large corporations have bottom lines that increase every year, yeah, guess what? We're all vastly under paid.

__________________

What does that have to do with what I said about increasing the cost of living?


What? You're making no sense at all.

[quote=Miss Vicky;1251951]The reality is that business are going to "cover it" by raising prices or by relocating overseas, like they've been doing already.


You're right, business will want to cover it, but it can be covered without increasing prices. People will less income who get an increase in wages will have more money to spend on products, then that industry can spend more money, like a food chain.

And for example, we'll have more tax revenue, we can start spending on infrastructure (more good paying jobs) people will not spend as much fixing their cars because of horrible roads.

I find it insane that those who ran world economies to the ground get pay raises, or paid leaves... Productivity has doubled since the 60's, and wages haven't risen in accordance with inflation either.

Economic policy is not binary, where if it still allows for some standard of living it "works." It can produce more or less growth, more or less cumulative prosperity.

If this were how it worked, you could achieve incredible levels of growth by merely raising wages forever, but that's obviously absurd. Demand always outpaces supply: people want things faster and better than we can produce them. This is invariably true. Ergo, supply is the bottleneck, and policies that make supply easier are what lead to growth.

No it wouldn't.

I'd say more, but if you're just going to make unsupported statements, I might as well reply in kind.

Except we already subsidize colleges heavily, and whaddya know, they cost more than ever.

I don't know what utopian dreamland you two are living in, but what "can be done" and the reality of what is actually already happening are vastly different.

I'm done with this. It's just going in circles anyway.

People will just have to be more frugal with their wages and buy cheaper, hopefully the extra income will give them more to cover bare necessities, and not worry about buying Big Macs and other frivolities.

Where it comes from really doesn't matter.

Sweet screaming monkeys, is this ignorant.

On the whole it seems to work out for the better, no slippery slopes needed.


I'd be in favor of full subsidization of certain degree programs, this includes, room, board the whole nine years - not just a $5000-9000 Pell Grant.

It only 'matters where it comes from' when it's not being used to send our boys to die in Iraq. Or bail out banks.

Never discuss economics with ignorant idealists who believe they're preachers of truth.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

It's bizarre that you think the existence of the Iraq war somehow counteracts the glaring holes in your economic theories.

No idealism needed. The only idealism is the thought that someone's entitled never to pay taxes just because it's "their money", even though the Constitution grants the Federal govt the right to provide for the general welfare. That's the realism - the "100% free market Utopia" is the idealism, and it's never worked throughout history, as the French Revolution proves.

Cutting unnecessary taxes and spending and re-investing in areas which have a strong net benefit is the way to go.

I'm no economist and I don't pretend to be. Countries with subsidized healthcare, college programs, and higher min wage however have a net higher standard of living than we do. So the idea that it's "impossible" to achieve seems more like obfuscation to me than anything else.

The fact that you're responding to simple questions with non sequitur straw men shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Statistics say that these countries do better in many areas in spite of all the paranoia and fear-mongering.