Paying a "fair share"

That is clearly a part of the reason people end up poor. But if your parents are poor For whatever reason they are poor examples to their children of the value of the work ethic.

 

that is fairly accurate.

 

Exactly. They've turned the entire nation into the "company store" scam.

 

One cannot choose who their family is, but one can choose which path to take. Thus opportunity is the greatest assest anyone can have and it is why the more opportunities there are, the better the chances a poor person can move up the economic ladder.

That is why I am more than willing to give a person a chance or two, especially the less fortunate. But I will not force them to choose that way either.

 

It's so much easier said than done. The way I've seen the few escape is by deciding to HATE every inch of who they were born to and the way they were raised. And most have too much of a heart to go that route. Guilt is very real. Kids with abusive parents, who have every right to disown them, have trouble with guilt over choosing to do so.

It is much the same with a degenerate father and mother, in and out of prison, with zero work ethic unless it's to score another fix. I can't speak for inner city types, as money segregates locations in the more populate areas, but in the country, where everyone lives next to each other, it isn't hard to see that rich raise rich, middle class raise middle class, and working poor raise working poor.

At this point, all the "help" from the government isn't doing anything to change the situation. It is just throwing water down a dry well.

We need how money works taught in public schools up to the 12th grade, and we need a nationwide emphasis on strong families.

One thing is for certain, secular humans have yet to prove they can be even remotely as close to religion when it comes to producing productive families.

Religion made even the poorest of families somewhat productive, secular humans can only point to those with more money, which is more dictated by the benefits of wealth than any inherent ethics or morality that comes with secularism.

I am not a Bible thumper. I'm just stating the obvious flaw in secularism when it comes to the overall benefits to society. Economics included.

 

You've got workers earning $7.25/hour up to $60/hour in dollar increments, $8.25, $9.25, $10.25/hour, $11.25, $12.25, $13.25, $14.25, $15.25/hour and you actually believe you can greatly increase all wages below $14.99/hour without forcing all other wages to increase?

The employee earning $30/hour cares about wages? One day this worker is about $22.75 over minimum wage and the next day they are only $15.00 over minimum wage...of course they care! They worked hard to get where they are and if everyone below gets a huge raise so must they.

Someone takes a few years to go from $7.25/hour to $15/hour, working hard, obtaining skills, more education, continued performance, and in one swell socialist swoop everyone below them doubles their wages and they get $3??

The labor market determines all wages from lowest to highest...every worker from minimum wage to CEO sets their wage with their employer...this is agreed upon at the time of hire.

Increasing gross revenues does nothing to offset the higher cost of labor? Whether you sell ten or a million widgets at $10 per unit with $7 cost, you have the identical gross profits. If you increase the cost, you must increase the price of the product or accept reduced profits.

We can't assume business is 100% efficient/effective. It is what it is and can only be discussed in a general sense.

If there is increasing demand of something the price of that something will increase! Your examples only talk about the efficiencies of the business. A company introduces a product at $50 each, then reduces their costs in order to sell the product for $35 each. However, if demand continues the $35 price will be increased!

Why does the price of oil increase when demand is high? Why does it lower when demand is lower? When demand is higher than supply, this forces upward pressure on consumer prices no matter the efficiencies of the producer.

Again, productivity is what it is no matter other preferences. Workers work 8 hours per day for a fixed wage period no matter their output. A worker hired to produce 10 widgets per day for agreed pay is not going to double their productivity if wages are doubled. They might be in a different mood initially but within a short period of time they are only going to produce 10 widgets. This is where management must redesign product and/or improve production processes to create more widgets in the 8-hour work day.

The idea of a HS diploma does not relate to actual job functions...it is primarily used as a way to screen for employment. Someone with a degree in astrobiology working at McDonald's is not over-qualified! They agreed to flip burgers for minimum wage and we actually don't know how well they flip burgers so assuming they are over-qualified is wrong. Yes this worker has more 'potential' but if they don't compete and land jobs that fulfill their potential then they must accept something different.

