Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[WinterBorn]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

Requiring a work ethic from the Age of Iron is socialism and a form of Control of the People.

No. Requiring that you contribute something in exchange for what you take from others is basic civilization.

 

[danielpalos]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

cheaper than welfare as we currently know it. why do you Care how the Poor get their money; or, should we have to Care how the Rich get their money?

No, not cheaper than welfare. A young, healthy male cannot get welfare simply because he doesn't want to work.

I don't care how the poor get their money, until it is taken from me, by force (taxation).

Yes, it is a lot cheaper and more efficient; thus, cost effective. a better solution at lower cost; what concept, right wingers.

 

[Oldstyle]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

He spews the same crap over and over again constantly trying to change the conversation. That's why I put him on ignore so I don't have to see the repetitive BS.

i don't mind reading up on the concepts. the right wing usually only argues in a vacuum of special pleading.

"...a vacuum of special pleading."

Do you even know what it is you're trying to say, Daniel? What comes out of your mouth is nothing more than double talk. What is a vacuum of special pleading?

 

[WinterBorn]

The first thing you have to understand about Daniel, WinterBorn...is that he has ZERO concept about economics and spends his time here spouting gibberish that he thinks makes people think he DOES! "Market participants should self-select based on Market conditions." What does that even mean? Self select what? Their own wage? What's he babbling about? Do you know...I sure as heck don't and I don't think he does either.

What landlord or real estate firm would be worse off, in that case?

In what case?

the Case where every adult market participant has recourse to an income regardless of employment status in our more developed not less developed economy.

So you are asking what landlord or real estate firm would be worse off if working people had to pay people a salary despite the fact that they quit their job or refused to work? Every single one of them. The rest of the people (those who work) would have less money. So they would have a tougher time paying rent or buying a home. The people who only want to take from the system, while contributing nothing, would make lousy tenants because they expect everything to be given to them without their having to do anything. And the costs of maintaining the rental units would go up.

why do you believe that? only true socialists don't believe in capitalism.

Capitalism is the basis for what I said.

 

[danielpalos]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

Requiring a work ethic from the Age of Iron is socialism and a form of Control of the People.

No. Requiring that you contribute something in exchange for what you take from others is basic civilization.

capital Has to work under capitalism; fools and horses, shouldn't.

 

[WinterBorn]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

cheaper than welfare as we currently know it. why do you Care how the Poor get their money; or, should we have to Care how the Rich get their money?

No, not cheaper than welfare. A young, healthy male cannot get welfare simply because he doesn't want to work.

I don't care how the poor get their money, until it is taken from me, by force (taxation).

Yes, it is a lot cheaper and more efficient; thus, cost effective. a better solution at lower cost; what concept, right wingers.

You know what is even cheaper? When healthy adults work to earn their money instead of demanding that others support them.

 

[danielpalos]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

He spews the same crap over and over again constantly trying to change the conversation. That's why I put him on ignore so I don't have to see the repetitive BS.

i don't mind reading up on the concepts. the right wing usually only argues in a vacuum of special pleading.

"...a vacuum of special pleading."

Do you even know what it is you're trying to say, Daniel? What comes out of your mouth is nothing more than double talk. What is a vacuum of special pleading?

Yes, I do. The right wing being, One Way, about things.

 

[danielpalos]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

cheaper than welfare as we currently know it. why do you Care how the Poor get their money; or, should we have to Care how the Rich get their money?

No, not cheaper than welfare. A young, healthy male cannot get welfare simply because he doesn't want to work.

I don't care how the poor get their money, until it is taken from me, by force (taxation).

Yes, it is a lot cheaper and more efficient; thus, cost effective. a better solution at lower cost; what concept, right wingers.

You know what is even cheaper? When healthy adults work to earn their money instead of demanding that others support them.

That is Socialism, not Capitalism, good Comrade.

 

[WinterBorn]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

Requiring a work ethic from the Age of Iron is socialism and a form of Control of the People.

No. Requiring that you contribute something in exchange for what you take from others is basic civilization.

capital Has to work under capitalism; fools and horses, shouldn't.

You are still spouting that nonsense? That people shouldn't have to work?

So who will build and maintain the things we need? Who will grow the food? Who will transport the food? Who will teach our children? Because people do that now for a paycheck. Stop paying them and they stop working.

 

[Oldstyle]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

Requiring a work ethic from the Age of Iron is socialism and a form of Control of the People.

