danielpalos
Verified User
How did you reach your conclusion? It worked during WWII. Full employment was achieved by that command economy.
What happens if Biden gets his $15 minimum wage passed?
- Thread starter T. A. Gardner
- Start date
danielpalos
Verified User
That is not an argument but you begging the question. I could claim Capitalism doesn't work, Capitalism "died in 1929", and socialism has been bailing out Capitalism ever since.
Yes and no, but mostly yes. There is no such thing as pure capitalism or pure socialism. Entrepreneurial drive has led to great advances in science and medicine. But ultimately capitalism has a single goal: profit. Government is necessary to ensure that the goal of corporate profits is not realized at the expense of the common good. Government has by and large failed at doing that, which is why we have an enormous wage/wealth gap.
danielpalos
Verified User
You need valid arguments. Why do you believe inflation is not a form of growth? More people making more money, creating more demand and generating more tax revenue can be measured as the multiplier effect.
I'm sure you're aware of this, but you are debating economics with a yapping chihuahua. This guy has no clue.
danielpalos
Verified User
He was not asking any relevant questions merely alleging he must be Right simply for being on the right wing.
danielpalos
Verified User
Not everyone is, thrown out of work. Automatic stabilizers such as unemployment compensation help stabilize that situation. And, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in federal income tax revenue. In the long run, the economy will still grow and need more labor.
Besides, your point is disingenuous when capitalists have no problem downsizing for profit instead of the people without any wage increases.
danielpalos
Verified User
lol. You must be on the right wing. You need rational arguments for rebuttal not merely projecting and using the argument you projected onto me by appealing to your right wing stone instead of reason. Typical of the right wing who have only fallacy, but still want to taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
danielpalos
Verified User
I agree to disagree. It is public policies than can make the difference in a mixed market economy. Besides, there are no true capitalism economies beyond the third world. Anarcho-Capitalism only worked for a relatively, little while until the fall of Mogadishu. Capitalism is about boom and bust and that form of inequality and is the reason we have socialism.
Our wage and wealth gap indicate an inequality that is the antithesis of socialism. Socialism is not the driver of the US economy. Capitalism is. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have the economic inequality that we have now.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello T. A. Gardner,
It probably gets phased in over a number of years, so there would be no immediate negative impact.
A wise plan would give everyone time to adjust to what's coming and, frankly, long overdue.
Most employers and workers would not be affected, because a very low percentage of workers are actually paid the minimum.
Here are the benefits for America that I see:
1. Some near-minimum wages would be raised accordingly, much to the relief of struggling low-end earners who are trying to make working worth while but having a pretty tough time of it.
2. There would be some inflation, but it won't be anywhere near the difference of increased wages for low wage workers. And, after all, some inflation is actually a good thing. Our monetary system actually depends on it and would collapse without it. If deflation ever took hold it would be devastating to our economy.
3. Low wage workers who currently hold several part-time jobs might find they are able to reduce the number of jobs they need, reduce the amount of commuting they do, reduce the costs for beater vehicles, vehicle maintenance and fuel. This could be helpful in the fight against global warming.
4. Low wage parents with more time on their hands would be able to spend more time with their children, and do a better job of parenting.
5. Struggling families who have been just out of reach of home ownership would be raised up to the level where they could save enough for a down payment and qualify for a mortgage.
6. The prevalence of predatory lending institutions such as payday loan joints and 'buy-here-pay-here' car lots selling seriously overpriced worn-out lemons to desperate workers would be reduced.
7. Dependence of the government dole would be reduced.
8. The economy would get a boost due to low-wage workers having more spending power.
9. Some people who have been unable to find legitimate work, and have turned to crime, may be more enthusiastic about working, and this would reduce our too-high prison population.
AND:
10. The race toward devastating extreme wealth inequality would be mitigated.
The way I see it, it would be a 10-way win for America.
It probably gets phased in over a number of years, so there would be no immediate negative impact.
A wise plan would give everyone time to adjust to what's coming and, frankly, long overdue.
