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: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Wouldn’t it be far better to sack the Federal Reserve Act and put the printing of money back into the hands of the US Treasury where it belongs and stop all this socialist nonsense so that we are not under the fiat money created by bankers and not under the inflation it caused by the overspending of a runaway Congress with runaway social spending. ... do you know what homeopathy is? We need to reverse the excessive social spending not increase
It. These programs being proposed by unrealistic socialist ideologies are going to make everything worse and totally unsustainable. We need to take back free enterprise and take back our government from these ignorant usurpers.




posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   
1 ounce of gold was $50. It was $50 from before the creation of the minimum wage in 1938 to 1971 when we went off the Gold Standard. Though the Federal Reserve Bank was devaluing the currency long before we went off the Gold Standard. This is why we had to go off the Gold Standard, otherwise the accounting wouldn't have added up because of the counterfeiting being done by the Federal Reserve Bank before we went off the Gold Standard. Today 1 ounce of Gold is @ $1,300 per ounce. The minimum wage had near the same purchasing power from 1938 to 1971. Gold has the same if not more purchasing power from the founding of the U.S. treasury til now. The dollar has lost @ 95% of its value since we went of the Gold Standard in 1971, which imo has caused the wealth gap between rich & poor. Wages remain the same while the value of the dollar goes down. On an accountable Gold Standard the value of the dollar remains the same or gains value.
edit on 3-3-2019 by JBIZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Hard work at maximum effort builds character and self-esteem and paves the way for something better. Something lost on the left thinkers....



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JBIZZ
I lived in Fl for 10’years. Loved it. Would love to move back but I’m in the mountains at present so if the sh$& actually does hit the fan there’s plenty of wood and a wood burning stove as long as our progressive governor doesn’t outlaw wood burning stoves like the nutty fruitcakes in Cali. This GND is insanity. Remember Obama promised skyrocketing electric costs while sacking the coal industry and all those jobs. In my neighborhood you could tell
Who was a liberal Democrat by the anti coal signs in their yards. And I walked door to door for my Tea Party City comish candidate.
But I digress .... We were just in West Palm Beach visiting my father in law and while it is very diverse and a large city, I was mildly shocked to see a guy with tatts all over his face eating at a local restaurant that serves veggie bowls and I had a feeling about that ... so I googled MS13 gangs in Palm Beach ... sure enough .... the West Palm Beach police and surrounding areas are fighting the presence of MS 13 gangs. We stayed in a nice bnb house only to find out that the neighborhood was considered dangerous with druggy stuff. So sad.



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



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Not refuting anything, however an interesting observation that I've had over my career. While the lower wage jobs do not tend to drug test, and the middle tier does, the upper tier of jobs for the most part have removed that requirement as well. According to a few calculators that I have found I am in the top 3-5%, depending on which calculation you use. Amusingly enough I haven't been asked to take a drug test since my salary hit six figures, anecdotal of course, but still some food for thought.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: toysforadults

The framing of your argument is rather disingenuous.

The USA hasn't operated as a free market since before President Wilson, our first Progressive president.

What we deal with now as business-people is instead best described as crony capitalism. The government getting to choose the winners and losers.

It is rather easy to show that a minimum wage merely raises the cost of a product, thus raising the cost of living.

Which in turn impacts the entry-level laborer the hardest.

Just basic economics.

So no, I'm not entering into your carefully crafted argument.

Because you have based it on a false premise.



Plus...the higher the volume of dollars circulating through the economy exposed to taxes, the greater the aggregate taxes. Who is it who wants higher taxes???? Hmmmmm????

Simple math.

Force higher wages, drives higher product prices. Higher product prices result in higher tax revenues. Higher tax revenues result in bigger government spending and bigger government in general. Who's for big government???? Hmmmm???

Pretty much game, set and match.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: toysforadults

The framing of your argument is rather disingenuous.

The USA hasn't operated as a free market since before President Wilson, our first Progressive president.

What we deal with now as business-people is instead best described as crony capitalism. The government getting to choose the winners and losers.

It is rather easy to show that a minimum wage merely raises the cost of a product, thus raising the cost of living.

Which in turn impacts the entry-level laborer the hardest.

Just basic economics.

So no, I'm not entering into your carefully crafted argument.

Because you have based it on a false premise.



