Hey republicans, how exactly are we supposed to fix the stagnant wage problem?

[zeke]

by definition the wage someone is willing to take to do the work is a fair way. Otherwise people wouldn't voluntarily accept the work

Really? Is that because having no money is way better than having some money? Idiot.

 

[edthecynic]

Did you know that interest rates under Carter were over 21%.

It was St Ronnie who sent interest rates over 20%

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If the unions were behind it, that could very well be the reason behind the Raptors being overpriced and not working right, production and quality aren't necessarily on the unions top agenda from what I see.

Damn, your stupidity is showing again.
You think union members designed the Raptor eh? I bet you can't prove that. Wanna bet?
Or seeing as how a great deal of the problems of the Raptor involved the computer programming and the complexity of the systems.

You probably think that the union members wrote the software.

Nah dude the Machinists Union that represents many of the defense workers has some of the best, most motivated workers in the world. That why all the defense contractors use high skilled union workers.

You tying to make them look bad cause you hate unions, makes you a very fucked up individual.

In case you can't read I was making the claim that unions are most likely the reason behind those higher costs you complain so much about with regard to military spending.

Oh, and I am very familiar with unions and how they work btw, and if you think being a union member means that their workers are all about production, then you never worked for one.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hey republicans, how exactly are we supposed to fix the stagnant wage problem?

pass Keystone ... 35 new jobs

abolish the IRS .... - 20,000 jobs

prove Clinton lied about Benghazi .... no jobs

impeach Obama ... no jobs

bitch about Obama passing immigration reform ... no jobs

kill Obamacare ... Insurance companies lose 7 Million new insurance policies and the people who have jobs keeping track of claims ..


NOW this country is moving in the right direction ! Wage problem solved !

^retard

 

[Boss]

Did you know that interest rates under Carter were over 21%.

It was St Ronnie who sent interest rates over 20%

That is a patently false statement.

Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Led by Volcker, the Federal Reserve raised the discount rate from 10% when Volcker assumed the chairmanship in August 1979 to 12% within two months.[72] The prime rate outstripped the Federal funds rate, reaching 20% in March 1980. Carter then enacted an austerity program by executive order, justifying these measures by observing that inflation had reached a "crisis stage"; both inflation and short-term interest rates reached 18 percent in February and March 1980.[73] Investments in fixed income (both bonds held by Wall Street and pensions paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable in real terms, and on March 14, 1980, President Carter announced the first credit control measures since World War II.[74]

The policy, as well as record interest rates, would lead to a sharp recession in the spring of 1980.[75] The sudden fall in GDP during the second quarter caused unemployment to jump from 6% to 7.5% by May, with output in the auto and housing sectors falling by over 20% and to their weakest level since the 1975 recession.[59] Carter phased out credit controls in May, and by July, the prime rate had fallen to 11%,[72] with inflation breaking the earlier trend and easing to under 13% for the remainder of 1980.[76] The V-shaped recession coincided with Carter's re-election campaign, however, and contributed to his unexpectedly severe loss.[68]

Lower interest rates and easing of credit controls sparked a recovery during the second half of 1980, and although the hard-hit auto and housing sectors would not recover substantially,[59] GDP and employment totals regained pre-recession levels by the first quarter of 1981.[62][63] The S&P 500(which had remained at around 100 since 1976), rose to nearly 140 by the latter part of the year.[77] A resumption in growth prompted renewed tightening by the Fed, however, and the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.

 

[RKMBrown]

If republicans are too immature to admit the low wage problem can't be fixed through forcefully raising the minimum wage, how exactly are we supposed to boost wages? Since the recession there has been a significant decrease of high wage jobs and a significant increase of low wage jobs. How do we fix poverty if 10s of millions of Americans HAVE NO CHOICE but to accept low wage jobs?

Let's pretend republicans had full control over this issue. What would republicans do to boost wages? I want specific answers. Don't give me crap like "undo democratic bullshit of the last 6 years derp derp derp". I want SPECIFIC AND DETAILED steps on how we are supposed to boost wages in this county if raising the minimum wage isn't an option.

