Issuing a challenge to conservative's

originally posted by: toysforadults
so far the only thing I've learned here because none of you have actually made an argument which is kinda funny is that you are willing to totally ignore the truth even though I refute a common platitude

which again was repeat later on in the thread and starred several times

that tells me all I need to know... obvious verifiable truth is less important than your rhetoric

got it

Well, you're using a 90 year old quote about an economy that is nothing like it is today, and that's your argument.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: LSU2018

Minimum wage jobs were designed for high school and college kids that still live at home.

ok, since you're so smart... explain to me why you said this, when FDR said this...

The law I have just signed was passed to put people back to work, to let them buy more of the products of farms and factories and start our business at a living rate again.

In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

you can't even face reality can you? are you blatantly lying or willfully ignorant?

Because A) It's 2019, not 1930. B) MINIMUM has a meaning and minimum wage is not there for you to be able to start your own family, buy a house, pay all utilities, and buy your own transportation. C) You still won't starve, you can still buy from farms and factories with a minimum wage.

Your problem is that you found a quote that you thought you could burn the right with and it failed because everyone else, besides a guy or two in another country, understands the real problem here.

Maybe if you're looking for data on the subject you should google around for it. Dont ask others to do your work for you.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Knapperdude

how is asking for information trolling?

It's the part when they answer, and then you ridicule them for their answers, that makes you a troll.

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: toysforadults

Minimum wage is nothing more than closing a loop in the debt cycle.

- Take out loans from creditors like China
- print money and drive inflation, devaluing the labor of Americans
- increase minimum wage to offset some of the inflation (but not all)
- reap taxes on higher wages
- repay loan with devalued currency


Its all horsecrap. And we argue over the scraps from said horsecrap.

I actually totally agree with you on what the real problem is but I just want to see someone back their argument with facts which obviously the majority cannot.

I have my hands wholly around how the economy works I've been studying it it for years and I mean studying it more than I study for my network engineering degree.

It's a fact that if you raise MW, the cost of everything else will have to increase so that the minimum wage will be affordable. Do you not understand that? Live within your means, it's that simple.

Does the current minimum wage include all the other money lower income families receive?

Earned income tax credit.
Subsidized housing.
Food stamps.

a reply to: LSU2018

Prove it

How much did the cost of goods increase in 1938?

a reply to: toysforadults

People like that analogy. But there is also a trick behind it that few people can point out. Gold is considered to be a finite item, but not a completely closed system so more gold can trickle in to replace gold that was currency that has been removed for other applications such as jewelry, semiconductors, dental or just lost out in the desert.

So the true value of gold can change determined by supply and demand. Quite a bit of gold was used providing 386’s and 486’s to the PC market. Millions of dollars of gold are buried in garbage dumps all over the US as people threw them out for newer computers. Same can be said for comic books and baseball cards. Because all things have their value determined by either the market or by edict.

So when the Gold Standard ended, there was a much greater demand for gold than the $35/oz it was pegged to coming very soon. But our current fiat system has two functions, control runaway inflation but to cause slight inflation to prevent the deflation recessions of the 1800’s which were far more economically devastating than the recent Great Recession was. Back then, farmers would plant a field and receive less for the crop than what was paid for the seed. Amazing deflation when you consider that a single bean makes a plant that produces hundreds of beans. And that would happen over a period 3-4 months. Today’s agricultural methods would make that millions of times worse than the heirloom style of planting that was often practiced then.

But the real key to understanding American economics, is that there needs to be slight protections without heavy price controls to sustain healthy growth. Minimum Wage as part of the New Deal was like all parts of the New Deal, intended as temporary measures to stabilize the continued fall. To give a solid bottom point for labor costs and living costs to expand and grow. At the time of establishment, a person had to make four times minimum wage to even be required to pay income taxes. Those numbers have not changed despite minimum wage increases over the years. $.25 to $7.25. A 2900% growth in 71 years? And we started the Fight for Fifteen in 2012, three years after we hit $7.25. That is not a healthy economy at all.

a reply to: Knapperdude

Guess you dont have an argument. Not surprised

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: toysforadults

I've looked at yours as have several others here. Yours presents facts but not in a way that shows the whole truth.

