[FunkOdyssey]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Not following your argument -- you seem to think that Socialism (or whatever flavor Bernie calls it) will increase good-paying jobs. Am I reading you correct?

He's saying that more wealth redistribution will be required as mankind's needs are increasingly met by machines, computers, robots, leaving no jobs for most of the population. Eventually, all you have left are the high-skilled workers that program the machines and a few other isolated professions. It's a real problem we'll have to account for moving forward.

I'll be in the machine programming group so I'm not too concerned personally.

[HumpDay]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

15/hr actually equals more automation and reduced mwj.

It'd be so much more competitive for young people to get a job in those states now. Not only that but they'd hire more older people than younger people because they already have the experience. I don't necessarily think $15 will lift ALL people out of poverty. They would just work less hours in order to receive their welfare checks.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by HumpDay

It'd be so much more competitive for young people to get a job in those states now. Not only that but they'd hire more older people than younger people because they already have the experience. I don't necessarily think $15 will lift ALL people out of poverty. They would just work less hours in order to receive their welfare checks.

Before you get accused of negativity, no trust in people blah blah, there's actually a number of reports from the regions that have implemented the 15/hr wage that corroborate your "theory". I believe I read about it in Seattle, that people were begging for less hours. most would be surprised how little shame, duty and pride majority of welfare recipients possess.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by HumpDay

It'd be so much more competitive for young people to get a job in those states now. Not only that but they'd hire more older people than younger people because they already have the experience. I don't necessarily think $15 will lift ALL people out of poverty. They would just work less hours in order to receive their welfare checks.

Totally agree.

[RunD1987]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Before you get accused of negativity, no trust in people blah blah, there's actually a number of reports from the regions that have implemented the 15/hr wage that corroborate your "theory". I believe I read about it in Seattle, that people were begging for less hours. most would be surprised how little shame, duty and pride majority of welfare recipients possess.

OT don't agree much on Trump's policies, but making people work x amount if hours to receive a welfare check and setting a 72 month limit on welfare I like it

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by HumpDay

It'd be so much more competitive for young people to get a job in those states now. Not only that but they'd hire more older people than younger people because they already have the experience. I don't necessarily think $15 will lift ALL people out of poverty. They would just work less hours in order to receive their welfare checks.

I think what you'll see though is companies cutting people who don't work a minimum of hours. It costs a company more to keep 2 people who work 4 hour shifts each than 1 person who wants to work 8+ hours. Companies are smart and will find a way to make sure they pay as little as possible in all cases, no matter what the law shifts to.

Though my thinking is... if $15/hr = more layoffs/automation of jobs and <$15/hr = less people on welfare and potentially more tax revenue, it seems worth it to do the $15/hr as a society. Before you start screaming bloody liberal, it seems like upping the ante in wages would hasten the competitiveness of jobs so the TRULY lazy are forced to work a minimum of hours (or get overlooked for other applicants) and then get off welfare. The people who can't work at all, disabled, etc, are always gonna be on welfare.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by ctguy87

Another new low by the legislature and just adds more fuel to the fire for companies already on public record blasting CT's tax policies. Do Looney and Sharkey really think companies like Travelers and Aetna are going to buy into this? I always laugh when I do my taxes on Turbo Tax and I get asked if I want to apply my CT refund to next year's taxes. Why in the world would I pay the state early and allow the state to earn investment income on my money? The same holds true for large companies.

The legislature will do anything to postpone the budget problems until after the election, and then raise taxes. Kudos to Malloy for calling out the legislature on this (Never thought I'd say that).

Because some people know that their next years tax will be higher and they want to offset it ahead of time. I know someone that has done that. Jay

[ctguy87]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Because some people know that their next years tax will be higher and they want to offset it ahead of time. I know someone that has done that. Jay

That individual has no understanding of the time value of money then. Businesses with tax bills in the millions are better suited retaining the money today, investing it, keeping the profits, and maintaining the standard tax schedule.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by FunkOdyssey

He's saying that more wealth redistribution will be required as mankind's needs are increasingly met by machines, computers, robots, leaving no jobs for most of the population. Eventually, all you have left are the high-skilled workers that program the machines and a few other isolated professions. It's a real problem we'll have to account for moving forward.

Ok. So we need more Socialism because of robots?

Originally Posted by FunkOdyssey

It's a real problem we'll have to account for moving forward.

What's a real problem is the ever-increasing central-Command type of Govt we are allowing onto ourselves, federally, and CT especially. So don't blame the robots.

We need to get rid of Socialism, and instead promote Capitalism. Just like Sweden did (adding this because liberals love Sweden, although they know about Sweden as much as bumper stickers tell them.)

[FunkOdyssey]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Ok. So we need more Socialism because of robots?

Capitalism is successful at enriching the masses to the extent that human labor is cheaper than machine labor. As human labor becomes increasingly unprofitable and useless from a capitalist perspective, what source of income will sustain the population? New answers will be needed. It might not be socialism, but capitalism as we know it is not going to cut it.