Hey, politicians! Want to create jobs!

[Syvorji]

To create jobs, we should open trade with the DPRK, open businesses that oppose imperialism in the DPRK from the USA, and vice-versa, except our shops will support imperialism, to have an excuse to ban businesses that support imperialism. It'll create eight billion jobs. Really, it will.

[Sibirsky]

No...i was answering 2 of your posts...where does it say that trump is driving prices higher?...i think ur being a little sarcastic...

because donald trump is nuts...and the cost of living in china is actually becoming much higher...look at hong kong...high home prices...free markets..and inequality through the roof...

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

that doesnt say hes driving prices higher...i answered the donald trump thing and then replied to your post about the cost of living...

[Kwasbeccastan]

They might if they kept moving.

Obviously the example is a little extreme, but my point is, most government regulation exists for the purpose of making sure that businesses don't do things they shouldn't be doing anyway.

There is no incentive for them to do things they shouldn't be doing, in a free market.

Too bad we don't have one of those.

[Mediterreania]

To create jobs, we should open trade with the DPRK, open businesses that oppose imperialism in the DPRK from the USA, and vice-versa, except our shops will support imperialism, to have an excuse to ban businesses that support imperialism. It'll create eight billion jobs. Really, it will.

WATISTHISIDONTEVEN...

[Sibirsky]

that doesnt say hes driving prices higher...i answered the donald trump thing and then replied to your post about the cost of living...

You should actually respond to posts to make it less confusing.

[Wanderjar]

And then more workers will be exploited, like they are in Thailand, China, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc....
In short, lowering the minimum wage is bad. One is barely able to live off of minimum wage, let alone a family.

All the minimum wage does is make honest labor illegal. By allowing a minimum wage policy, those people who's skills are not valued at above "X" price are not legally allowed to be hired, as companies are not financially able to justify creating that position and paying them a market wage. Therefore, the most socially regressive policy one could argue, is in fact the minimum wage.

If you reduce or all together scrap minimum wage, stop annual monetary injectures into the economy and thus reduce inflation, allow the market to set short-term interest rates as oppose to the Federal Reserve, create a fiscally responsible government which spends less than it takes in, reduces wasteful spending in areas like the military and giving aid to political toadies and puppets around the world, begin a national policy of cutting Federal government positions by no less than forty percent over twenty years, as well as to begin over a fifty year period to have the ambition to have the United States be running a national surplus (and in the mean time to have all debt be owned and facilitated by Americans) ,and eliminate subsidies to the massive farm conglomerates which artificially keep food prices high, you will in fact undo many of the social ills these "progressive" policies have created. Price (food, consumer goods, most importantly again FOOD) and Cost of Living indexes will actually decrease as the markets shift to an equilibrium.

So while yes, an individual laborer may earn less, he/she will in fact have a more highly valued dollar as the US (in the case of this writer) is once again viewed as a stable investment. The dollar increases in value, and once again a factory worker, like in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, could earn $30,000-40,000 USD and still be able to own a home, buy a new car every couple years, and live a sound middle class life. Most importantly, by not making radical, immediate change and setting a stable time limit, one avoids the economic havoc created by such a shift if done too quickly.

[The Black Forrest]

Im totally opposed to lowering the minimum wage...i think we should raise the minimum wage and at the same time lower buisness taxes...we also need an actual public investment in our communities (not the phony stimulus or bailouts). Lowering the minimum wage will only hurt the working class. Lowering taxes for businesses, breaking up monopolies, increasing labor and enviornmental regulations, and creating a stable co-operative (not private, not public) sector will all help the economy in the long run. I know you usually dont hear a progressive like myself wanting to lower business taxes, but as long as business profits go to workers and to creating better services, I see no problem with it. Raising the minimum wage has also been shown to make employment more attractive and has actually raised employment in many states. China is getting ready for its housing market to collapse anyway...i dont think massive economic growth (like China has experienced) is as important as stable and progressive growth that puts the well being and profits of the average citizen and average business before the profits of the wealthy.

I employ a person at the minimum wage. I pay him $7.25/hr (the minimum wage). The maximum I am willing to pay him is $7.50/hr but he did not negotiate that wage. You raise the minimum wage to $7.80/hr. I lay him off.

Raising the minimum wage hurts the working class.

Sounds like you are hurting the working class.

So how is paying $1 or $2.50 helping?

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

A factory worker in the 50s, 60s, 70s still had labor regulations (more than we do now) and benefited from policies like the New Deal which was a government intervention in the economy...not exactly from the dollar....

[The Black Forrest]

And then more workers will be exploited, like they are in Thailand, China, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc....
In short, lowering the minimum wage is bad. One is barely able to live off of minimum wage, let alone a family.

All the minimum wage does is make honest labor illegal. By allowing a minimum wage policy, those people who's skills are not valued at above "X" price are not legally allowed to be hired, as companies are not financially able to justify creating that position and paying them a market wage. Therefore, the most socially regressive policy one could argue, is in fact the minimum wage.