You are big on statistical analysis for example, but one thing I learned first and foremost in media statistics is that you can make a number say just about anything you want if you understand how you arrive at that number. It's like saying cops shoot more black men. OK. Looks bad until you delve into numbers deeper. Blacks also commit more crimes than other demographics and are thus far more likely to have police interactions putting them at higher risk for negative police interactions like being shot.

Simply pulling isolated numbers out of the whole doesn't do much except present a narrow picture. For example, you showed that housing was more expensive and so were certain other expenses the other day, but did you also show that household income has also risen to go with it? And that increase was after adjusting for inflation meaning people are actually better off.

His argument is stupid. It's been debunked and called out for 3 pages and all he keeps saying is that nobody can prove him wrong with statistics.

Maybe he's presenting his question in a way only he understands because everyone else is coming to the same conclusion, that a MW hike will lead to higher prices and MW earners will be in the exact same boat they're in now, and the MW is for people who are just starting out, not for people with a family and a mortgage.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Yes supply and demand is a factor. The economy is really bad shape but people just aren't seeing it yet.

Wait until this debt cycle really finishes. With the fed taking an inflationary policy stance in 2019 we wont have to wait long

But gold is a good way to measure inflation because its price point fluctuates massively during inflationary periods as we've been seeing in 2019

My mining stocks are killing it

a reply to: LSU2018

I didn't make an argument I asked for one.

If you stopped having an emotional reaction and paid attention for 5 seconds you would see that

You haven't made an argument

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: LSU2018

Things have changed a lot since the 1930's. What do you think the purpose of minimum wage is?

I don't have to think about it I just read what the people who create the legislation wrote and said about it and I can see clearly what it was meant to be.

It's really obvious.

I didn't say weather I agreed with it or not I just refute that 1 popular talking point. You just decided I agreed with it. Oh well...

So...... You can clearly see what the purpose of minimum wage is, so you don't have to think about it or answer it. That's just the rest of the posters' job and we're not allowed to challenge you, correct?

a reply to: toysforadults

What do you think the minimum wage should be?
Or better yet. What number or set of numbers would you use to set a living wage?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: LSU2018

Prove it

How much did the cost of goods increase in 1938?

Prove that giving everyone at your company an across-the-board MW raise will cause an increase in cost of products to afford to pay them their new wages?

Cost of goods went down 2.1% in 1938 and went up by almost 17% over the next few years. That's not cool.

There is plenty of data and research. The OP simply doesn't want to accept anything that shatters his world view. Here are two real world results...

Seattle raised their minimum wage to $15/hr. It is killing businesses. One study showing $100 million in lost payroll over a year.



NYC Car Wash Industry Decimated by $15/hr.



Of course, 40 years ago here is Thomas Sowell dropping gems. Same old song from leftists for nearly 50 years.



Or here is Walter Williams... also brings up the racist origins of minimum wage and Davis / Bacon Act. Min. wage was used to keep black workers from undercutting white union workers.






You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

a reply to: toysforadults

Interesting article Comparing 1930s and Today a compilation providing a good view on why we cannot simply repeat history. Regarding dealing with regulations, taxes, prices, employment, living conditions....etc.

Just one quote: but please check out the complete article/comparisons linked above and realize the fallacy in repeating mistakes from history.

REGULATIONS

1930s Most economies have been fairly heavily regulated since the early 1900s, and those regulations caused distortions that added to the severity of the last depression. Rather than allow the economy to liquidate, in the case of the U.S., the Roosevelt regime added many, many more regulations—fixing prices, wages, and the manner of doing business in a static form. It was largely because of these regulations that the depression lingered on until the end of World War II, which “saved” the economy only through its massive reinflation of the currency. Had the government abolished most controls then in existence, instead of creating new ones, the depression would have been less severe and much shorter.

