Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

So I'll assume that you accept my argument that labor price floors harm low-skilled workers.

The "Entirety of the wealth possessed within world and its movement" is sick. How could wealth and it's movement be sick?

Our economy? The "Entirety of the wealth possessed within world and its movement" works when people spend money? Why wouldn't it work then people don't spend money?

We should try deregulation and abandoning crony capitalism.

 

I'm going to make two quick points:

1) Does this look into actual hours worked? I don't think anyone is going to be shocked that raising the minimum wage would raise average wages. The argument has always been the perfectly rational argument that raising minimum wage would make hours to work harder to come by, thus negating any income gains.

2) I'm willing to bet that the growth of wages in states that resisted interfering in labor markets and the jagged stagnation in the states that were quick to interfere is not a coincidence.

 

You are repeating yourself. The error of all your points have been pointed out several times.

1. We aren't growing because of government intervention in the economy, not because there is no demand.
2. We already have social programs to help those that are unemployed and underemployed. Why aren't *they* working? We spent about 1/3 of our federal outlays on entitlements in 1960, today we spend almost 2/3. Over half of our households get some kind of government transfers of wealth. Why isn't all this spending fixing our economic problems? How much *more* spending do you think we need in order to fix our economy?
3. History shows us that people revolt when they lack food and housing, not income inequality. This country is FAR from reaching that point. What will cause the revolution is when we can no longer meet the demand for more entitlements to those expecting "free" stuff from the government.
4. The stimulus didn't work at all. Most of it went to already working public union workers. The stimulus was a total waste!
5. If government would get off their back then business *could* pull us out of low growth.
6. What we have to do differently is a. cut business taxes, b. cut capital gains taxes, c. get rid of Obamacare taxes and regulation, d. fix our depreciation rules, and e. get rid of Dodd/Frank regulations that limit lending.

All you are doing is asking for one more entitlement program with no solution for where the funding is going to come from. Raising taxes is a self-defeating action. Borrowing is a self-defeating action. Printing more money is a self-defeating action.

I know this is a difficult truth for you to accept but it is the truth nonetheless.

 

Bush didn't really have a stimulus. He had tax cuts in 2003 and a lending program in 2008. No stimulus.

Obama's stimulus went to pay the salaries of public union workers. No actual stimulus.

We need to look at what Bush did in 2003!

 

Huh? Ronnie Raygun...had to dramatically RAISE taxes because he screwed up by cutting them...and still tripled the debt

Clinton was lambasted for "the biggest tax increase in history" on his way to a phenomenal economy .BUSH? Did you even you even SAY that?

Newsflash...capital gains tax cuts produce a short term shift in revenue as the wealthy take advantage of them to sell off that which they would have sold of anyway at a later date.

Nice jobs of posting total bullshit...and so loudly and confidently

Oh and
What makes you think that when the rich get richer the poor don't get richer as well? How do you think the rich get richer?

Forty years of history

 

Many who cannot support themselves need more than food and shelter. The community can't provide everything needed in all cases.

Providing that person needs little or nothing more.

Isn't it fun to invent situations that seem to discredit other claims?

 

You still carnival barking that minimum wage helps anyone's plight? I have news for you, it doesn't. It reduces jobs, it squeezes the middle class who just might in fact, have some skills. It causes inflation, and at the end of the day, the bottom of the rung is no better off in any form or fashion. Employers are going to hire and pay people based on the market, no artificial floor for labor is going to do anything but hurt the working class. I can't believe this ****ing thread is still going. It's a pipe dream, nothing more, nothing less.

 

You don't know the whole story and you don't have all the answers. You imagine anyone who wants to form a coop in any state can do it "easily", but it is, after all, your imagination. Because it isn't so "easy" several states have recently passed worker cooperative laws to make it possible or make it easier to form a worker coop.

New Co-op bills recently passed:

Rhode Island - http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText17/HouseText17/H6001.htm

California - http://www.co-oplaw.org/statebystate/california/

Massachusetts - http://www.workercooplaw.org/massachusetts

California - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB816

Colorado - http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/business/news/2012/20120402_ULCAA_Dean.html

New York - http://www.weblaws.org/new_york/law...5-a_worker_cooperative_corporations_(80_-_94)


TEXAS
“Establishing Texas worker cooperatives takes distinct planning and consideration. Bylaws or policies need to be created to create group infrastructure and define its purpose. Several important areas for designing the group infrastructure include development of group goals, member/worker participation, processes for decision-making, standards, and image, as applicable.

One challenge worker cooperatives face is securing funds for startup. Worker cooperatives may choose to raise capital from within in the form of stock purchases or membership fees and others may seek out financial institutions for loans or grants. These decisions will be impacted by the legal structure as a for-profit or cooperative nonprofit. In Texas, many traditional startup loans are not accessible for these organizations. Some existing cooperative associations, like Wheatsville, may have funding available to assist in startup of certain cooperative associations.” - http://www.co-oplaw.org/statebystate/texas/

 

It's still going because there is plenty of evidence that shows I'm right and you and your kind are wrong and have always been wrong about this (and more).

 

You either failed Econ 101 or never took it. There's no evidence whatsoever. Seattle is going down the ******* over this, it's already started.

 

Reagan raised taxes into a booming economy that was caused by his prior tax cuts and cuts in regulation. The idea that you can raise taxes into a failing or stagnant economy and expect a recovery has been proven false over and over again.