If you reduce or all together scrap minimum wage, stop annual monetary injectures into the economy and thus reduce inflation, allow the market to set short-term interest rates as oppose to the Federal Reserve, create a fiscally responsible government which spends less than it takes in, reduces wasteful spending in areas like the military and giving aid to political toadies and puppets around the world, begin a national policy of cutting Federal government positions by no less than forty percent over twenty years, as well as to begin over a fifty year period to have the ambition to have the United States be running a national surplus (and in the mean time to have all debt be owned and facilitated by Americans) ,and eliminate subsidies to the massive farm conglomerates which artificially keep food prices high, you will in fact undo many of the social ills these "progressive" policies have created. Price (food, consumer goods, most importantly again FOOD) and Cost of Living indexes will actually decrease as the markets shift to an equilibrium.

So while yes, an individual laborer may earn less, he/she will in fact have a more highly valued dollar as the US (in the case of this writer) is once again viewed as a stable investment. The dollar increases in value, and once again a factory worker, like in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, could earn $30,000-40,000 USD and still be able to own a home, buy a new car every couple years, and live a sound middle class life. Most importantly, by not making radical, immediate change and setting a stable time limit, one avoids the economic havoc created by such a shift if done too quickly.

Ok if it's better he earns less.

Get the execs and business owners to take the first step then.

The wages have increase far far more then worker wages......

[Yuktova]

If people (CEOs, Republicans) want to lower minim wage to $0.01 a day, then they would. Just to compete with China!

[Sibirsky]

I employ a person at the minimum wage. I pay him $7.25/hr (the minimum wage). The maximum I am willing to pay him is $7.50/hr but he did not negotiate that wage. You raise the minimum wage to $7.80/hr. I lay him off.

Raising the minimum wage hurts the working class.

Sounds like you are hurting the working class.

So how is paying $1 or $2.50 helping?

Raising the minimum wage is hurting the working class by making some of them unemployable.

[Wanderjar]

A factory worker in the 50s, 60s, 70s still had labor regulations (more than we do now) and benefited from policies like the New Deal which was a government intervention in the economy...not exactly from the dollar....

The New Deal did nothing but further hurt the economy and prevent it's recovery. The massive spending projects on nothing but infrastructure products sound great in the Keynesian school, where they hold the farcicle belief that somehow spending is all that matters, where the money goes being irrelevent, only increase the velocity of money. This is, however, untrue. The broken window analogy/paradox is a great illustration of that.

You throw a stone at a window, and break it. The owner of the shop must now spend capital he would have otherwise used on buying more products to sell, hiring new employees, or investing elsewhere. Instead, he must use his resources to hire a glassman to fix the window. The glass man benefits in his business, he can now use this to hire, buy new product (i.e glass), or invest himself. But this is done at the expense of the shopkeeper, thus creating a neutral equation.

By taxing an individual to pay another to have a job, you take his resources and create no new product. Government jobs create nothing, and therefore generate no new wealth. They simply drain the system. That is why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did. The economy never was able to simply flush out the malinvestments of the credit expansion during the 1920s.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Sounds like you are hurting the working class.

So how is paying $1 or $2.50 helping?

Raising the minimum wage is hurting the working class by making some of them unemployable.

At the same time, allowing a desperate few to drive wages down to third world levels wouldn't be helping anyone.

[Sibirsky]

If people (CEOs, Republicans) want to lower minim wage to $0.01 a day, then they would. Just to compete with China!

No, they wouldn't. I would hire them at $0.50 (holy fucking shit, Batman, I am paying fifty times more) and make billions.

Except that I would not be the only one. Someone else would say, this is fucking stupid and pay $1. And all my employees would jump ship and go there. Employees usually get paid close to their market value.

[The Black Forrest]

Sounds like you are hurting the working class.

So how is paying $1 or $2.50 helping?

Raising the minimum wage is hurting the working class by making some of them unemployable.

Maybe if you don't value the employee. Seriously $.30 an hour?

[The Black Forrest]

If people (CEOs, Republicans) want to lower minim wage to $0.01 a day, then they would. Just to compete with China!

No, they wouldn't. I would hire them at $0.50 (holy fucking shit, Batman, I am paying fifty times more) and make billions.

Except that I would not be the only one. Someone else would say, this is fucking stupid and pay $1. And all my employees would jump ship and go there. Employees usually get paid close to their market value.

Wait? You are complaining about .30 and you are willing to pay .50?

[Sibirsky]

A factory worker in the 50s, 60s, 70s still had labor regulations (more than we do now) and benefited from policies like the New Deal which was a government intervention in the economy...not exactly from the dollar....

The New Deal did nothing but further hurt the economy and prevent it's recovery. The massive spending projects on nothing but infrastructure products sound great in the Keynesian school, where they hold the farcicle belief that somehow spending is all that matters, where the money goes being irrelevent, only increase the velocity of money. This is, however, untrue. The broken window analogy/paradox is a great illustration of that.

