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.

 

Issuing a challenge to conservative's

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:32 AM
link   
www.yang2020.com...

The FAQs in that link explain exactly where this particular candidate proposes the money come from.

I'm not going to write it all out.




posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: toysforadults

While I don't agree with all of your political stances, when it comes to economics I think you hit the nail on the head pretty much every time. It's telling no one can refute your argument with actual data.


It should be easy

1937, no minimum wage

1938 minimum wage

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm


Have you ever heard of the depression within the depression 1937-1939? Apparently, Roosevelt was panicking and instead of blaming his new deal, blamed big corp back in his day. Hmm...



To strengthen his explanation of the depression within the Depression, van den Noord appeals, as have other economists (notably Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, Harold Cole, and Lee Ohanian), to factors that also impressed many analysts at the time: rapidly rising real wage rates caused in large part by the Wagner Act’s stimulus of labor unionization, governments’ tolerance of sit-down strikes, and the Roosevelt administration’s vocal hostility—expressed in word and deed—to businesspeople and investors, which caused entrepreneurs and capitalists to fear an impending dictatorship that would greatly weaken or destroy the free-enterprise system.

The President’s shrill denunciations of businessmen in 1936 and 1937, his attempt to pack the Supreme Court and reorganize the government, his administration’s stream of tax proposals aimed at fleecing investors, and the New Deal’s many economic regulatory ventures—particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, among many other menacing developments—generated what I call “regime uncertainty,” which helps to explain the extraordinary collapse of investment, especially long-term investment, in 1937 and 1938.


More actual data provided at Source



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: narrator

IT market is super location specific I'm currently entertaining an engineering position in Mississippi.

Might take it.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I've read many of the debate about FDR either slowing down the recovery or speeding it up. There's no real consensus.

Worked for Hitler though.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: toysforadults

While I don't agree with all of your political stances, when it comes to economics I think you hit the nail on the head pretty much every time. It's telling no one can refute your argument with actual data.


It should be easy

1937, no minimum wage

1938 minimum wage

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm


Yeah.

1937:
Good morning, I'm looking for a job, are you hiring?
"I can start you out at 30¢ an hour. How does that sound?"
50¢ an hour sounds even better.
"What if I make it 40¢ and you can start immediately."
Ok!

1938:
Good morning, I'm looking for a job, are you hiring?
"I'll start you out at 25¢ an hour. There's a new law about paying a minimum wage to workers."



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

In the Great Depression.

Still in the Great Depression only doormen, elevator operators, theater seat ushers and others were priced out of a job because their positions were only worth 5-10 cents an hour to give the business a more formal appearance.


There is more to the economy to consider than just the minimum wage job. What will be the impact on factor labor that currently makes $12 an hour. Do you just bump them to $17 to keep them $5 an hour over minimum wage or do you go the full $24 an hour to double their wage? $17 makes then closer to the poverty line than they are now, but $24 causes a larger divide between poorly paid and well paid. Gasoline is acceptable at $2.25 a gallon but $4.50 a gallon overnight is some serious sticker shock.

It goes further, let’s say you want to invest $100,000 into stocks in a pizza company. Papa John’s is doing good now, but is it going to make the right business decisions to have not lost your investment. You could pull out beforehand to wait and see how they fair...if everyone does that then Wall Street tanks and boom, instant recession with high unemployment with a chance of Depression if the situation merits being used against a particular political party in power by simply calling it such to scare off investors.

Check resession history versus significant jumps in minimum wage. There is a pattern there.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: narrator

I don't know what the solution would be unless some kind of law were to be put in place that limits the percentage you can mark something up. I wish I did know, though. If we could find a way to get prices back down, making minimum wage would allow an entry level worker more purchasing power.

As for your friend looking for an IT job, the company I work for is looking to stock our IT department with 20 IT people. We're currently sitting at 5. I don't think the qualifications are strict, and I'm pretty sure they start out at $20 to $25 an hour. Our main tech was making $44 an hour until he swerved around a car to beat a red light and laid his motorcycle down and slid head first into a car, with his head taking the impact of his bike plus speed. When the surgeons put his skull back together and reattached his nasal cavity, he was almost permanently blind. So he's gone, along with the work of about 10 men, which is what he amounted to.


