Elizabeth Dumbass Warren wonders why min wage is not 22.00 an hour

[LogikAndReazon]

Productivity increased tremendously over the last 40 years, but most of the increased profits went to the ownership class.

This is one of the flaws of capitalism.

Right, because wealth is a finite pile of cash from which we all must draw. If one guy makes more money than he did last year, he necessarily must have taken that extra cash from another guy.

Well...like most right wing ignoramuses, you got it about half right.

Yes, changes in productivity means the pie can get bigger or smaller, that is certainly true.

But what I want you to do right now is take dollar out of you pocket and look at it.

When you understand that that dollar is in competition with every other dollar in existence, THEN you'll begin to understand MACRO economics.

Until you understand THAT simple fact?

You don't know jackshit about how YOUR WORLD actually works, amigo.

there are really TWO pies, kiddo.

there's the pie of RE AL WEALTH and then there's the PIE of SPECIES with which we conduct trade for that REAL wealth.

In a monetarist economy, the elite control the AMOUNT OF NEW SPECIE that are chasing all that real wealth.

So when they manipulate the money supply to their advantage, they are stealing from YOUR dollars.

And when, as has been the case for the last 50 years, productivity gains go mostly to the INVESTMENT CLASS (who, after all, DESERVE THEM) What that does to a CONSUMER DRIVEN ECONOMY is to make it operate less efficiently.


You need to READ, kiddo.

You cannot understand your world by listening to talking heads, politicians or you fellow partisans.

Understanding half of how your world works is not half good enough.

You need to have a grasp of how it really works NOW in the real world.

Econ 101 misleads people like you.

That's a mythology designed as an intro to what econoimics is, NOT a descxription of how OUR WORLD actually works.

HUH................Life is really unfair........Who f--king knew ???

 

[eflatminor]

So when they manipulate the money supply to their advantage, they are stealing from YOUR dollars.

Only the Federal Reserve can manipulate the money supply. I stand against the Feds central price controls. You?

I have an Masters degree in Economics and I can tell you without hesitation, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Wealth is NOT finite. It can be created or destroyed. There is no "equatable distribution" only the reality of the forces of supply and demand. You want to centrally plan those forces to ensure a distribution that YOU feel is appropriate? Make your case while the rest of us point to how all attempts in the past failed miserably.

Sorry if the truth doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's right.

Productivity increased tremendously over the last 40 years, but most of the increased profits went to the ownership class.

This is one of the flaws of capitalism.

Distribution of wealth resulting from increased productivity quite naturally and rightly goes to the investment class.

One of the ways to bleed off enough of that extra wealth for social redistribution is by additional taxation on the capital class AND increasing social services with that additional taxation. (more socialism)

OR (probably a much healthier approach) by allowing the working class a higher percentage of that new wealth in the form of increased salaries. (more competitive capitalism)

America has gone ion the opposite direction in both cases.

AS a consequence our CONSUMER DRIVEN ECONOMY no longer works very well and new wealth is constantly chasing decreasing profits.

In order to have a consumer driven economy, consumers must make enough money.

This cannot be THAT confusing to anyone who is not entirely mentally challenged.

I am not sure I follow you. productivity increased in the last 40 years due to automation and embracing quality control. not by the masses working harder.....

 

[gallantwarrior]

Could that be because, unlike the minimum wage in the US, the minimum wage in Australia is not a hard bottom? Then we have the fact that Australia cooks the unemployment numbers to get them down to the current 5.4% instead of the more accurate numbers which but their unemployment at 14%, which is about the same as our real numbers. I guess they didn't come out any better than we did after all.

Our unemployment is doctored the same way. Our U6 unemployment rate is 16%.

The fact is that raising minimum wage just above poverty level lowers unemployment & does not cause prices to rise or inflation.

Australia does not cook their unemployment numbers, neither do we. I'll ask again, like I always do, though I know I won't get an intelligent answer: How exactly are you claiming the US or Australia cooks/doctors/manipulates etc the Unemployment data?

From collection to dissemenation, what are you claiming is done? I know, I'll just get insults and assertions but no real answer.

Oh, and the U6 is 14.3%, not 16%.

Real unemployment numbers = all people of legal age who do not have a job.

Cooked unemployment numbers = real unemployment numbers - (people who have given up looking for jobs + people who have started their own businesses + people not counted because they do not receive unemployment subsidies + any other demographic the government can get away with subtracting from the real numbers in order to make the real unemployment numbers lower).

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This women exemplifies the modern day liberal.... completely devoid of any critical thinking abilities whatsoever.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So when they manipulate the money supply to their advantage, they are stealing from YOUR dollars.

Only the Federal Reserve can manipulate the money supply. I stand against the Feds central price controls. You?

I have an Masters degree in Economics and I can tell you without hesitation, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Wealth is NOT finite. It can be created or destroyed. There is no "equatable distribution" only the reality of the forces of supply and demand. You want to centrally plan those forces to ensure a distribution that YOU feel is appropriate? Make your case while the rest of us point to how all attempts in the past failed miserably.

Sorry if the truth doesn't fit your agenda.

Exactly... if wealth were finite... U.S> GDP would still be at the level it was in 1900. How clueless these people are.

 

[pinqy]

Our unemployment is doctored the same way. Our U6 unemployment rate is 16%.

The fact is that raising minimum wage just above poverty level lowers unemployment & does not cause prices to rise or inflation.

Australia does not cook their unemployment numbers, neither do we. I'll ask again, like I always do, though I know I won't get an intelligent answer: How exactly are you claiming the US or Australia cooks/doctors/manipulates etc the Unemployment data?

