Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I went shoe shopping with the wife. I'm checking out the tennis shoes. All made in Vietnam, Indonesia and China. Priced from $50-$90. There is NO WAY we couldn't manufacture shoes here paying people $15 an hour and not do it profitably at those prices.
You don't think we won't protect ourselves with Tariffs before that happens? Which... We could do RIGHT NOW to help the dollar stay strong and give the people more buying power... Why do you choose the worst option to do?That's fine. When all the production leaves and people far exceed jobs, as I said, we will pay people to not work.
I explained what would happen and why... You say that wouldn't be worse. We disagree. Again... if you give me an "oh shit moment" I didn't think of that. I'll thank you.You say it's worse, I say it isn't,
Minimum wages have been raised ever since there has been one. You are arguing that the working poor should fall further and further behind.
If companies still want to offshore and we want to do nothing about that, I'll be voting for those who promise a guaranteed income.
(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. central bank should not prematurely withdraw pandemic support for the U.S. economy just because some people are getting rich in the stock market, said San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Mary Daly.
“We’re building this bridge, which is barely having many communities hang on, and the stock market is running pretty good and many people who already have money are getting more money,” she said Friday during a virtual discussion hosted by the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Fed’s Daly Pushes Back Against Pulling Policy Aid to Curb Stocks
But the working poor shouldn't get anything. Screw that.
Minimum wages have been raised ever since there has been one. You are arguing that the working poor should fall further and further behind.
No that is a stupid claim. Absolutely stupid.
What makes the working poor fall further behind, is you jacking up the cost of labor, so they end up unemployed, and can't find a job.
You are the one who wants the working poor to be out of work, and fall further behind.
Every single time they raise the minimum wage, people lose their jobs. No exception.
As long as people like you, do not force people out of jobs with your idiotic policies, people can advance up the income ladder.
No one anywhere wants people to stay poor.
The difference is, we believe the solution to being poor, and people moving themselves up the income ladder.
You believe that people are incapable of doing that, because you are smug arrogant jerks... so you think you need government to fix the lives of other people.
But that never works. What works, is people working their way up. Not sitting around waiting for your fake savior government, to somehow make a law saying your life is better.
Did that work for Greece? They had a minimum wage indexed to inflation. Unemployment got so bad, that they CUT the minimum wage, and what a shock.... unemployed fell, as employers were able to higher people. Crazy how that works.
Almost like we on the right wing have predicted that for almost a hundred years.
Circles. We have already covered this. When they are out of jobs you will pay them a living wage for not working.
First, we would have to tax people massive high taxes, in order to do that. So you are going to make everyone poor, so that people can sit at home not working?
This gets old........it's not about me. I'm simply stating what is going to happen.
That would be a disaster.
It's inevitable. There will be no other choice. You either pay people to survive or they steal from you to survive.
No... that's not true. In the 1990s, when they passed welfare reform under the GOP contract with America, they kicked millions of people off welfare and food stamps, dropping rolls by less than half.
They didn't go out and start stealing. They got jobs, and earned their keep.
Ahem......the jobs are leaving.
It's inevitable. There will be no other choice. You either pay people to survive or they steal from you to survive.
So perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, and that could very well be, and I apologize if that's the case.
However, what you appear to be saying, seems to be extremely contradictory.
You seem to be saying that raising the minimum wage would not cause jobs to leave the US.
Yet, I think it's a given that manufacturing has left the US.... correct? And I think we all agree one reason is because labor costs are cheaper elsewhere..... correct?
So how can you say that jacking up the cost of labor, will not result in job loss to other countries?
How can you admit it is cheaper to produce things outside the country, and this is why manufacturing has moved out of the country, and at the same time, claim that increasing the minimum wage won't cause job loss?
It just seems typical leftwing elitism to think places like Ala and Miss and WV can't figure out their own state economies.
" Ala and Miss and WV "
Byrd Rule, politics threaten $15 per hour minimum wage
Democrats face a series of steep political and procedural challenges as they plot a path to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour using a budgetary process known as reconciliation that would sides…thehill.com
I don't doubt or disagree with NYC or other urban areas, esp progressive ones, logically wanting the raise. Or the need of workers. But in rural states, min wage jobs sometimes just supplement rural life of raising and growing one's own food. It will kill jobs, because the people who buy retail goods are the same ones working the jobs. Employers will consolidate gas stations, small grocery's and maybe even Wal-Marts. It just seems typical leftwing elitism to think places like Ala and Miss and WV can't figure out their own state economies.