Plus...the higher the volume of dollars circulating through the economy exposed to taxes, the greater the aggregate taxes. Who is it who wants higher taxes???? Hmmmmm????

Simple math.

Force higher wages, drives higher product prices. Higher product prices result in higher tax revenues. Higher tax revenues result in bigger government spending and bigger government in general. Who's for big government???? Hmmmm???

Pretty much game, set and match.

Yes! And the bankers win. So much for Occupy Wall
street ... what have they done for us?



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

MS-13 is almost everywhere in the U.S. Actually, in 2007 42 states had members of MS-13.

Ultra-violent gang found in 42 states

It is a lot worse now, thanks to democrats and Obama who helped release criminal illegals and allowed them to enter while claiming to be minors meanwhile the majority were adults, but democrats/liberals want to claim "MS-13 is not a problem, and POTUS Trump is making this up..."



edit on 3-3-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The globalist elites are the ones who win. The only way to convert the rest of the world into a "socialist dictatorship" is by converting the U.S.

Some countries, like Japan will try to fight this, but eventually they will have to give up. They are too small and depend on the U.S. and Europe for their economy to be as good as it is now. But once the U.S. is turned, Japan will have no choice but to join not too long after. The conversion of Europe would be much easier, and it's underway.

In the U.S., with so many democrat states making it easy for illegals and non-citizens to vote in our Presidential elections, and with all the dirty tactics we have found out the DNC/Hillary/Obama have been using, it is only a matter of time before they have enough "illegal votes" to drown the rest of us, and get Shillary in as POTUS, or someone worse such as Bernie Sanders.

I think the only reason why the globalists weren't with B. Sanders is because they wanted a war with Syria, which would also start a conflict with Russia. Which is why they wanted Shillary. Apparently all their other "plans" to get rid of as many people as possible are not working fast enough, so war is their best bet, hence why they wanted and still want Shillary.

I am not sure how many people have made the link between many of those people who today are part of the DNC and the original "Weather underground socialist movement." For some reason, even though the FBI had an agent infiltrated, many of their members, or former members, are still at large. We do know Bill Ayers was one of those members, and he is free and able to voice his still radical views on many U.S. universities... Why?...

That FBI agent, Larry Grathwohl, stated these people were very smart and they were in Universities to infiltrate and take over the U.S. government.



Grathwohl also told us that those in the "central committee" gave orders to the "operating units in the field." So they were very organized, and I would figure that there were more "committees and operatives" which had no link to each other in case one of the cells was discovered, so that the rest would be safe.

This is what socialists really are, and at least a few of those who are in government now, the DNC, were either members of "weather underground" or fell for the tactics of these socialist murderers.

Some of these people were caught, including Bill Ayers, but Ayers wouldn't be addressing students in Universities if powerful people were not protecting him, and others like him.



As a matter of fact, hasn't anyone realized how many "young socialists/progressives" have embraced almost the same ideals as the original "weather underground"?

We have members of Antifa, and BLM, among others, calling for "re-education centers to get rid of white privilege" and "to get rid of capitalism for socialism." They are openly calling for the murder of our police officers, and even white capitalists, etc, etc.

Heck, "white privilege" was one of the original ideas of weather underground, and a lot of young people in the left today have embraced this false idea as well as others. Some would say "the weather underground disintegrated," but "these young people" of today didn't embrace these ideals on their own, and they are almost 100% the same ideas that the original weather underground espoused.



edit on 3-3-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add, correct comment, add links.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 09:48 PM
link   
A brave and admirable post.

I’ve typically always been a supporter of a minimum wage and salary distribution based on difficulty of work, availability of competent workers, and total number of jobs....but some things have and are changing.

With the looming industrial revolution and employment crisis that I believe is going to define the future of America over the course of the next decade, we need to get ahead of the threat of an economic collapse. If what some economists say is true, and 70% of American jobs will be lost to automation by 2030....then how citizens earn a living will have to be redefined.

With that, I’ve always been opposed to a universal basic income. However, I think I’m starting to agree with Elon Musk and others that a UBI is not only inevitable, but the sooner we accept it the better we, as a society, survive an economic collapse. Trade skills, entrepreneurs, an people in the tech industry will be best prepared but those are all well paying positions far above a minimum wage. Thus, it changes the way we might look at paying them AND supporting those without employment opportunities. Scary to think about.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Assassin82

That future doesn't have to happen. But it is what the globalists want, it forces people to accept "global socialism," and such a policy as "UBI" will only pay the lowest wages to everyone who is not part of the elites.

