Clinton's plan to stimulate the economy, spend more money! Ahahaha!

a reply to: onequestion
Is it OK for demonstrations that have popped up in large cities to clamor for higher wages count as a legitimate way to raise min. wage? Or is the only way when the corporations deem it OK for a wage to go up?

Of course without profit there is no business. But with higher wages comes higher prices for the products, but in theory less in the way of tax funded medicare, medicaid, bridge cards, and other govt. assistance.

a reply to: seasonal

The thing about min wage hitting what people are asking means its going to ask all the 2 year degree fields to jump too and without that happening then what the hell is the point? Although Obama did have a plan to make 2 years ones free I havent heard a peep out of that scince that one article over 2 years ago... right around the time this whole bump up the bottom min wage talk... I suppose they expect more to say hey now we can afford a 2 year? Um no they cant if min wage is already using food stamps and millions of people are unemployed not in the metric used for unemployment numbers... gotta be drawing unemployment for that but no jobs? No benefits no metric yet they still have to pay for this healthcare? Yeah... lovely.

I wouldnt want to be anywhere near politics with all that nightmare... its like well if youre gonna bury us all at least let me shovel my own hole.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

The progressives and liberals want to turn our country into Venezuela

a reply to: onequestion

Veneuzela had some rad stuff going... but trade embargos and not diversifying... depending to much on corporate instead of that homegrown industry. Think about it... if conagra foods said cut the supply? Half the damned world would go into stavation mode. Weve let them become way too powerful and weve become too dependent on them to survive... doesnt look good where all of this is heading if we get the squeeze really put on us... hopefully solidarity instead of ferral would kick in and be like whose also got contengency plans in shtf and I dont mean prepper hiding in holes business I mean entire communities and states saying we got it covered good luck pulling that trick.

well, and economy is best defined as spending.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness
My wages were set by union pay, even though we were not unionized. With the unions being such a small percentage of the labor force there is very little pressure to move pay/benefits up.

What amazes me when people who are of modest means are not for everyone making a better wage, I worked for a billionaire and he, or should I say his family, and the job paid well and up til the ACA benefits were fair. 5 years ago the temps rolled in to less skilled jobs with there $9 an hour pay and no benefits. The person that used to work the very same position made $15 + benefits. The temp person can't afford to buy the stuff they were making. But the Company enjoys a larger chunk of the pie mainly due to no union to hold there feet to the fire. But I guess get better skills and get better pay, but there are still only so many skilled job available.

Seems we have completed the painting of the floor and are in the corner.

a reply to: onequestion

What? With all the corruption? You may have a point.

But either way, people who root for the other political football team than you do don't want to "turn the US into Venezuela." They simply disagree with your particular version of economic theory. While you believe that only "saving" can save us, they believe that money circulating at street level is the driver. It is worth noting that there are just as many economic textbooks supporting their theory as yours. You may also be interesting in the past 40 years of US economic history, where all the tax breaks in the world + subsidies to so-called job-creators has led to a decline of jobs, for everyone, across the board.

It is worth noting for example, that the principal bugaboo of ATS economic theory (food stamps) not only feeds people who live 2.3 x below the poverty line, it also represents more than half of the total sales of food, in many areas of the country. Without that assistance, half the stores would close, half the cashiers and stockers would be out of work, truckers would carry half the volume of bread, meat, eggs and Doritos, forklift drivers and order pickers in distribution centers would be forced to accept fewer hours, and so on.

They aren't evil. They don't want a failed Latin American kleptocracy any more than you do. They just believe that money spent at street level multiplies itself a hundred times or more before it floats into the hands of a central banker, whereas money given to a Wall Street firm is invested in overseas plant, or tax havens, and does nada for anyone.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

You may also be interesting in the past 40 years of US economic history, where all the tax breaks in the world + subsidies to so-called job-creators has led to a decline of jobs, for everyone, across the board.

That's because the tax breaks serve larger corporations not small businesses.

It is worth noting for example, that the principal bugaboo of ATS economic theory (food stamps) not only feeds people who live 2.3 x below the poverty line, it also represents more than half of the total sales of food, in many areas of the country. Without that assistance, half the stores would close, half the cashiers and stockers would be out of work, truckers would carry half the volume of bread, meat, eggs and Doritos, forklift drivers and order pickers in distribution centers would be forced to accept fewer hours, and so on.

US based manufacturing can't compete with overseas manufacturing because of the value of their currency giving our money more purchasing power in their economies. We have higher taxes, more social programs that companies have to pay for like Obamacare, environmental, and labor laws that make it more expensive for people to manufacture goods in the US.

a reply to: onequestion

Currency has role in outsourcing. But so does very low pay, little to no environmental laws and worker safety that can be whatever like the 1000 people killed making clothes ( www.bbc.com...) so a shirt costs .45 cents to make and can be sold for $20. Look up fast fashion if you want to see free trade at it's worst.

In 2009, General Motors' labor costs were $55 per hour in the United States, $7 in Mexico, $4.50 in China, and $1 in India for the same types of work. Although productivity in Mexico, China, and India was lower than in the United States, the difference in wages more than compensated. ( www.foreignaffairs.com... )

I guess sooner or later the decision will have to be made where things are made. But do consumers notice the savings in products prices that were made in the US in July and are then manufactured in Mexico in August? No we really don't see any real price reduction.

There was a refrigerator plant in Greenville Mich. It closed and moved production to Mexico, a base model frig (single door freezer on the top) was still $460 at Lowes after the move. In many cases free trade seems expressly to use and I do mean use cheap labor, very lax environmental laws, and little or no safety net for the employees.

Free trade seems to be a way for Businesses to make more profit until whatever bad thing that is going to happen, happens. The best economies take raw materials and turn them into product to sell.

Oh robots and automation.