You throw a stone at a window, and break it. The owner of the shop must now spend capital he would have otherwise used on buying more products to sell, hiring new employees, or investing elsewhere. Instead, he must use his resources to hire a glassman to fix the window. The glass man benefits in his business, he can now use this to hire, buy new product (i.e glass), or invest himself. But this is done at the expense of the shopkeeper, thus creating a neutral equation.

By taxing an individual to pay another to have a job, you take his resources and create no new product. Government jobs create nothing, and therefore generate no new wealth. They simply drain the system. That is why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did. The economy never was able to simply flush out the malinvestments of the credit expansion during the 1920s.

[Wanderjar]

If people (CEOs, Republicans) want to lower minim wage to $0.01 a day, then they would. Just to compete with China!

Minimum wage means nothing. When there is an abundance of labor, companies will pay exponentially higher wages simply to draw in workers. McDonalds, for example, paid 12 dollars an hour, and bussed in workers at their expense during the late 90s. Why? Because profits were high, the economy was booming, and workers were plentiful. Labor is a commodity. A worker may sell it for what the market will bear, and this should be the set price of labor. It should not be an arbitrary number set by the State which only gives the illusion to doing the poor a favor.

I'd much rather allow the poor to sell their labor to their best advantage by establishing labor contracts with companies, rather than the government simply continuing to tell companies and workers how they may sell their labor. Without contracts, and with government intervention, people continue to be exploited.

[Sibirsky]

Raising the minimum wage is hurting the working class by making some of them unemployable.

At the same time, allowing a desperate few to drive wages down to third world levels wouldn't be helping anyone.

Wages would not be driven down to third world levels. Even the low skilled are more productive than that, because they have access to capital at the work site.

[Wanderjar]

The New Deal did nothing but further hurt the economy and prevent it's recovery. The massive spending projects on nothing but infrastructure products sound great in the Keynesian school, where they hold the farcicle belief that somehow spending is all that matters, where the money goes being irrelevent, only increase the velocity of money. This is, however, untrue. The broken window analogy/paradox is a great illustration of that.

You throw a stone at a window, and break it. The owner of the shop must now spend capital he would have otherwise used on buying more products to sell, hiring new employees, or investing elsewhere. Instead, he must use his resources to hire a glassman to fix the window. The glass man benefits in his business, he can now use this to hire, buy new product (i.e glass), or invest himself. But this is done at the expense of the shopkeeper, thus creating a neutral equation.

By taxing an individual to pay another to have a job, you take his resources and create no new product. Government jobs create nothing, and therefore generate no new wealth. They simply drain the system. That is why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did. The economy never was able to simply flush out the malinvestments of the credit expansion during the 1920s.

We may have had our disagreements on points in history. But in economics, we most certainly can find agreement

[Sibirsky]

No, they wouldn't. I would hire them at $0.50 (holy fucking shit, Batman, I am paying fifty times more) and make billions.

Except that I would not be the only one. Someone else would say, this is fucking stupid and pay $1. And all my employees would jump ship and go there. Employees usually get paid close to their market value.

Wait? You are complaining about .30 and you are willing to pay .50?

Where do you see me complaining about $0.30?

I would be willing to pay what they are worth. Simple.

[The Black Forrest]

At the same time, allowing a desperate few to drive wages down to third world levels wouldn't be helping anyone.

Wages would not be driven down to third world levels. Even the low skilled are more productive than that, because they have access to capital at the work site.

Sure they would. The ones bitching about minimum would drop the pay to nothing.

More capitol? What has that got to do with their lost income?

[Yuktova]

If people (CEOs, Republicans) want to lower minim wage to $0.01 a day, then they would. Just to compete with China!

Minimum wage means nothing. When there is an abundance of labor, companies will pay exponentially higher wages simply to draw in workers. McDonalds, for example, paid 12 dollars an hour, and bussed in workers at their expense during the late 90s. Why? Because profits were high, the economy was booming, and workers were plentiful. Labor is a commodity. A worker may sell it for what the market will bear, and this should be the set price of labor. It should not be an arbitrary number set by the State which only gives the illusion to doing the poor a favor.

I'd much rather allow the poor to sell their labor to their best advantage by establishing labor contracts with companies, rather than the government simply continuing to tell companies and workers how they may sell their labor. Without contracts, and with government intervention, people continue to be exploited.

I agree with your response, even if I am a Socialist. Not sure what you are, I think your a neutralist. But maybe your a capitalist??

[The Black Forrest]

Wait? You are complaining about .30 and you are willing to pay .50?

Where do you see me complaining about $0.30?

I would be willing to pay what they are worth. Simple.

You said you would lay them off for a 30 cent increase?

You are will to pay them what you think they are worth; not what they are worth.....