" the terms they agree to are no one else's business. That's basic privacy and self-determination. "I think what bugs me most about minimum wage legislation isn't that it is delusional. It is delusional - it won't do the 'good' advocates imagine - but it's also a fundamental violation of individual rights. If two people want to trade with each other, whether it's labor in exchange for goods or whatever, the terms they agree to are no one else's business. That's basic privacy and self-determination. Unless the deal falls through and results in conflict, the government has no business getting involved.
yeah, if you take anything to the extreme it's a bad thing. Thanks for that. o.0You don't think we won't protect ourselves with Tariffs before that happens? Which... We could do RIGHT NOW to help the dollar stay strong and give the people more buying power... Why do you choose the worst option to do?That's fine. When all the production leaves and people far exceed jobs, as I said, we will pay people to not work.
Tariffs have never protected us. It didn't in the 1930s, and it won't today.
Protectionism will actually drive out manufacturing even more.
The irony is, China is the clearest example of that playing out.
Before the 1978 liberalization, and the Free Trade Zones, no one really had anything manufactured in China. Why? Because it cost to much.
The free-trade zones in China, is what caused the economic boom, along with economic liberalization.
Remember, there are 330 Million people in the US. There are 8 Billion people world wide. So if you have $500 Million dollars to build a manufacturing plant, where are you going to build that plant? In the US, which due to protectionism will only be able to market to the US?
Or would you build where you can serve the other 7.5 Billion people in the world, in a free trade zone?
Apple, Ford, and numerous other large companies, all make more money outside the US, than they do inside the US.
If you put in trade barriers to prevent free trade, companies are going to invest outside the US, rather than inside. There are far more customers, and more money, to be made on the world market, than on the US market. If you make protectionism an "us or them", it's going to be them, not us.
I hate links that don't show where and how they are getting their data. Is the same rate used for every state? Because again, 30k in California and 30K in Al, WV, and Miss are very different. I don't pay anywhere near a grand a month for housing... I find that absolutely insane.It just seems typical leftwing elitism to think places like Ala and Miss and WV can't figure out their own state economies.
Poverty Rates in the United States ranked.
View attachment 450501
List of U.S. states and territories by poverty rate - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
| Poverty Thresholds for 2019 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years | ||||||||||
| Size of family unit | Related children under 18 years | |||||||||
| Weighted | ||||||||||
| average | None | One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six | Seven | Eight or more | |
| thresholds | ||||||||||
| One person (unrelated individual): | 13,011 | |||||||||
| Under age 65*. | 13,300 | 13,300 | ||||||||
| Aged 65 and older*. | 12,261 | 12,261 | ||||||||
| Two people: | 16,521 | |||||||||
| Householder under age 65*. | 17,196 | 17,120 | 17,622 | |||||||
| Householder aged 65 and older*. | 15,468 | 15,453 | 17,555 | |||||||
| Three people*. | 20,335 | 19,998 | 20,578 | 20,598 | ||||||
| Four people*. | 26,172 | 26,370 | 26,801 | 25,926 | 26,017 | |||||
| Five people*. | 31,021 | 31,800 | 32,263 | 31,275 | 30,510 | 30,044 | ||||
| Six people*. | 35,129 | 36,576 | 36,721 | 35,965 | 35,239 | 34,161 | 33,522 | |||
| Seven people*. | 40,016 | 42,085 | 42,348 | 41,442 | 40,811 | 39,635 | 38,262 | 36,757 | ||
| Eight people*. | 44,461 | 47,069 | 47,485 | 46,630 | 45,881 | 44,818 | 43,470 | 42,066 | 41,709 | |
| Nine people or more*. | 52,875 | 56,621 | 56,895 | 56,139 | 55,503 | 54,460 | 53,025 | 51,727 | 51,406 | 49,426 |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau. |
It just seems typical leftwing elitism to think places like Ala and Miss and WV can't figure out their own state economies.
Poverty Rates in the United States ranked.
View attachment 450501
List of U.S. states and territories by poverty rate - Wikipedia
I hate links that don't show where and how they are getting their data. Is the same rate used for every state? Because again, 30k in California and 30K in Al, WV, and Miss are very different. I don't pay anywhere near a grand a month for housing... I find that absolutely insane.
Hell, we had a poster in this very thread that said 75k wasn't middle class. You damn skippy it's middle class here in Iowa. Very likely is in most states.
Hell, the link I get to show how that information was arrived at on the Wiki page for poverty levels: Estimates are not comparable to other geographic levels due to methodology differences that may exist between different data sources.
Well... Damnit... What methodology did you use then ya stupid Wiki, stupid Census Bureau... It's almost like I'm watching the news.
I hate links that don't show where and how they are getting their data. Is the same rate used for every state?
You didn't make a point. Try again?
That one is much better... yes.I hate links that don't show where and how they are getting their data. Is the same rate used for every state?
This one might be a little more helpful. Actually, a lot more helpful.
View attachment 450510
Welfare Recipients by State 2024
worldpopulationreview.com
You didn't make a point. Try again?
Their state economies don't appear to be going too well when they're leading in welfare rates.
Then again... If I had to be on welfare, I sure as hell don't want to be in a place that has a high cost of living.
Just because you don't think they appear to be doing well, doesn't mean that you know better than they.
