U.S. Politics

[Tommy]

There are bigger issues than minimum wage which have caused the ever-growing income gap in this country.  I just hate the fact that corporations have been enabled to the point that they're able to pay less than a livable wage and pass the burden onto the American public.  We've made it far too easy for them to pad their coffers at the expense of workers both here and abroad.  It's like we decided maturing as a nation in the Progressive era was wrongheaded.

There's a trade-off though. Look up the statistics for CPI and Minimum wage by country. It's no coincidence that the countries with the highest cost of living also pay the highest minimum wage. And CPI isn't arbitrary either, it's directly tied to the cost of labor. You'll have to pay $20 for a beer in Oslo because the bartender is required by law to earn around $50k per year, and his staff no less than $40k. Is that what we really want?

[AlioTheFool]

There's a trade-off though. Look up the statistics for CPI and Minimum wage by country. It's no coincidence that the countries with the highest cost of living also pay the highest minimum wage. And CPI isn't arbitrary either, it's directly tied to the cost of labor. You'll have to pay $20 for a beer in Oslo because the bartender is required by law to earn around $50k per year, and his staff no less than $40k. Is that what we really want?

It's as if you didn't actually read what he wrote.

[Tommy]

It's as if you didn't actually read what he wrote.

Do you think companies are just going to let their capital costs increase without doing something to offset it? Publicly traded companies especially aren't going to take a hit in profits just because the government says that they have to pay their employees more. Either they'll cut jobs or raise prices. Either way the burden goes right back to the public.

[AlioTheFool]

Do you think companies are just going to let their capital costs increase without doing something to offset it? Publicly traded companies especially aren't going to take a hit in profits just because the government says that they have to pay their employees more. Either they'll cut jobs or raise prices. Either way the burden goes right back to the public.

I've already been over my answer. The heart of the issue is the economic disparity in America. There are people who "earn" far more than they'll ever spend, while the bottom tier feeds off the tax revenue of the middle.

I'm all in favor of taxing the wealthy and redistributing it. Tough luck kids. You had your chance to make "trickle down" work. You literally let it trickle, so now you pay the price.

I'm sure it'll be called communism, which it's not, but it's funny that it isn't called communism today when it's done to the middle class.

Class warfare was started by the rich, not the poor.

[Tommy]

I've already been over my answer. The heart of the issue is the economic disparity in America. There are people who "earn" far more than they'll ever spend, while the bottom tier feeds off the tax revenue of the middle.

I'm all in favor of taxing the wealthy and redistributing it. Tough luck kids. You had your chance to make "trickle down" work. You literally let it trickle, so now you pay the price.

I'm sure it'll be called communism, which it's not, but it's funny that it isn't called communism today when it's done to the middle class.

Class warfare was started by the rich, not the poor.

But you don't seem to understand the issue with "redistribution".

What are you going to do? Increase the minimum wage? How does that help the Middle Class? Especially when the cost of goods and services would UNDOUBTEDLY increase. You've just taxed the wealthy, and threw that money into social programs.

It's way more complicated that simply taxing the rich. Where will the money go?

[AlioTheFool]

But you don't seem to understand the issue with "redistribution".

What are you going to do? Increase the minimum wage? How does that help the Middle Class? Especially when the cost of goods and services would UNDOUBTEDLY increase. You've just taxed the wealthy, and threw that money into social programs.

It's way more complicated that simply taxing the rich. Where will the money go?

Artificial civic job creation. Return some manufacturing to this country. Put significantly more cash into the education system.

Use more of the rich's money to fund the social programs that you and I are already paying for.

If that raises the cost of goods because the rich raise prices, then they'll feel it again when their tax burden raises again. At some point every beaten dog learns to stop chewing on your shoes.*

The reality is, while you could argue that higher demand would raise cost for everyone it's simply bullshit. Poor people aren't going to buy new iPads. They're going to spend newly gained income on the rent they formerly couldn't pay, or upgrade their housing situation. Even if that means more housing has to be built, that creates jobs, it doesn't hurt the economy, it actually immediately recycles that cash.