IMO if a person is truly over-qualified for the job they hold and they are unhappy then that person has made a bad decision. If they cannot compete for jobs within their credentials then they are SOL. There is some reasonable period of time for people to seek and acquire the 'perfect' jobs and this might be days, weeks, months or years. And, people are not typically hired because they are over-qualified; they are hired to do specific jobs with specific skills/education for specific compensation. If that astrobiologist wishes to flip burgers then no matter all of their other potential they are only going to be compensated for the job they were hired to perform...

 

Emotions or not...every individual makes 100% of their decisions in life. There is no one in the world to blame for the decisions I have made since childhood except me! Some of my decisions were great and some were horrific but no matter all of them were my decisions. If I don't like something in my life it is 100% my decision to do something about it...I can't call my mommy or daddy or the government to solve MY problems. I've had employment situations I didn't like, and situations in my life that were unacceptable, and I was the ONLY person who could solve these problems and never was anyone holding a gun to my head forcing me to be helpless. People can make excuses and whine all they wish and it won't solve anything! It is incumbent upon every person to do the best they can do in life within their limitations and potential and to accept the life they are capable of creating...

 

Great. They should all increase.

Exactly the point. The market supply and demand determines wages. Not the contribution of the worker to the product produced. An excess supply of labor allows the owners to keep more of the laborers' production.

And conversely, by decreasing cost, you can increase profits.

However, by increasing cost in the form of higher wages for workers, in the aggregate you create a greater spending potential which increases the revenue and profit potential of businesses.

But if employees receive more pay they will have more spending power to buy more products and services, generating greater economic growth.

 

Very true.

But then, income inequality didn't start skyrocketing in 1981 because 90% of Americans all of a sudden decided to make excuses and whine and not do the best they can that year.



Something else happened that year.

 

So a business should increase its costs and reduce its profit so that other businesses can benefit?

 

That is the "prisoner's dilemma" aspect. We should increase workers' incomes so that the economy can benefit.

 

I definitely don't agree with this statement. I will answer this the same way I answered the story about Mitt.

I dont care ....

He should pay whatever the tax code says he owes and not a penny more. If our tax system wasnt so freaking weird it would be harder for Barrack and Mitt to wiggle. Don't get me wrong, I have my tax guy "wiggle" me as much as I can and you all should too, since the laws let us.

Personally I think taxes should be based on a progressive flat tax with varying levels. Something like this (ridiculously rough) example.

Single filer tax rate

$0 - $25,000 --- 0%
$25 - $40,000 --- 10%
$40 - $75,000 --- 15%
$75 - $125,000 --- 20%
$125 - $250,000 --- 25.0%
$250 - $500,000 --- 32.5%
$500 - unliimited --- 40.0%

The only single addition to this bill would be the "blend amendment" which would blend the brackets a little bit helping to not make such a sharp difference between brackets.

ie: - "If your gains are less than XX% above the nearest tax bracket your rate will be reduced by YY%. (All numbers to be debated)

If you make $75-80,000 you pay a 13.5% tax rate

 

We should refrain from using the force of government to experiment with economic theories. The government should first and foremost protect the person, property, and peaceful liberty of the people

 

And what do you do when those chosen for us to pick from don't believe in the idea of nations and they're our only choice to lead our nation?

How does one fix America if those in the sphere of influence don't believe in helping America until it is par with the rest of the globe?

I wish it would sink into those who enjoy politics that by supporting globalism, you are supporting the demise of your country. Your father's country. Your son's country. You can't have one without the other.

Globalism = death of the American way of life.

I don't know who is worse: those who think we should all be mediocre together as citizens of the planet, or those who have enough wealth that they can turn their cheek to what is no doubt treason.