Cuba, Venezuela, China, etc, they all have their own version of "UBI." Such a policy has never ended well, and it won't change for the U.S.

Not to mention all the other policies that the elite, and those like AOC, want to implement.

We can change that future, we don't have to accept "automation as a necessary evil." Because if we don't stop this, our way of life will be the same as in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc, etc.


edit on 3-3-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Perhaps it doesn’t have to happen. But I don’t see how we stop it. A robot can’t go on strike and a societal uprising with a bunch of protestors screaming “they terk err jobs” isn’t going to prevent corporations from heading in that direction. In fact, it’s already started.

Amazon is the perfect example. Distribution centers are heavily automated and it’s only getting worse....yet, you don’t see their profits dropping anytime soon. Bezos is gonna lose something like $50-$60 BILLUON in his divorce and won’t skip a beat. It’s insane. Manufacturing; heavily automated and only getting worse. Next are automated truckers, cashiers, bank tellers...possibly pilots and taxi cab drivers. Anything that a robot can do, and do for cheaper than a human will probably be done. I don’t like it but I don’t know how we get around it without changing our approach to how an income is made.

Silicon Valley is like the Mecca of tech nerds and hipsters. They praise that area for all their green initiatives and liberal agendas. Arguably, the companies that rule that roost have become THE major influencer of the American work force. One could argue they have more of an impact than the auto industry, the agriculture industry, or the manufacturing/distribution industry. I don’t see the tech industry stopping this industrial revolution...instead I only see them pushing it along. How do we stop that?

If the economic impact of the jobs lost to the automation of the manufacturing industry in the American Midwest is any indication of how things might be...we must get ahead of it somehow. (I know automation isn’t the only factor in this example, but it’s a major factor to consider). People without a college education, middle aged people with families and not enough in savings won’t be able to compete in the leftover job market.

Some are saying truckers should learn how to code...maybe some could, but being realistic, most can’t learn that skill. So, maybe the alternative is investing in education. I’m all for a free education to some degree but I don’t know how it gets paid for with rising tuition costs. Trade skills will surely be in higher demand but there are only so many jobs one can create in that sector. Tech jobs will be in very high demand, but let’s be honest, the people that would be most impacted by this scenario probably aren’t going to be the most tech savvy folks. And they’ll be competing against people who have a major head start on them and with much more education on their resume.

I don’t want to sound all doomy and gloomy, but I imagine a whole bunch of Detroit’s popping up across America if things were to go down that path. But you’re right...it doesn’t have to be that way. I’m just not sure our government is capable of looking out for our best interests when they, the ones who decide our fate, are so corrupt and privy to under the table lobbyists lining their pockets with money. Nor am I faithful that our society as a whole can wake from their slumber to realize their jobs could very well be automated leaving them jobless and without the skills to compete. Many people can’t even think 2 weeks ahead of themselves, let alone 10 years.

In summary, I don’t disagree with you, nor do I want this possible future for our society. The pessimist in me says it’s impossible to prevent. The optimist in me says it’s possible but we’re too lazy to stop it. So the realist in me is getting ahead of it by finishing my education at 37 years old and inventing my own job so I’m prepared either way.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Well this is easy. The unemployment rate (income of 0) was 14% the year before it was enacted, it was 19% the next year. 5% of people got a huge pay cut. I wonder how they did feeding themselves on that living wage of zero dollars?

But there are three main reasons that arguing about minimum wage is a waste of time. (So let me proceed to argue about it lol)
1) Throughout most of its history it has been too low to be considered "a living wage" so what good was it at all? I mean if your goal is to keep the low skilled from gaining skills then it's great (racists looooove minimum wage).

2) Then there are the simple economic factors, if an employee can't create x amount of dollars worth of value then why should they be paid x amount of dollars instead of y amount of dollars which is a value they can create?

3) Then there is freedom to be considered. If a consenting adult is willing to work for x and another consenting adult is willing to pay them x, then what right does the government have to say that they cannot enter into such an agreement?