As for food, we overproduce food in this country already. The US government destroys food that it purchases every year so that farmers don't have to undercut their own prices. If more people can afford to buy those goods, the government doesn't have to buy it, production remains steady, and more people get to actually, you know, eat.

There are answers to the questions. The wealthy (or those who aspire to be at any cost) aren't usually interested in them though.
 
None of this has anything to do with the minimum wage either.
 
 
 
 
* I do not condone beating dogs.

[Johnny English]

I'm amused that Tommy uses as an example the country with the fourth highest quality of life in the world (OECD figures, ranked behind Australia, Sweden and Canada in that order) and asks, "Really? Is that what we want?"

[dcm1602]

Artificial civic job creation. Return some manufacturing to this country. Put significantly more cash into the education system.

Use more of the rich's money to fund the social programs that you and I are already paying for.

If that raises the cost of goods because the rich raise prices, then they'll feel it again when their tax burden raises again. At some point every beaten dog learns to stop chewing on your shoes.*

The reality is, while you could argue that higher demand would raise cost for everyone it's simply bullshit. Poor people aren't going to buy new iPads. They're going to spend newly gained income on the rent they formerly couldn't pay, or upgrade their housing situation. Even if that means more housing has to be built, that creates jobs, it doesn't hurt the economy, it actually immediately recycles that cash.

As for food, we overproduce food in this country already. The US government destroys food that it purchases every year so that farmers don't have to undercut their own prices. If more people can afford to buy those goods, the government doesn't have to buy it, production remains steady, and more people get to actually, you know, eat.

There are answers to the questions. The wealthy (or those who aspire to be at any cost) aren't usually interested in them though.
 
None of this has anything to do with the minimum wage either.
 
 
 
 
* I do not condone beating dogs.

Lol

[ons]

I'm amused that Tommy uses as an example the country with the fourth highest quality of life in the world (OECD figures, ranked behind Australia, Sweden and Canada in that order) and asks, "Really? Is that what we want?"

Cheap beer is more important than access to health care for the poor, freaking commie.

[Tommy]

I'm amused that Tommy uses as an example the country with the fourth highest quality of life in the world (OECD figures, ranked behind Australia, Sweden and Canada in that order) and asks, "Really? Is that what we want?"

Source?

[Johnny English]

The OECD. Like I said. Does your Google not work?

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-on-oecd-better-life-index-2013-5?op=1

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111

[Miamipuck]

I have personally known money managers that have left the US to move to Norway for the quality of life and to escape the pressure. FYI

[Tommy]

The OECD. Like I said. Does your Google not work?

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-countries-on-oecd-better-life-index-2013-5?op=1

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111

I wanted to know which list you were actually looking at, as I couldn't find anything specific. Mostly because I want to find out what specifically the OECD throws into their "Better Life" formula. In this particular case, it varies. You can essentially select what factors to use to make your very own Index.

There are a ton of these types of indexes that try and quantify "happiness" or "quality of life", and they're all bullshit. You're better than that. Hell, the EIU published one in 2005 that had Canada right below the U.S. In another one I saw IRELAND was #1.

Besides, the U.S is always in the Top 10 of these lists, even with the billions of people living below the poverty line, the quadrillions of children who are dying without access to healthcare, and the hundreds of billions who die each day because of all the environmental issues here.

[Tommy]

I have personally known money managers that have left the US to move to Norway for the quality of life and to escape the pressure. FYI

I've personally never heard of anyone moving to Norway for any reason. They tax you up the derriere out there.

[Johnny English]

Tommy, you can move the sliders around and change the positions a bit. The fact - FACT - is that Norway (as with most of the other Scandinavian countries) has one of the highest standards of living of anywhere in the world based on pretty much any sensible criteria you care to use, and to try and make a point of "but it costs $20 for a beer, and is that the sort of country we really want?" with a straight face makes you look like an utter buffoon.

I've personally never heard of anyone moving to Norway for any reason. They tax you up the derriere out there.

OK, it's official. You're an idiot.

The accumulation of wealth for its own sake is utter foolishness. Standard of living is everything to anyone with a brain. How much money you give to the government is completely irrelevant to standard of living, and if you can't see that I don't know why you're in this conversation.