I agree 100%, there needs to be some sort of restriction to how much a company can charge for something simple like a big mac. I have no idea what that would look like though.

Oil if I remember correctly, right? Thanks, I'll have him reach out to you if he's interested, he's actually on here too.


Not anymore. I left the oilfield in 2007 and have been working for a telephone company that now provides video visitations and wireless tablets to inmates. I write all the contracts and print the tablet cases on 3D printers. The guys upstairs (IT guys and girls) all use Linux. I'm not sure where you're located, we're in NW Louisiana though. PM me if you need or want anymore info.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: CynConcepts

I've read many of the debate about FDR either slowing down the recovery or speeding it up. There's no real consensus.

Worked for Hitler though.


Logically, one can compare how the democrats handled the recent 2008 recession. After 8 years it simply took Trump 2 years to turn things around by reducing regs and taxes. It does seem that socialists policies tend to stifle recoveries the same as they did in FDRs time.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

I know exactly how wages impact a business.

Top 3 business cost;

Personel(maybe in the top 3 depends on business)
Material
Freight

It really depends on what business it is on how much of an impact it has on cost.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

How much of the GDP was caused by corporate and consumer debt and how much of it was growth?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: CynConcepts

How much of the GDP was caused by corporate and consumer debt and how much of it was growth?


You obviously did not follow to my Linked Article Source it did provide the breakdown of the data for 1937-1939.

Or are you just seeking others to find your information for you? Why don't you provide some data facts to back why you may disagree?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Here's a real position:

Residents of DC want to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour to bring it into the realm of "living wage."

If passed, the following will occur:

1. There will be no jobs available for young people (summer jobs, part-time jobs, etc.). Minimum-wage jobs are for unskilled labor; they are a springboard--not a career.

2. It will force small mom-and-pop businesses out of the market because they don't possess the buying power of large corporations; forcing a small business to pay their employees more means profits are reduced. Many will go belly up.

3. It will drive up the cost of local goods and services because higher wages = higher overhead = "we gotta raise prices to stay afloat."

Raising the minimum wage to career-wage levels is so short-sighted it could be the plot of a tragicomedy film.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts


For the past half-century, however, dispassionate analysts have generally dismissed the President’s capitalist-devil theory and have explained the bust in two main ways: A Keynesian interpretation blames primarily a fiscal shock caused by the federal government’s reduction of its budget deficit from $3.6 billion in calendar year 1936 to $0.4 billion in calendar year 1937; alternatively, a monetarist interpretation blames primarily a monetary shock caused by the Fed’s doubling of its member commercial banks’ required-reserve ratios between August 1936 and May 1937. This monetary policy triggered a decline in the money stock, which had been growing rapidly since 1933: The money stock (M2 definition) fell by 2.4 percent between the second quarter of 1937 and the second quarter of 1938.



Cool. So can you show me where in that article it breaks down the economic impact of implementing the minimum wage?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: toysforadults

While I don't agree with all of your political stances, when it comes to economics I think you hit the nail on the head pretty much every time. It's telling no one can refute your argument with actual data.


It should be easy

1937, no minimum wage

1938 minimum wage

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm


Yeah.

1937:
Good morning, I'm looking for a job, are you hiring?
"I can start you out at 30¢ an hour. How does that sound?"
50¢ an hour sounds even better.
"What if I make it 40¢ and you can start immediately."
Ok!

1938:
Good morning, I'm looking for a job, are you hiring?
"I'll start you out at 25¢ an hour. There's a new law about paying a minimum wage to workers."


This is completely ridiculous


So the minimum wage made it impossible for people to negotiate higher wages?

You sound silly at this point.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

And something I tried to simplify in my lemonade stand example elsewhere.

Labor was you
Material you produced for free
Freight in that case was your production.
Sales is the factor you left out and what I focused upon.