No. Requiring that you contribute something in exchange for what you take from others is basic civilization.

capital Has to work under capitalism; fools and horses, shouldn't.

Here's the concept that you liberals never seem to grasp, Daniel. In order to get capital to "work"...you first have to offer an inducement so those who control capital are willing to risk it. That inducement is the promise of profits! Anything that you do to diminish the potential for profits (like raising wages artificially!) will put a damper on the investment of capital.

 

[WinterBorn]

What I find most laughable about his ideas is that he thinks unemployment compensation should be given to every unemployed person. Even if they quit their job. Even if they refuse to work. He just wants a check for doing nothing. And he wants people who work to have to pay him.

cheaper than welfare as we currently know it. why do you Care how the Poor get their money; or, should we have to Care how the Rich get their money?

No, not cheaper than welfare. A young, healthy male cannot get welfare simply because he doesn't want to work.

I don't care how the poor get their money, until it is taken from me, by force (taxation).

Yes, it is a lot cheaper and more efficient; thus, cost effective. a better solution at lower cost; what concept, right wingers.

You know what is even cheaper? When healthy adults work to earn their money instead of demanding that others support them.

That is Socialism, not Capitalism, good Comrade.

Absolutely not. If you think people earning their way is socialism, you are more ignorant about economics than I thought.

I have a good job because I work at it. Businesses compete for my skills. They pay me more because they get more from me. That is capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

Requiring a work ethic from the Age of Iron is socialism and a form of Control of the People.

No. Requiring that you contribute something in exchange for what you take from others is basic civilization.

capital Has to work under capitalism; fools and horses, shouldn't.

You are still spouting that nonsense? That people shouldn't have to work?

So who will build and maintain the things we need? Who will grow the food? Who will transport the food? Who will teach our children? Because people do that now for a paycheck. Stop paying them and they stop working.

employment is at will; not for the Cause of "wage slavery", it depresses not increases pressure on wages. We need an Institutional upward pressure on wages simply because, a first world economy Costs.

 

[danielpalos]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

Requiring a work ethic from the Age of Iron is socialism and a form of Control of the People.

No. Requiring that you contribute something in exchange for what you take from others is basic civilization.

capital Has to work under capitalism; fools and horses, shouldn't.

Here's the concept that you liberals never seem to grasp, Daniel. In order to get capital to "work"...you first have to offer an inducement so those who control capital are willing to risk it. That inducement is the promise of profits! Anything that you do to diminish the potential for profits (like raising wages artificially!) will put a damper on the investment of capital.

the capital has already been produced; we need Labor to soak it up and Circulate that capital so we have more Liquidity in our Markets, to address Your concern.

 

[danielpalos]

cheaper than welfare as we currently know it. why do you Care how the Poor get their money; or, should we have to Care how the Rich get their money?

No, not cheaper than welfare. A young, healthy male cannot get welfare simply because he doesn't want to work.

I don't care how the poor get their money, until it is taken from me, by force (taxation).

Yes, it is a lot cheaper and more efficient; thus, cost effective. a better solution at lower cost; what concept, right wingers.

You know what is even cheaper? When healthy adults work to earn their money instead of demanding that others support them.

That is Socialism, not Capitalism, good Comrade.

Absolutely not. If you think people earning their way is socialism, you are more ignorant about economics than I thought.

I have a good job because I work at it. Businesses compete for my skills. They pay me more because they get more from me. That is capitalism.

Capitalism is Voluntary. Socialism resorts to the "force of the law".

 

[WinterBorn]

His concept of "wage slavery" would be valid in a market where employers didn't compete to hire and retain the best workers. It falls on it's face however when it's pointed out that employers compete with other employers for employees and THAT is what drives wage increases...not government interference through higher minimum wages! What the economically naïve like Daniel believe is that raising minimum wages is a good thing for the poor and in fact it is about as bad a thing as you could possible do because of the way it shrinks entry level jobs. What an artificially high minimum wage does the best is to keep the young and those without job skills from getting jobs. If that's your goal then you're all for a high minimum wage!

Requiring a work ethic from the Age of Iron is socialism and a form of Control of the People.

No. Requiring that you contribute something in exchange for what you take from others is basic civilization.

capital Has to work under capitalism; fools and horses, shouldn't.

You are still spouting that nonsense? That people shouldn't have to work?