Today The scores of new agencies set up since the last depression have created far more severe distortions in the ways people relate than those of 80 years ago; the potential adjustment needed is proportionately greater. Unless government restrictions and controls on wages, working conditions, energy consumption, safety, and such are removed, a dramatic economic turnaround during the Greater Depression will be impossible.

The article does show why minimum wage hikes now are detrimental and disadvantageous in the long run. How those it seems to aid now...will be the ones who will suffer the most in the end.

Edit add: Perhaps with the facts listed in this article, you should have issued your challenge to the liberals? It seems the conservatives have a better grasp on the facts of the past to support their positions.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: LSU2018

I didn't make an argument I asked for one.

If you stopped having an emotional reaction and paid attention for 5 seconds you would see that

You haven't made an argument

k.. ur right and everybody else ain't.

Not really a conservative, but google states with the highest costs of living, highest tax burdens and worst infrastructures in the United States. You'll notice a pattern. A big, blue progressive pattern.

The state of California itself should be a huge red (or blue?) flag for how we don't want to end up and yet the people seem hellbent on taking us out California way.

Bytheway, those states more often than not top list in inequality as well. Imagine that.

You also might want to look outside your window and notice that it isn't the 1940s out there anymore. Or even the 1980s. Why are both parties stuck on outmoded economics that are anachronistic to where we are and where we are going? Spoiler alert: neither are barely relevant now and will be completely obsolete within 10 years. So stop talking about it FDR for crying out loud. I'm surprised the social justice warriors haven't cancelled him yet for his internment of Japanese-American people.

Do we need to figure out how people can make a comfortable living in fast approaching new world? Sure. But the "RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE!" decree doesn't really get us very far. It will just translate to higher costs and fewer opportunities for fewer people as it further raises the incentive for businesses to move toward automation. It's not a reasoned and measured proposal that takes causality in account. It's merely a device to drum up voter support. In other words, it's dumb.

Automation appears inevitable regardless which brings us to the left's other knee jerk response they use to sell to people to get elected, but never really flush out what it truly means or how it works: Universal Basic Income.

The UBI isn't universal, it's national. It's kind of funny to me how the right pretends to be nationalists when they support the current corporate globalist system that has in actuality been quite good for improving the lives of impoverished people of the world. Fewer people today live in abject poverty that any time in history because of corporate globalization. The problem is, of course, it is not sustainable and it is hurting the middle class of developed nations (as well as other moral imperfections).

The left, however, argue in favor of taxing these billion dollar corporations to pay for things like the UBI and healthcare. These proposals, as of right now at least, are half-baked ideas and very much merely national measures that will hurt people in poorer countries. This is not an idea that is good on a global scale. Ask any worker in a poorer country if they'd rather make what we'd consider a "slave wage" or go back to their lives before in the fields and they will say "give me the corporate factory job" every time. Again, it's far from perfect but it beats abject poverty.

Look up Yuval Noah Harari and the UBI. He explains it a lot better than I.

I haven't slept in days so sorry if this is disjointed or not what you were looking for.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: DAVID64

in 1938 it was considered $0.25

swhsupply.com...

Average cost of new house $4,100.00
Average wages per year $1,780.00

Closest housing cost stat I can find. 8x your yearly salary would buy you a new house on minimum wage.

That's your metric depending on where you live.

You are correct that in 1938 the first livable min wage was 25 cents per hour. Using an Inflation calculator provides that in 2019 that would be $4.36 per hour...but as pointed as you pointed out the cost of living was comparable. What changed?

What changed was creating all of these regulations, taxes, and legislation compoundedly forced the price of living to increase. Continually raising the min wage, regs, ect...will not raise anyone up out of poverty...it has been shown to actually only increase the poverty level.

If this is not true...that livable minimum wage in 1938 should only be $4.36 per hour today.