But this is what many on the left side of the political spectrum do. They create a policy (or support one) for which there is no real issue that needs resolving. It's like the robber barron myth. Consider that during the so called robber barron years migration to the US continued at break neck pace. Why would so many people line up to be tread under the boot of the man? Unless of course that was all sensationalized and overblown. It's like how all of the latin american's want to come to the racist, hate filled, USA. Why are they fleeing their tolerant lovely societies to come somewhere they're hated? Unless of course, they're not actually hated here.

So I would contend that you need to prove that there was a problem that required minimum wage, without platitudes. Because all of the data as well as all of the brass tacks economic theory makes it plain that it's at best a net neutral move and at worst, very detrimental.

One last stat: in 1900 the average salary was $449. In 1920 the average salary was $1407. That means an average wage increase of 10.6% per year. In 1948 the average salary was $3,100. In 1968 the average salary was $7,700. This means there was an average wage increase of 7.6% per year. The point of this statistic is not to prove that there is better wage growth without a minimum wage, but to prove that wage growth was healthy before it, meaning it was unnecessary.
edit on 4-3-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

If we forget for a minute that minimum wage may not help drive up wages, we have to ask ourselves why it would need to be raised in the first place.

The problem is that currency devalues. The idea of saving for retirement is ridiculous, as money you save today will be worth pennies when you retire on it. Investing carries quite a bit of risk, but is the only way to stay out in front of deflation.

The problem isn't that we need to increase minimum wage. Its that we need to roll back inflation and restore value to our currency. Minimum wage, as you mention, always lags behind the average wage. I have 35 some odd employees, most who work "minimum wage jobs". None of them make anything close to that because if they did, i'd never be able to hire them to begin with.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

WARNING: this is a long rambling post about economic theory and history, read only if you are bored or entertained by such mundane things. You have been warned.

Inflation is a complex beast. The question no one really knows the answer to, is what causes it. Yes, there are theories from money supply to velocity of money to increases in population, but as far as I know, there has never been any definitive proof that any one or any combination of these has resulted in inflation/deflation.

In fact, QE kind of killed the idea that inflation was inherently tied to money supply
Velocity has unexplained complications like the low american savings rate while our inflation is not all that high
Population increases have slowed and so has inflation, but it didn't really boom in unison with the population either

So how exactly do we roll back inflation? In the last five years the price of the dollar has been extremely stable (when you compare it to something stable, like gold). Five years ago it was $1,326 for an ounce of gold, today it's $1,286. Even using inflation as a guide, the dollar hasn't really reacted in gold.

In the late 70's (during stagflation, which is high inflation and slow economic growth) gold went from $181 to $686 then stabilized around $400 for twenty years of huge economic growth. It slowly began climbing again around 2005. Then the crash happened (and with it came deflation) and it went from $650 to $1,800 in a four year period ('07-'11).

So does inflation even affect the dollar value? I mean, during the high inflation event of the 70's your buying power for gold reduced a little, but during the low inflation/deflation event of the 07-11 years your buying power for gold reduced a ton.
edit on 4-3-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We cant roll back inflation because that will cause deflation (which is what we actually need) but because all of the states and trade unions have 401ks and pension programs they cant let the market fall thus massive inflation.

Look at state unfunded liabilities. You are literally losing purchasing because of the people right now collecting pensions.

Pensions the previous and post generations will never see.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The reason for this is because gold is a fixed value asset

What that means is gold will always retain its value the only thing that changes in this case is the value of the dollar used to purchase it



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Gold is not a fixed value asset. What is the value fixed to? A fixed value asset is a bond. The future value of a bond is known at every point throughout it's life. It's value is measured in currency. The future value of gold is unknown (despite its relative stability).
edit on 5-3-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Gold will always maintain its value or at worse increase in value very slowly over long period of time

The value of gold will remain the same unless there is a huge increase in demand or the value of the dollar inflates



posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Yes it has a stable value. Which is why I chose to compare the dollar to it, rather than comparing the dollar to another currency. The dollar has been very stable for the vast majority of it's history and only tends to lose value during very large economic events. Stagflation of the late 70's and the financial crisis are the only two events we have had, since leaving the gold standard, which have resulted in devaluation of the dollar.

The dot com bust, nothing (well, the dollar actually gained a decent amount of value). The 1990 recession, nothing

Inflation and devaluation of our currency should show their effects through gold prices, don't you think?
edit on 5-3-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join