Clinton's economy after his 1993 tax increase was hardly spectacular. His economy didn't take off until 1998 when he signed the capital gains tax cuts Newt pushed on him in 1997.

Malarky. Venture capital investment in 1995 was $8B. In 1998, after the cap gains tax cut, venture capital investment was $28B and it almost doubled again in 1999. It was the 1997 capital gains tax that really pushed the dot.com revolution in the late 90's. By 2000 we were seeing $20B *PER QUARTER*.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/venture-capital-investment-hits-an-almost-15-year-high.html

[/quote]Nice jobs of posting total bullshit...and so loudly and confidently[/quote]

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Stop repeating Marxist Democrat talking point lies.

You didn't answer the question. The average wage went from $13K in 1981 to $48K in 2015. *MORE* than beating inflation. What makes you think the poor didn't get richer as well? If the poor had gotten poorer then average wage growth would *not* have beaten inflation.

I don't know what history book you are using but you might consider tossing it in the burn pile along with all the other trash.

 

Hmmmm...... I thought you said buying stock in a company wasn't the same as having a co-op?

 

A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals

 

Special laws aren't needed. Any group of workers can right now in any state in the union form an LLC. They can run that LLC as a WSDE. There's nothing stopping you. Get busy!

 

Nice jobs of posting total bullshit...and so loudly and confidently[/quote]

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Stop repeating Marxist Democrat talking point lies.



You didn't answer the question. The average wage went from $13K in 1981 to $48K in 2015. *MORE* than beating inflation. What makes you think the poor didn't get richer as well? If the poor had gotten poorer then average wage growth would *not* have beaten inflation.

I don't know what history book you are using but you might consider tossing it in the burn pile along with all the other trash.[/QUOTE]
For the second point...
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-versus-fiction-in-latest-supply-side-debate/

I see you are a fan of dishonest Heritage BS

 

So you were wrong or lying regarding the Clinton tax hikes...and

Tax Reform Act of 1986 RAISED capital gains taxes.

I think you ought to throw out the history books YOU have been using (that come from the Heritage Foundation)

 

On Capital gains tax cuts

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-case-against-the-capital-gains-tax-cuts/

 

nonsense. And he took office during the worst recession in 80 years.

the evidence shows businesses have been doing this long before Obama took office.

no it isn't. businesses couldn't get loans, because their credit was ****, or the debt to income ration was too high.

no it wasn't

lol, no.

 

"The major unspoken assumption in the article and by many of the economists is that upside won't spend the dollar, he will bury it in the back yard. Once again, Scrooge McDuck economics learned out of a comic book! It's not a good assumption!"

Not at all, they buy wealth. They buy diamonds, gold, silver, land, first edition Mark Twain, Monet, etc... Things that once purchased no longer circulate. This is why so few have so much wealth, they have the means in the form of idle money to purchase wealth from those that need cash. The more wealth accumulates in the. hands of the few the worse off the economy because it stagnates there.

Chris Rock nailed it when he said black people don't understand about wealth. Shaq is rich but the guy that signs his checks is wealthy. It's not just blacks though. People are too blind to see the danger in wealth accumulation in too few hands, it eventually leads to revolt. It always has and it always will but those grabbing wealth with both hands are too blind to see. Their fear is that if they let the little guy have a decent salary their competition for wealth won't and they'd be left behind.
It's really not unlike drug dealers who justify their trade by saying if not them someone is going to make the money.

 

First it's rubber/glue; now it's apples/oranges. RLY.

I think the problem is simply your refusal to acknowledge a sound rebuttal.

 

Previously it was argued that if people want better pay they should get off their behinds and work to make themselves more valuable.
Productivity is at record levels.
Corporate profits soaring.
Pay scales stagnant.
Improved productivity and profits indicate that employees are more valuable. So why are employers rewarding that? Simply because the workers are accepting the story that they are overvalued and need to accept less if they want to compete with China.
It's a race to the bottom to live like Chinese workers in dorms and the US workers are running there the fastest.

 

I'm not asking for anything. The solution to the economic doldrums we are in is known. It's been used before, recently, just not in a large enough proportion. You can ignore it if you like, but there is no doubt the economy will remain sluggish until there is more velocity in our economy, and that won't happen without a long term cash infusion into the hands of those that will spend it.

Cling to your economic philosophy, if you like, and continue to reap a less than 2% growth, as is predicted as long as tax cuts and regulation repeal are the only solutions offered. They do not work for the situation we're in. That's reality for you.

 

It's not. Think of a Venn Diagram.

 

So you know better than all those states that are wasting their time with laws? Oh yeah, I know. It's politics. But why is it so important to you to be against new laws for this? You wouldn't be against more choices and freedom would you?

 

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Stop repeating Marxist Democrat talking point lies.



You didn't answer the question. The average wage went from $13K in 1981 to $48K in 2015. *MORE* than beating inflation. What makes you think the poor didn't get richer as well? If the poor had gotten poorer then average wage growth would *not* have beaten inflation.

I don't know what history book you are using but you might consider tossing it in the burn pile along with all the other trash.[/QUOTE]
For the second point...
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-versus-fiction-in-latest-supply-side-debate/

I see you are a fan of dishonest Heritage BS[/QUOTE]

Um...the Heritage Foundation is one of the most respected thinktanks in the country. If you cannot at least accept their arguments as credible, you are not worth discussing a single thing with, as you'll simply dismiss any argument which challenges yours as illegitimate.

If you don't see the circular cognitive dissonance problem in that, you need to work on it.