You either lose customers based on pricing or are not able to produce enough and have to outsource by buying product or hiring labor. With the lemonade stand I pointed out planting more trees would take four years to produce so you would have to buy lemons to do a slight increase in price to remain competitive with other lemonade stands. Or franchise to reach a wider customer base.

All of which adds complexity and expense budgeting to the owner, which also contributes to businesses closing, all to maintain current personal profits. With the lemonade stand, since it was a solo operation, it was just to maintain minimum wage as profits. Industries have to answer to shareholders, labor unions, government regulations.

Which brings me to one other little factor...banks. Banks profit by making loans (and dividends from long term investments, stock sales, etc) but the focus is loans. A tanking economy, which doubling the minimum wage even over a five year spread would tank the economy, means banks have to either be more aggressive in making loans (loose) or become extremely conservative (tight). Some really crazy things can happen when banks swing one way or the other.

The Housing Bubble and the selling of bundled derivatives was the result of being too loose and the Great Recession was the result of being too tight (with short term business loans in particular). Did you know that the railroad companies were going to order more locomotives to be built in 2009 than ever before and lay an additional trackline everywhere they could? Did you know that it was all cancelled because the banks would not make loans to the only two companies that make diesel locomotives? Those were the “shovel ready jobs” that Obama was talking about along with other business expansions that never materialized. I only know about it because I worked for a company that made parts for them. We had meetings the Fall of 2008. In December we had the meeting it was all canceled. The day after Obama’s inauguration nearly the entire plant was laid off. The price of gas slowly lowering over the years scrapped railroad expansion plans entirely.

Like I said, far more has to be considered than just the minimum wage worker when raising the minimum wage. And I like to throw out the challenge of asking why not make minimum wage $100 an hour. Because every answer as to why $100 doesn’t work is exactly the same answer why doubling to $15 doesn’t work. A very few ever try the $100 challenge without understanding why a low minimum is good so long as we encourage higher wages. Because the difference between a good average wage and a bottom wage has have a good gap, otherwise everyone is at or near the bottom. A situation we are currently in and frankly have been in since the 90’s.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
Here's a real position:

Residents of DC want to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour to bring it into the realm of "living wage."

If passed, the following will occur:

1. There will be no jobs available for young people (summer jobs, part-time jobs, etc.). Minimum-wage jobs are for unskilled labor; they are a springboard--not a career.

2. It will force small mom-and-pop businesses out of the market because they don't possess the buying power of large corporations; forcing a small business to pay their employees more means profits are reduced. Many will go belly up.

3. It will drive up the cost of local goods and services because higher wages = higher overhead = "we gotta raise prices to stay afloat."

Raising the minimum wage to career-wage levels is so short-sighted it could be the plot of a tragicomedy film.



Can you show me all of these things happening in 1938 because of the original minimum wage?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
www.eurofound.europa.eu...


During the past four decades, the main system of wage formation has been collective bargaining between trade union confederations and employers’ confederations. Collective bargaining at branch level between trade unions and employers’ associations is the main determinant. The wage bargaining rounds at sectoral level provide a framework for company level negotiations. There has been a significant shift towards company-level agreements and the reform of pay systems in the 2007 bargaining round. Current sectoral agreements contain many possibilities of so-called local pay which means that the locally negotiated pay increase pool has to be increased substantially.



Northwestern Europe has very strong labor unions



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
So if all the janitors in the country got together and formed a union called toilets cleaners USA and established a $25 minimum pay would you just start cleaning your own business or pay a janitor $25 an hour?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Directly related to my question. What happens to the $12 an hour worker? Do you pay $17 making them the equivalent to $9 today? Do you pay $24 to keep the percentage the same yet widening the gap and putting the business at risk? Or do you split the difference and go for $20.50 to lessen the burden on both them and you?


edit on 1-3-2019 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2019 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So what you're saying is that companies can't afford to pay their employees a living wage but they also can't afford to pay for robots while also ensuring they still have a customer base. Seems to me the issue isn't the workers' pay but the companies' incompetence.
edit on 3/1/2019 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join