So who will build and maintain the things we need? Who will grow the food? Who will transport the food? Who will teach our children? Because people do that now for a paycheck. Stop paying them and they stop working.

employment is at will; not for the Cause of "wage slavery", it depresses not increases pressure on wages. We need an Institutional upward pressure on wages simply because, a first world economy Costs.

Want higher wages? Develop a skill that is worth money.

I notice you posted the "Funny" emoji on my question of who will produce things that we need if they are not paid. But you have no answer.

 

[danielpalos]

Requiring a work ethic from the Age of Iron is socialism and a form of Control of the People.

No. Requiring that you contribute something in exchange for what you take from others is basic civilization.

capital Has to work under capitalism; fools and horses, shouldn't.

You are still spouting that nonsense? That people shouldn't have to work?

So who will build and maintain the things we need? Who will grow the food? Who will transport the food? Who will teach our children? Because people do that now for a paycheck. Stop paying them and they stop working.

employment is at will; not for the Cause of "wage slavery", it depresses not increases pressure on wages. We need an Institutional upward pressure on wages simply because, a first world economy Costs.

Want higher wages? Develop a skill that is worth money.

I notice you posted the "Funny" emoji on my question of who will produce things that we need if they are not paid. But you have no answer.

a cost of living adjustment, that is all.

 

[eagle1462010]

Rent control is an absolute disaster wherever it is implemented, no matter what the justification or rationalization, i.e. "some rent control."

It is the government creating laws to help the privileged few at the expense of property owners and everyone else.

It's typical statist socialist/fascist failure.

We have property tax control here, and the GOP is trying to end it. Most of our tax increases are due for millages.

Vehicle Miles Travelled far more equitable than gas tax

California’s State Legislature voted last week to provide $52.5 billion in transportation funding by increasing the fuel tax. The 10-year plan would boost gasoline excise taxes 12 cents per gallon – a 43% increase. The cost of gas at the pump is the cost that everyone can see. It is so unpopular politically that California had not raised the gasoline tax in 23 years.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, not cheaper than welfare. A young, healthy male cannot get welfare simply because he doesn't want to work.

I don't care how the poor get their money, until it is taken from me, by force (taxation).

Yes, it is a lot cheaper and more efficient; thus, cost effective. a better solution at lower cost; what concept, right wingers.

You know what is even cheaper? When healthy adults work to earn their money instead of demanding that others support them.

That is Socialism, not Capitalism, good Comrade.

Absolutely not. If you think people earning their way is socialism, you are more ignorant about economics than I thought.

I have a good job because I work at it. Businesses compete for my skills. They pay me more because they get more from me. That is capitalism.

Capitalism is Voluntary. Socialism resorts to the "force of the law".

And yet, you want to be paid from money forcibly take from others, and claim it is capitalism.

Yes, capitalism is voluntary. But if you do not voluntarily work, you get no capital.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. Requiring that you contribute something in exchange for what you take from others is basic civilization.

capital Has to work under capitalism; fools and horses, shouldn't.

You are still spouting that nonsense? That people shouldn't have to work?

So who will build and maintain the things we need? Who will grow the food? Who will transport the food? Who will teach our children? Because people do that now for a paycheck. Stop paying them and they stop working.

employment is at will; not for the Cause of "wage slavery", it depresses not increases pressure on wages. We need an Institutional upward pressure on wages simply because, a first world economy Costs.

Want higher wages? Develop a skill that is worth money.

I notice you posted the "Funny" emoji on my question of who will produce things that we need if they are not paid. But you have no answer.

a cost of living adjustment, that is all.

Absolute bullshit. There is no "cost of living adjustment" in what I said or asked.

You want others to work so that you can have the gov't take money from them by force, and pay you for doing nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is a lot cheaper and more efficient; thus, cost effective. a better solution at lower cost; what concept, right wingers.

You know what is even cheaper? When healthy adults work to earn their money instead of demanding that others support them.

That is Socialism, not Capitalism, good Comrade.

Absolutely not. If you think people earning their way is socialism, you are more ignorant about economics than I thought.

I have a good job because I work at it. Businesses compete for my skills. They pay me more because they get more from me. That is capitalism.

Capitalism is Voluntary. Socialism resorts to the "force of the law".

And yet, you want to be paid from money forcibly take from others, and claim it is capitalism.

Yes, capitalism is voluntary. But if you do not voluntarily work, you get no capital.

Government is socialism. Providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated power.

Capitalism has to play within the goalposts of Government.