I am not an R, but to increase wages would require the termination of progressive policies. Stop shipping jobs out of the country with your crazy tax schemes and enviro regulations.

The jobs go where labor is cheap. Not many here will work 12-hour days, six days a week, for a buck a day, but they will in China. You an't gonna beat that no matter how few the regulations or how low the taxes.

So why raise the minimum wage if jobs are going to leave by doing so?

Because they are authoritarians that feel the need to do something about everything. Forcing others to do what they want is... what they do.

 

[RKMBrown]

Get a skill learn a trade that has a value beside flipping burgers

Well gee with the way wages are people can't afford to learn a trade. Even if more people were qualified, such jobs would be highly competitive from the millions of low wage workers.

Ever heard of On the Job Training? Better known as OJT? Get paid while you learn.

Good god dude try to pay attention. Low wage jobs outnumber decent wage jobs. That means millions of people have no choice to accept low wage jobs. On top of that, who exactly are fast food companies supposed to employ given that everyone in your perfect world would become over qualified?

Make yourself more marketable.

You people are so dense. It's such fallacy to believe that just because people are poor in today's world that means they are lazy or dumb. Sure some are, but that doesn't mean most of them are. People are at the mercy of today's economy by and large.

When in the history of mankind have people not been at the mercy of the economy?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well gee with the way wages are people can't afford to learn a trade. Even if more people were qualified, such jobs would be highly competitive from the millions of low wage workers.

Ever heard of On the Job Training? Better known as OJT? Get paid while you learn.

Good god dude try to pay attention. Low wage jobs outnumber decent wage jobs. That means millions of people have no choice to accept low wage jobs. On top of that, who exactly are fast food companies supposed to employ given that everyone in your perfect world would become over qualified?

Make yourself more marketable.

You people are so dense. It's such fallacy to believe that just because people are poor in today's world that means they are lazy or dumb. Sure some are, but that doesn't mean most of them are. People are at the mercy of today's economy by and large.

When in the history of mankind have people not been at the mercy of the economy?

When there wasn't any...

 

[RKMBrown]

Such an ignorant child

Those Defense industries do not develop on their own. They are a direct result of the GOVERNMENT contracting for goods and services. Without the GOVERNMENT, those defense industries would not exist

It is the GOVERNMENT that creates those jobs

I see so Boeing does not develop on their own. Boeing only sells to government contracts. Only government buys aircraft. Who knew?

Boeing is a great example

How about that 747 they created on their own? The Government needed a heavy transport plane. Bigger than anything ever built. They decided to compete the bid and awarded two contracts for a flyoff....Boeing and Lockheed.
Lockheed built a plane called the C-5 and won the contract
Boeing built a design which lost but they turned into the 747

Tell us again how the Government does not create jobs

Where did the money come from that "government" uses to "create" jobs? You think spending my money is you "creating" something? Are you daft?

Government spending tax payer dollars is tax payers buying products. Boeing is a corporation that created the jobs, the people work for Boeing, they are Boeing employees. Selling products to customers are what pays the bills. The company and it's investors create the jobs. But without paying customers they have to fire their employees.

Where do roads, bridges, sewers, street lamps come from? Who pays the people who protect our forests, our food supplies, inspects planes and trains? Our military?

If it wasn't for inventors like Henry Ford, who successfully built and mass produced the model T, and private investors who supported him, there would be no reason for government to build roads, bridges, and infrastructure.

Without those inventors like Thomas Edison, there would be no demand for an integrated electrical grid system to be built... no need for those union electricians or the IBEW.

It's those who take creative risks with private investors behind their dream to invent and create, like the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, which opened the eyes into further possibilities for the advancements into flight ... who created those jobs. No the government didn't do that, so let's not go into that topic again.

Government does not build roads.... the tax payers do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you have the same requirements in both places (for heating, transportation, etc.)

Yes...

^Idiot

Moron...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I see so Boeing does not develop on their own. Boeing only sells to government contracts. Only government buys aircraft. Who knew?

