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.
This is the real point. Both parties have been remiss in not keeping the books balanced. And both parties look the other way when their own guys are doing it!
Back in 2000/2001 I casually remarked to a co-worker (who is a rabid GOP supporter) that we should not be running near trillion dollar deficits as a matter of course. Not because a Republican president and congress were in charge, but because it was poor fiscal policy. He made a lot of rationalizations and really could not care less. Now he rails on daily about deficit spending because a Democrat is president.
Grover Norquist has made a living off pressuring congress not to raise taxes for any reason. When asked what he thought about his hero (Reagan) raising taxes 8 times during his reign, he brushed it off as irrelevent.
We are heading into the transition from being the world's reserve currency to not being so. China is the world's largest manufacturer. They are the richest country on Earth now. If we accept this and start acting responsibly Like balancing our books and starting to buy back our national debt, then the transition will be soft and relatively easy. If we continue as we are the transition will be hard and painful.
Most people don't stay in a minimum wage for 30-40 years. A minimum wage job is a rite of passage for students. Many people take these kinds of jobs, while going through school. We all have to start somewhere.
True but not many actually reach a living wage. Most are stuck between a living wage and min wage.
No. That's just a another bad attempt to confuse an incidental result with a causal action.
The issue in this is the conception by woefully unprepared to be a parent kids...
for whom the closest thing they have to a relationship is proximity to each other.
Implying that either of them, let alone the child, will be better off by imposing
a shotgun marriage between them is just ludicrous.
I agree with the woefully unprepared part. But this becomes a chicken and egg kind of question. A lot of people out there, especially women, don't seem to think they need to be married to raise kids decently...despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Who said anything about shotgun marriages? Is that really the only option. I don't think so.
But in reality, I believe shotgun marriages got an unnecessarily bad rap. Most people repeat the same bad relationship patterns with different people over and over again. Might as well just stay with the first person you knocked up or were knocked up by.
INot the way I see it. We are in deep economic trouble, we have massive unfunded obligations and we are indiscriminately printing money to fund them. That will take far more of your money than upping the minimum wage far enough to balance the books. And you enjoyed the Reagan started credit bing along with everyone else. The credit bill is coming due. Printing it down will take far more of your money than than upping the minimum wage far enough to balance the books will.
You said it. One hundred percent inflation a day is coming our way if we don't take responsibility for the last three decades of irresponsibility in the US.
This is all true. But the thing is, you're framing it as an either/or. Just because printing money is WORSE doesn't mean raising the minimum wage isn't bad. They are BOTH harmful.
I believe shotgun marriages got an unnecessarily bad rap.
In their time... Maybe.
Like back when at least one of the families had land to be worked or the town had a
big employer paying steady wages where one or both could get the jobs they need...
But when the parents are often as not in no better a situation to support of educate
the first crop of kids then NO... don't compound one error with yet another.
Quote:
Might as well just stay with the first person you knocked up
This is all true. But the thing is, you're framing it as an either/or. Just because printing money is WORSE doesn't mean raising the minimum wage isn't bad. They are BOTH harmful.
The concept I'm looking at is the course of least harm. Also who is better able to recover from harm. As well as Who has intentionally done harm.
If you look at the last housing bubble as an act of economic warfare, (it was fueled in part buy the carry trade having money flow into the bubble) the we have a national responsibility to undo the damage done by it. In large part upping the minimum wage far enough to pay for the over inflated house prices will undo part of the damage.
Wealth redistribution. Any mention of that gets lambasted. But wealth redistribution from the middle to the top has been going on for a very long time. Upping the minimum wage will very quickly undo wealth redistribution from the middle to the top. Dems say take from the middle to help the poor. Repubs say take from the middle to help the rich. Soon there be no middle. If there is going to be no middle then the bottom needs to take the middles place.
The Fed has two presidential mandates that resulting bubble blowing. Wage price stability on one side and asset stability on the other. The stock market goes up and comes down cyclically. To try to have it go up and stay up does harm to the economy. Its value need to come down. So if you want the price to stay up artificially then wages need to come up to support assets.
To pretend you can have things without cost is foolish. Who is paying the cost? The middle and the bottom. Who can best afford to pay the cost? The top.
Upping the minimum wage doesn't make the bottom better off. But it does keep the bottom from getting hurt by inflation as bad as it would otherwise. Do a 4X on food without raising the minimum wage, and do a 4X on food with doing a 4X on the minimum wage, who is worse off?
Like back when at least one of the families had land to be worked or the town had a
big employer paying steady wages where one or both could get the jobs they need...
But when the parents are often as not in no better a situation to support of educate
the first crop of kids then NO... don't compound one error with yet another.
You can't be serious.
We have had a difference of opinion about reproductive freedom.
My cultural background has in it a history of no idol poor. Everyone worked and everyone ate and the minimum wage was set at enough food to feed the workers family. The pay was in wheat flower as there wasn't enough gold coins to pay in gold. Make work projects were done so that people that were not otherwise gainfully employed would not be idol as they were feed.
“Good for nothing” isn't part of my cultural history.
So people shouldn't have kids if they don't have work to do. Well we should put everyone to work. And pay them enough to take care of themselves and their family.
This is all true. But the thing is, you're framing it as an either/or. Just because printing money is WORSE doesn't mean raising the minimum wage isn't bad. They are BOTH harmful.
Mysticalyger, many times some versions or variations of a minimum wage have been enacted.
I don’t doubt that too sudden and/or excessive increase of a minimum wage could be economically detrimental to a nation; but never in the entire world’s recorded history has there ever been an occurrence of such an incident. It has never occured in the United States.
Comidities such as hamburgers include the cost of the workers in their price.
So that when you raise minimum wage, you increase the cost of goods and services.
This hits the low wage workers the most, just like with other forms of inflation, low wage earners wages never keep up. (Also they hit higher tax brackets over time, further disadvantaging them)
Minimum wage (A bad idea) was intended as a STARTING wage, NOT a lifelong wage.
If you want to better yourself you can.
Skills are the Key.
By taking a $200 class to learn flood adjusting, and working (Loosely called that) for free off and on helping with appraising over the last few years, (Very similar skill) I made $1,000 in a single hour yesterday (High even for this, but I've been making over $1K/Day since I got here)
-That's before expenses and taxes since I work 10-99
You CAN better yourself if you want.
Most people don't want to work that hard... I was up at 6AM, and I'm still working... just taking a short break and some Caffeine at 2 AM...
I'll be up at 6:30 to do it all over again...
First 6 months of this year I made $7,500- $8500/month, but I worked 70-90 hours a week to do it.
I also took 3 months off, and plan to take more off this coming year.
If you want it, you can get it, and not through 'government help' that really disadvantages you in the long run!
i could not have said it better, thanks for saving me the time to reply.
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.
