It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top Economists Are Backing Sen. Bernie Sanders on Establishing a $15 an Hour Minimum Wage

page: 22
28
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75

It's not easy, but the ease of the job doesn't determine the pay. Something easy that only a handful of people know how to do is still going to be expensive. Because everyone can work fast food, no one has the ability to negotiate their pay.

People usually learn skills in order to become proficient at easier, or at least less strenuous jobs. Which means the hardest jobs are on the bottom.

That said, if we as a society want these jobs, which it seems we do since we keep buying their products. Then it stands to reason that we should be doing what it takes to ensure these people can afford to live independently and that they'll one day be able to retire.
edit on 3-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
I didn't, but I'm familiar with the argument. I've discussed it with a few actual economists.


You stay at a Holiday Inn too? How are you going to discuss the point if you are not willing to see what that point is? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.


Do I need to quote the numbers from when we drug tested food stamp recipients?


As a Libertarian I am for the legalization of most drugs.


How about quoting the numbers proposed to eliminate social security fraud compared to what it's costing? Eliminating fraud is great, but when you spend more than it's costing you to stop all you're doing is amplifying the problem.


Sure, post them and we can discuss.


I went homeless putting the money to tuition to pay for community college, then I've used Pell Grants at low cost universities.


For tens years?


I said 40 years ago, here's a link for you
www.businessinsider.com...


Why pick that arbitrary point? Why not look at the post war years as a whole? All in all it is still a good number considering the increase in population and that women now comprise a huge portion of the work force.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Sorry, accidentally deleted my post the first time and had to rewrite it forgot to rewrite this part. Since you like Forbes here's another article.
www.forbes.com...

Essentially, growing the money supply doesn't cause inflation which contradicts with your premise that we need to have a non fiat currency in order to curb inflation.


Holy crap, dude. I said uncontrolled printing and then using that to buy our own debt.

It is obvious that not only do you not read and understand what I link but you obviously our not even reading half of this conversation.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
You stay at a Holiday Inn too? How are you going to discuss the point if you are not willing to see what that point is? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.


I read the article, it was full of crap from the beginning where it stated Obama's spending lowered our credit rating (and not Congress's shutdown and threats to not repay the debt) to where it claimed fixing the money supply to a specific level stops inflation. The link I posted, which you dismissed addresses this second part specifically where it makes the case that expanding the money supply does not cause inflation. Twice as much money among the same population does not make each individual measure of that money worth half as much. On top of that, linking the currency to a commodity doesn't even do anything because money creation doesn't exist in the hands of one specific entity. Every single bank has the ability to create money from nothing thanks to fractional reserve banking.


For tens years?


No, homeless for a good portion of that though.


Why pick that arbitrary point? Why not look at the post war years as a whole? All in all it is still a good number considering the increase in population and that women now comprise a huge portion of the work force.


Why pick WW2 as an arbitrary point?


originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
It is obvious that not only do you not read and understand what I link but you obviously our not even reading half of this conversation.


I understood it fine. Your article was about linking the dollar to gold because it prevents arbitrarily increasing the money supply, you can only increase it to the same value as the amount of gold you have on hand. Your argument is that by doing so you don't increase the money supply which in turn prevents inflation. The link I posted is directly opposite that opinion where it shows that increasing the money supply does not cause inflation, it is only part of the equation.
edit on 3-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
28
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join