Boeing is a great example

How about that 747 they created on their own? The Government needed a heavy transport plane. Bigger than anything ever built. They decided to compete the bid and awarded two contracts for a flyoff....Boeing and Lockheed.
Lockheed built a plane called the C-5 and won the contract
Boeing built a design which lost but they turned into the 747

Tell us again how the Government does not create jobs

Where did the money come from that "government" uses to "create" jobs? You think spending my money is you "creating" something? Are you daft?

Government spending tax payer dollars is tax payers buying products. Boeing is a corporation that created the jobs, the people work for Boeing, they are Boeing employees. Selling products to customers are what pays the bills. The company and it's investors create the jobs. But without paying customers they have to fire their employees.

Where do roads, bridges, sewers, street lamps come from? Who pays the people who protect our forests, our food supplies, inspects planes and trains? Our military?

If it wasn't for inventors like Henry Ford, who successfully built and mass produced the model T, and private investors who supported him, there would be no reason for government to build roads, bridges, and infrastructure.

Without those inventors like Thomas Edison, there would be no demand for an integrated electrical grid system to be built... no need for those union electricians or the IBEW.

It's those who take creative risks with private investors behind their dream to invent and create, like the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, which opened the eyes into further possibilities for the advancements into flight ... who created those jobs. No the government didn't do that, so let's not go into that topic again.

Government does not build roads.... the tax payers do.

No, they pay for them, that's all. And taxpayers is one word.

 

[RKMBrown]

Do you have the same requirements in both places (for heating, transportation, etc.)

Yes...

^Idiot

Moron...

Deleted... had to drink my coffee

 

[RKMBrown]

Boeing is a great example

How about that 747 they created on their own? The Government needed a heavy transport plane. Bigger than anything ever built. They decided to compete the bid and awarded two contracts for a flyoff....Boeing and Lockheed.
Lockheed built a plane called the C-5 and won the contract
Boeing built a design which lost but they turned into the 747

Tell us again how the Government does not create jobs

Where did the money come from that "government" uses to "create" jobs? You think spending my money is you "creating" something? Are you daft?

Government spending tax payer dollars is tax payers buying products. Boeing is a corporation that created the jobs, the people work for Boeing, they are Boeing employees. Selling products to customers are what pays the bills. The company and it's investors create the jobs. But without paying customers they have to fire their employees.

Where do roads, bridges, sewers, street lamps come from? Who pays the people who protect our forests, our food supplies, inspects planes and trains? Our military?

If it wasn't for inventors like Henry Ford, who successfully built and mass produced the model T, and private investors who supported him, there would be no reason for government to build roads, bridges, and infrastructure.

Without those inventors like Thomas Edison, there would be no demand for an integrated electrical grid system to be built... no need for those union electricians or the IBEW.

It's those who take creative risks with private investors behind their dream to invent and create, like the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, which opened the eyes into further possibilities for the advancements into flight ... who created those jobs. No the government didn't do that, so let's not go into that topic again.

Government does not build roads.... the tax payers do.

No, they pay for them, that's all. And taxpayers is one word.

Show me construction workers that will work for free. Hiring someone to build a road with "taxpayer" funds is not building a road. Hiring is not building.

When you have a house built for you, that's buying the house, not building the house. If you actually build the house then you can say you built it. However getting "paid" to hire people to build roads with "taxpayer" money is not building a road.

 

[Billy000]

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the investment class is already doing better now than ever? What could be more of a hint than that to stop coddling them? Like I said this is a consumption based economy. Stimulating supply side means dick if you ignore demand side.

Yes, the stimulus in demand would run out by extending unemployment benefits, but it would be open ended with tax cuts for the middle class and raising the min wage. Yes, there would be an initial cost to capital by raising it and a few thousand jobs would be lost, but all of that would be regained by the open ended boost to people's pay checks. Eventually prices would go down and jobs would be created.