 

I have no idea what's with the globalism thing. I am saying that I disagree with [MENTION=17203]Iriemon[/MENTION] that we (i.e. the government) should increase the minimum wage. I consider it a violation of the peaceful liberty of the people.

 

And that is why, when it comes to leftism, you're trying to kill a rhinoceros with a can of Raid.

You think beating leftism is tough when it comes to national politics? Just wait until national power is as trivial as state power, and you have to argue against a global assembly made up of an entire planet of people used to hand outs from their elite's pseudo governments.

Everyone on the planet ran here because the "rich getting richer, while the poor got poorer" is all the rest had to offer.

We have now became what our grandfathers ran from.

Leftism is elitism with perks for the poor, nothing more. That is why it always comes financed by old money, not by new money. And without researching globalism and knowing what you're truly up against, you're handing them this country.

Free trade, supply side economics, a government for sale to the highest bidder - these things are nothing more than the worm on the end of the hook, and just because there are short term gains your generation has never known, you think they automatically add up to capitalism.

I agree, you don't want Iriemon's idea of big government, but you do want big government. But you must understand globalism to understand why.

 

I think you're mistaken about what I want. I don't want big government.

Also, how would what I advocate (legal protection of person, property, and peaceful liberty) hand them this country?

 

Do you want our national government to be as big a joke globally as our state governments are now comparatively?

Our founders knew this day would come. They knew old money would come across the pond. That is why they tried to make local more powerful than national. That is why old money went straight for said sovereignty with their attacks, wanting the opposite to come to fruition.

From the Civil War, to the federal reserve act, to free trade in modern times.

Robber barons made huge gains at the turn of the 20th century. And what did that bring? The New Deal.

Now we have global robber barons. Lets do the math kids - what will it bring?

If you care about the future of capitalism, you want big government - just not what the global regime tell you is big government.

And friend, I assure you, you wanted it yesterday.

 

How does the legal protection of person, property, and peaceful liberty hand any foreign power this country?

 

You're arguing for "the legal protection of person, property, and peaceful liberty" in a day and age where those in power are working day and night to strip this nation, and her citizens, of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is the bedrock to which all those thing you claim to hold dear are built upon.

 

But how does what I advocate (the legal protection of person, property, and peaceful liberty) empower those who wish to strip these united states of their sovereignty? You seem to be speaking in riddles.

 

I just agree with a lot of what you say, but we as a nation need people to realize that left vs right is simply a distraction when it comes to the real battle - nationalism vs globalism. If our nation loses its sovereignty, all free market gains those like you think they might have made can be swept under the rug with the swing of a gavel.

Let me ask you:
Do you support free trade on a global scale, vs a case by case bases?
Do you support central planning via fiat currency under the control of private bank houses?

If you don't have any sort of opinion on these bread and butter topics, than you need to be reading, not posting.

I know Iriemon knows these topics, and he has picked his side. His choice of affiliation is unfortunate, but life goes on.

 

I think it's wrong to use violence to prevent anyone from buying from or selling to anyone else in the world.

No, I don't support central planning via fiat currency. Not in the least. In fact, I oppose it vehemently.

 

I disagree. Relocation is sometimes an option depending on the facts and circumstances of that individual. Those facts and circumstnces of one relocating maes the deicision not an easy one such as the example I gave you. It is a hell of a lot easier if one is young, unmarried, and has no substantial medical impediment to complicate that decision. Still, most people would not relocate outside the country for a job, excluding the example of the military, even if it mean career advancement. If that were the case, then every young person graduating with a business degree would be thinking of working outside the United States in contrives like China, Europe, Latin America, etc in seeking those opportunities. But most will not including those who graduate cum laude or above.

As for your example of Redding, CA, there are aerospace companies in that city. You do know that right? And thus, if one had a degree in aerospace engineering, it is not the specific city that determines their future, it is their goals for using that degree. Similarly, if one has a degree in finance does not mean one must always work in Wall Street to further their career as well.