Most employers and workers would not be affected, because a very low percentage of workers are actually paid the minimum.
Here are the benefits for America that I see:
1. Some near-minimum wages would be raised accordingly, much to the relief of struggling low-end earners who are trying to make working worth while but having a pretty tough time of it.
2. There would be some inflation, but it won't be anywhere near the difference of increased wages for low wage workers. And, after all, some inflation is actually a good thing. Our monetary system actually depends on it and would collapse without it. If deflation ever took hold it would be devastating to our economy.
3. Low wage workers who currently hold several part-time jobs might find they are able to reduce the number of jobs they need, reduce the amount of commuting they do, reduce the costs for beater vehicles, vehicle maintenance and fuel. This could be helpful in the fight against global warming.
4. Low wage parents with more time on their hands would be able to spend more time with their children, and do a better job of parenting.
5. Struggling families who have been just out of reach of home ownership would be raised up to the level where they could save enough for a down payment and qualify for a mortgage.
6. The prevalence of predatory lending institutions such as payday loan joints and 'buy-here-pay-here' car lots selling seriously overpriced worn-out lemons to desperate workers would be reduced.
7. Dependence of the government dole would be reduced.
8. The economy would get a boost due to low-wage workers having more spending power.
9. Some people who have been unable to find legitimate work, and have turned to crime, may be more enthusiastic about working, and this would reduce our too-high prison population.
AND:
10. The race toward devastating extreme wealth inequality would be mitigated.
The way I see it, it would be a 10-way win for America.
Last edited:
gfm7175
Jesus is LORD!
Who are these "economists" that you are referencing and why are they "holy"?
Your response would make for a good Twitter warning though...
(!)This claim about minimum wage laws is disputed by economists.
Pathetic.
The price of goods is determined by supply and demand.
Minimum wage is a price control. Price controls cause shortages, in this case a shortage of jobs.
danielpalos
Verified User
Congress commands fiscal policy and the fed commands monetary policy. Why do you believe (socialism) commanding an economy is not a driver of that economy?
Because Congress has not placed a 'socialist' fiscal policy in place. Your use of the word 'command' is inappropriate. Congress cannot command the economy to do anything. They can only regulate.
danielpalos
Verified User
Government is spending is fiscal policy that Congress commands and controls. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are sufficient proof. We have a command economy not free market capitalism.
Into the Night
Contributor
It does not create more demand. Putting people out of work does not create more demand in the economy. It also generates LESS tax revenue.
Into the Night
Contributor
Math and history.
No, it didn't. Destruction of wealth is not useful.
Destruction of wealth is not an economy. Unemployment numbers are not an economy either..
Into the Night
Contributor
It is a valid argument. Economies don't have an 'efficiency'. Price controls do not work. Socialism does not work. It only brings misery. Government interference with markets is fascism.
Fallacy fallacy.
And you would be wrong.
Capitalism is simply people producing wealth on their own. NO government is required. NO 'bailing out' is required. Capitalism is the only economic system that creates wealth.
Socialism is theft of wealth. It the taking of the wealth of one and giving it to another that is not productive. Socialism can only exist when there is capitalism to steal from. Socialism can only be implemented by force, using oligarchies and dictatorships.
Both existed in the United States. The Democrats are currently converting the federal government into the SOA, an full blown oligarchy to implement their fascism. They do not recognize the Constitution of the United States nor the constitution of any State.
As capitalism is curtailed by edicts from the SOA, and by changing conditions imposed by the SOA, misery is sure to follow.
Into the Night
Contributor
There was no yes or no question asked. You are hallucinating again.
Yes there is. I have already described what capitalism is and what socialism is.
Thanks to capitalism. Pure capitalism.
Nothing wrong with profit.
That is fascism. Fuck you.
Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing. Wages are not wealth.
Into the Night
Contributor
Inflation is not growth. Money that is worth less than it was before it not growth. Money is not wealth. You are using 'mulitplier effect' as a buzzword...meaningless.