We don't have "classes" in America. That's a concept in many socialist countries but not here. In America, we have one class... Americans. Some Americans invest wealth they have already earned and paid taxes on. That's a GOOD thing, we NEED that to happen. We SHOULD coddle them, keep encouraging them to invest, do things to make them want to invest more. This represents money that can be used to create new jobs. Discouraging investment by taxing it more is not going to increase anyone's paycheck.

I am all in favor of lowering taxes on anyone, including the middle class. But the middle class are the bulk of the tax base and half are already paying very little income tax. Cuts there are going to have to include cuts in our spending. That means we can't extend unemployment benefits or create more entitlement programs.

And again... let's be honest, when most "middle class" families realize a small gain in income, whether through a wage increase or lower taxes, what do they generally do with that money? They find something to spend it on. This doesn't create any new jobs, it simply creates demand for a supply that is already there. Which one of the following is better: A) 100 million working with a $40 week pay increase, or B) 150 million working without an increase? Keeping in mind, the 100 million in example A are going to have to subsidize 50 million who aren't working.

There is absolutely no need to cut taxes for the job creators. The bulk of the revenue must come from them. A progressive tax system isn't about what's fair but what's realistic. Realistically the wealthy must be taxed the most because they have the most money. It's not about punishing them. It's about what makes sense.

Trust me if I thought they were over taxed I would be all for cutting their taxes. They aren't though. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is at 16%. That's near a historic low. We need to raise taxes on the wealthy. Obviously not by too much but right now revenue isn't hwre it should be.

 

[rightwinger]

I see so Boeing does not develop on their own. Boeing only sells to government contracts. Only government buys aircraft. Who knew?

Boeing is a great example

How about that 747 they created on their own? The Government needed a heavy transport plane. Bigger than anything ever built. They decided to compete the bid and awarded two contracts for a flyoff....Boeing and Lockheed.
Lockheed built a plane called the C-5 and won the contract
Boeing built a design which lost but they turned into the 747

Tell us again how the Government does not create jobs

Where did the money come from that "government" uses to "create" jobs? You think spending my money is you "creating" something? Are you daft?

Government spending tax payer dollars is tax payers buying products. Boeing is a corporation that created the jobs, the people work for Boeing, they are Boeing employees. Selling products to customers are what pays the bills. The company and it's investors create the jobs. But without paying customers they have to fire their employees.

Where do roads, bridges, sewers, street lamps come from? Who pays the people who protect our forests, our food supplies, inspects planes and trains? Our military?

If it wasn't for inventors like Henry Ford, who successfully built and mass produced the model T, and private investors who supported him, there would be no reason for government to build roads, bridges, and infrastructure.

Without those inventors like Thomas Edison, there would be no demand for an integrated electrical grid system to be built... no need for those union electricians or the IBEW.

It's those who take creative risks with private investors behind their dream to invent and create, like the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, which opened the eyes into further possibilities for the advancements into flight ... who created those jobs. No the government didn't do that, so let's not go into that topic again.

Government does not build roads.... the tax payers do.

Government IS the taxpayers

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Where did the money come from that "government" uses to "create" jobs? You think spending my money is you "creating" something? Are you daft?

Government spending tax payer dollars is tax payers buying products. Boeing is a corporation that created the jobs, the people work for Boeing, they are Boeing employees. Selling products to customers are what pays the bills. The company and it's investors create the jobs. But without paying customers they have to fire their employees.

Where do roads, bridges, sewers, street lamps come from? Who pays the people who protect our forests, our food supplies, inspects planes and trains? Our military?

If it wasn't for inventors like Henry Ford, who successfully built and mass produced the model T, and private investors who supported him, there would be no reason for government to build roads, bridges, and infrastructure.

Without those inventors like Thomas Edison, there would be no demand for an integrated electrical grid system to be built... no need for those union electricians or the IBEW.

It's those who take creative risks with private investors behind their dream to invent and create, like the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, which opened the eyes into further possibilities for the advancements into flight ... who created those jobs. No the government didn't do that, so let's not go into that topic again.

Government does not build roads.... the tax payers do.

No, they pay for them, that's all. And taxpayers is one word.