From collection to dissemenation, what are you claiming is done? I know, I'll just get insults and assertions but no real answer.

Oh, and the U6 is 14.3%, not 16%.

Real unemployment numbers = all people of legal age who do not have a job.

Including those in prison, a mental institution, in a coma? Including full time students, retirees, stay home spouses, all others who don't want to work, can't work? What is the usefulness of that?

people who have given up looking for jobs

Are not unemployed because they are not trying to work and cannot be hired so do not tell us how difficult it is to get hired. These have never been considered unemployed.

people who have started their own businesses

They are Employed if they work in their own business.

people not counted because they do not receive unemployment subsidies

There are no such people. The definition of unemployed has nothing to do with benefits and has never been a consideration.

+demographic the government can get away with subtracting from the real numbers in order to make the real unemployment numbers lower).

Out of the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population (16 and older not in the military, prison, or other institution), there are around 90 million people who are neither employed not unemployed. Most (over 92%) say they don't want to work. Why do you consider them to be really unemployed?

Of those not working or trying to work who say they do want a job, over half haven't looked for work in over a year. How is that a reliable source of info about current labor market conditions?

Of the rest, who have looked in the last year, but not the last 4 weeks, 21% say they couldn't actually accept a job if offered.

So now we're down to the 2,588,000 Marginally Attached...those who say they want to work, are available to work, have looked in the last 12 months but not last 4 weeks.
They're not classified a unemployed because, well, they're not trying to work and therefore no more likely to be hired than those who don't want to work or can't work. There is an alternative measure of underutilization, the U5, that includes them (currently 9.2%) as they're useful to track as people who might start looking/participating in the labor market.

Most of the Marginally Attached stopped looking because of personal reasons such as family obligations, illness/injury, school, day care issues, no car, etc. That doesn't tell us anything about how hard or easy it is to find a job.

Some of the marginally attached, 885,000 are considered "discouraged:" they stopped looking because they believed there were no jobs available, that they didn't have the right training, education, genitalia, skin color, age, etc. BELIEF, not necessarily reality. We don't know what the truth is because they stopped trying. Theyre tracked in the U4 measure and that rate is 8.3%

Having a definition that fits what you want to know (how difficult/easy it is to actually get a job) is not "cooking" the books. The Ue rate is meant to measure how hard it is to get a job, not how many people aren't working. Those not trying to work don't tell us how difficult/easy it is and have never been considered unemployed.

I have no idea what you think the UE rate is supposed to measure. If you just want the percent of the population not working, that's easy: it's the inverse of the employment-population ratio. Currently, that's 58.6%, which means that 41.4% of the adult civilian non-institutional population do not have jobs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Could that be because, unlike the minimum wage in the US, the minimum wage in Australia is not a hard bottom? Then we have the fact that Australia cooks the unemployment numbers to get them down to the current 5.4% instead of the more accurate numbers which but their unemployment at 14%, which is about the same as our real numbers. I guess they didn't come out any better than we did after all.

Our unemployment is doctored the same way. Our U6 unemployment rate is 16%.

The fact is that raising minimum wage just above poverty level lowers unemployment & does not cause prices to rise or inflation.

Australia does not cook their unemployment numbers, neither do we. I'll ask again, like I always do, though I know I won't get an intelligent answer: How exactly are you claiming the US or Australia cooks/doctors/manipulates etc the Unemployment data?

From collection to dissemenation, what are you claiming is done? I know, I'll just get insults and assertions but no real answer.

Oh, and the U6 is 14.3%, not 16%.

Everyone cooks their data. Neither the US nor Australia count people who are not looking for work as unemployed, that is, by definition, cooking the data. Unless, that is, you think not looking for work is a job.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's right.

Productivity increased tremendously over the last 40 years, but most of the increased profits went to the ownership class.

This is one of the flaws of capitalism.

Distribution of wealth resulting from increased productivity quite naturally and rightly goes to the investment class.

One of the ways to bleed off enough of that extra wealth for social redistribution is by additional taxation on the capital class AND increasing social services with that additional taxation. (more socialism)

OR (probably a much healthier approach) by allowing the working class a higher percentage of that new wealth in the form of increased salaries. (more competitive capitalism)

America has gone ion the opposite direction in both cases.

AS a consequence our CONSUMER DRIVEN ECONOMY no longer works very well and new wealth is constantly chasing decreasing profits.

In order to have a consumer driven economy, consumers must make enough money.

This cannot be THAT confusing to anyone who is not entirely mentally challenged.

You really are incredibly stupid, aren't you? First, the ownership class is almost everyone who has a pension because pension funds invest in those corporations. Second, if all the profits went to the ownership class prices would skyrocketed, like they do under communist systems. The great advantage of capitalism is that profits are used to decrease prices.

 

[pinqy]

Our unemployment is doctored the same way. Our U6 unemployment rate is 16%.

The fact is that raising minimum wage just above poverty level lowers unemployment & does not cause prices to rise or inflation.

Australia does not cook their unemployment numbers, neither do we. I'll ask again, like I always do, though I know I won't get an intelligent answer: How exactly are you claiming the US or Australia cooks/doctors/manipulates etc the Unemployment data?

From collection to dissemenation, what are you claiming is done? I know, I'll just get insults and assertions but no real answer.

Oh, and the U6 is 14.3%, not 16%.

Everyone cooks their data. Neither the US nor Australia count people who are not looking for work as unemployed, that is, by definition, cooking the data.

You'll have to show me as source for that definition. Why do you think people not trying to get a job should be considered Unemployed? Retirees, students, housewives, have never been considered unemployed.

Unless, that is, you think not looking for work is a job.

huh? You Don't think they're classified as employed, do you?