Show me construction workers that will work for free. Hiring someone to build a road with "taxpayer" funds is not building a road. Hiring is not building.

When you have a house built for you, that's buying the house, not building the house. If you actually build the house then you can say you built it. However getting "paid" to hire people to build roads with "taxpayer" money is not building a road.

Your semantics are of no interest, to anyone.

 

[Papageorgio]

What wage problem?

You mean the 10s of millions of Americans who make less than $15 an hour? The fact that 40% of the nation's wealth is owned by the top 1% of earners?

Yeah.

What's the problem?

If you're just going to go into denial mode like a child I am not going to bother with you.

So, you only want people that agree with you to respond?

I've lost my job twice to economic downturns or cutbacks. What I had done is make myself marketable in other areas by having skills outside of the profession I was in. When one door closed, another opened. See how simple that is? If you have a limited skill set, it's not the fault of the system but the one with limited skill sets.

Your story is anecdotal. What matters are statistics. Your story is not representive of the market place. People with low skills can't afford to go learn more. Because higher wage jobs are much less common, they are highly competitive. That means millions are stuck where they are.

Why isn't Obama creating better paying jobs?

 

[edthecynic]

Did you know that interest rates under Carter were over 21%.

It was St Ronnie who sent interest rates over 20%

That is a patently false statement.

Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Led by Volcker, the Federal Reserve raised the discount rate from 10% when Volcker assumed the chairmanship in August 1979 to 12% within two months.[72] The prime rate outstripped the Federal funds rate, reaching 20% in March 1980. Carter then enacted an austerity program by executive order, justifying these measures by observing that inflation had reached a "crisis stage"; both inflation and short-term interest rates reached 18 percent in February and March 1980.[73] Investments in fixed income (both bonds held by Wall Street and pensions paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable in real terms, and on March 14, 1980, President Carter announced the first credit control measures since World War II.[74]

The policy, as well as record interest rates, would lead to a sharp recession in the spring of 1980.[75] The sudden fall in GDP during the second quarter caused unemployment to jump from 6% to 7.5% by May, with output in the auto and housing sectors falling by over 20% and to their weakest level since the 1975 recession.[59] Carter phased out credit controls in May, and by July, the prime rate had fallen to 11%,[72] with inflation breaking the earlier trend and easing to under 13% for the remainder of 1980.[76] The V-shaped recession coincided with Carter's re-election campaign, however, and contributed to his unexpectedly severe loss.[68]

Lower interest rates and easing of credit controls sparked a recovery during the second half of 1980, and although the hard-hit auto and housing sectors would not recover substantially,[59] GDP and employment totals regained pre-recession levels by the first quarter of 1981.[62][63] The S&P 500(which had remained at around 100 since 1976), rose to nearly 140 by the latter part of the year.[77] A resumption in growth prompted renewed tightening by the Fed, however, and the prime rate reached 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.

Wiki, hahaha!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I see so Boeing does not develop on their own. Boeing only sells to government contracts. Only government buys aircraft. Who knew?

Boeing is a great example

How about that 747 they created on their own? The Government needed a heavy transport plane. Bigger than anything ever built. They decided to compete the bid and awarded two contracts for a flyoff....Boeing and Lockheed.
Lockheed built a plane called the C-5 and won the contract
Boeing built a design which lost but they turned into the 747

Tell us again how the Government does not create jobs

Where did the money come from that "government" uses to "create" jobs? You think spending my money is you "creating" something? Are you daft?

Government spending tax payer dollars is tax payers buying products. Boeing is a corporation that created the jobs, the people work for Boeing, they are Boeing employees. Selling products to customers are what pays the bills. The company and it's investors create the jobs. But without paying customers they have to fire their employees.

Where do roads, bridges, sewers, street lamps come from? Who pays the people who protect our forests, our food supplies, inspects planes and trains? Our military?

If it wasn't for inventors like Henry Ford, who successfully built and mass produced the model T, and private investors who supported him, there would be no reason for government to build roads, bridges, and infrastructure.

Without those inventors like Thomas Edison, there would be no demand for an integrated electrical grid system to be built... no need for those union electricians or the IBEW.

It's those who take creative risks with private investors behind their dream to invent and create, like the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, which opened the eyes into further possibilities for the advancements into flight ... who created those jobs. No the government didn't do that, so let's not go into that topic again.

Government does not build roads.... the tax payers do.

That's not what I said in my reply.

 

[Boss]

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the investment class is already doing better now than ever? What could be more of a hint than that to stop coddling them? Like I said this is a consumption based economy. Stimulating supply side means dick if you ignore demand side.

Yes, the stimulus in demand would run out by extending unemployment benefits, but it would be open ended with tax cuts for the middle class and raising the min wage. Yes, there would be an initial cost to capital by raising it and a few thousand jobs would be lost, but all of that would be regained by the open ended boost to people's pay checks. Eventually prices would go down and jobs would be created.

We don't have "classes" in America. That's a concept in many socialist countries but not here. In America, we have one class... Americans. Some Americans invest wealth they have already earned and paid taxes on. That's a GOOD thing, we NEED that to happen. We SHOULD coddle them, keep encouraging them to invest, do things to make them want to invest more. This represents money that can be used to create new jobs. Discouraging investment by taxing it more is not going to increase anyone's paycheck.

I am all in favor of lowering taxes on anyone, including the middle class. But the middle class are the bulk of the tax base and half are already paying very little income tax. Cuts there are going to have to include cuts in our spending. That means we can't extend unemployment benefits or create more entitlement programs.

And again... let's be honest, when most "middle class" families realize a small gain in income, whether through a wage increase or lower taxes, what do they generally do with that money? They find something to spend it on. This doesn't create any new jobs, it simply creates demand for a supply that is already there. Which one of the following is better: A) 100 million working with a $40 week pay increase, or B) 150 million working without an increase? Keeping in mind, the 100 million in example A are going to have to subsidize 50 million who aren't working.

There is absolutely no need to cut taxes for the job creators. The bulk of the revenue must come from them. A progressive tax system isn't about what's fair but what's realistic. Realistically the wealthy must be taxed the most because they have the most money. It's not about punishing them. It's about what makes sense.

Trust me if I thought they were over taxed I would be all for cutting their taxes. They aren't though. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is at 16%. That's near a historic low. We need to raise taxes on the wealthy. Obviously not by too much but right now revenue isn't hwre it should be.

You're jumping all over the board. Are we having a conversation about increasing the wages of people or increasing revenue stream to federal government? It doesn't matter, I can argue either one, but these are two seperate arguments.

To increase wages, we have to increase demand for labor. That means, we have to create more jobs than there are people to do them. We don't currently have that problem, we have the opposite... we have record unemployment levels and no new jobs being created, while opening our borders to millions more who are seeking jobs.

Now, I presented a suggestion as to how we might go about creating this massive number of new jobs, but for whatever reason, you've decided to revert back to "war on the rich" mode and argue taxation. Raising top marginal income tax rates doesn't help anyone's wages improve. In fact, it doesn't even help to generate more revenue when accounted for with GDP growth. It always results in less revenue because the high income wage earner doesn't HAVE to earn income. The only way we've ever realized more revenue by raising taxes is to raise taxes on the middle class and broaden the base. But we don't need to increase revenue, we need to cut spending and cut tax rates.

A progressive tax system is okay, it's what we currently have. The high income earners are paying more in taxes as a percentage than anyone else. You act as if that is not the case and we need to fix it. There are wealthy people investing, and you want to zap them with high tax rates too! Well... that's where all your money is to create the new jobs which we need in order to improve wages. So what do you want to do? Do you want to improve wages or do you want to punish the wealthy? ...before you answer, keep in mind... you aren't actually punishing the wealthy, they are two steps ahead of you. Whatever you tax, they'll stop doing it... or at least stop doing it here. If you want to prevent them from doing it elsewhere, you can do that, but there are serious ramifications there as well.