People are living on credit cards and getting screwed

[Into the Night]

We can debate whether someone who listens to a mortgage broker when they are told to take this low interest ARM, is stupid or greedy.

I'm debt averse as well, but quite often it makes more sense to use their money if your money is earning more. I've also taken $1000 rebates for using their credit, only to pay off the note in a month or two. None of which compares to that angst one feels when the wife isn't happy


To the OP, I'm willing to bet that right now Home Depot has countless millions of dollars loaned at 0% as we type. The OP is misleading.


There are some people who simply should not be given a credit card. They don't fully comprehend the danger, or they just don't care. CC companies love these people.

You and I are considered 'deadbeats' by these companies, but they need us to remain liquid. They get the fee from vendors, which costs them a point or two overall if they're giving us 5.

Special pleading fallacy. The OP is not misleading.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

On a national stage, DeSantis fails.

Credit to Biden. His failed student loan plot brought kids to the polls. If the next two years show kids that he's still fighting for them, we could be surprised.

BTW...I don't see Biden as the best candidate, but it's rarely about who is 'best'. Sadly.

I want someone like Buttigieg in the White House. Harris doesn't have the demeanor, nor does she have staff that can win her an election.

Her last run was grossly incompetent

It's up to the voters. You favor a party that favors itself.

Independents like myself often believe it's wrong to give away money that must be paid for by the grandkids of those receiving "free money".

It's not just the Democrats who are guilty. It's every President who signed a bill that raised the debt without a means to pay for it.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It's up to the voters. You favor a party that favors itself.

Independents like myself often believe it's wrong to give away money that must be paid for by the grandkids of those receiving "free money".

It's not just the Democrats who are guilty. It's every President who signed a bill that raised the debt without a means to pay for it.

You know as well as I do, Oom, that the debt ceiling is raised to pay bills already accrued and is not an authorization for further spending.

It's to avoid putting the US into default and thus essentially taking down the nation economically.

If, then, you're just speaking about raising the debt with spending in general, the government has to do its job regardless of funds available.
If they have to create inflation by printing money, thus reducing the value of everybody's existing money, they have to do it in preference to not doing their job.

Unlike libertarians, whom I admittedly can't begin to understand, I very much believe in government.
Like it or not, we were not born into a solitary species. We're pack animals genetically.
Thus, social responsibility is not something from which we're entitled freedom.
Bitching unreasonably about government spending is just another form of anarchy.
Libertarianism itself, come to think of it, is just another concept of anarchy.

If you're that worried about future generations, stop the fuck procreating, right? We're ass-deep in seven billion plus people already.
The earth can't provide that many inhabitants a reasonable quality of life.

Libertarians may not like it, but we really need to adopt the Chinese one-kid-rule, even though the Chinese themselves have relaxed it.
Breeding should also be restricted to people who are actually acceptable breeding material.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You know as well as I do, Oom, that the debt ceiling is raised to pay bills already accrued and is not an authorization for further spending....

It's the further spending that I'm talking about, dumbass.

Blame Libertarians all you like, Nibby, but the fact remains the two major parties only serve themselves, little is getting done except raising the national debt.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It's the further spending that I'm talking about, dumbass.

It didn't take you long to start calling me names, did it, Oom?
God, you must love the internet.
So safe to talk like an asshole.

You've never once attacked a position without attacking the person offering it as well,
and I suppose that it's not your fault. You're just a devolved-mutant Texan.

Tell me, did you vote for Ironside?
I'll bet that you did.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It didn't take you long to start calling me names, did it, Oom?...

I❤Irony

Example:

God, you must love the internet.
So safe to talk like an asshole.

You've never once attacked a position without attacking the person offering it as well,
and I suppose that it's not your fault. You're just a devolved-mutant Texan.

Tell me, did you vote for Ironside?
I'll bet that you did.

 

[Into Тhe Night]

Cash is still king.

Granted, there are many things you simply need a credit or debit card for (shopping online, paying for checked bags on a plane, etc), but everyone likes cash.

I have one card for personal expenses and one company card for my business expenses. There's rarely a balance carried on either of them...

I haven't touched cash in years. I use credit for everything, but I also never carry any debt. I earn $1,000+ annually in cash back rewards as a result.

 

[McRocket]

You realize that it's an employees market right now?

You realize that if McDonalds raised the price of a soda $.05-$.10 it would more than pay for any min wage hike?

In theory, yes.
But what you seem to not realize is the consequences of having to do that.

My link above already showed that the non-partisan CBO says that if the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour?
That there would DEFINITELY be a LOSS of jobs.
And that the number could be as high as 1.9 million over the next ten years.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681


It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to lower worker efficiency/productivity?
And have that be a good thing for the company or the consumer.

This is basic, economics 101.

 

[Walt]

And I absolutely love it.

I get between 1 and 5% of my spending back, and it is tax free(back to that in a minute). Where does the money come from? Originally from the sellers, but in the end from people who do not use credit cards. I try to tell them there is an unfair private tax on them to pay me, and they scream at me it is not possibly true.

In the end, I just keep making money off the idiots.

Back to the tax free thing. It appears that it is completely tax free. There is still no limit on the cash back I can get on it. So if I have a cloud computing services company that resells Amazon cloud services, and I pay for the cloud services it uses on my personal credit card, the 5% cash back I get is tax free. If I buy and sell a million in services, then the IRS says I made no profit. But, if I put the buying on my personal Amazon credit card, then I get $50k back (5% of a million). That $50k is tax free.

I am still working out the details... But this is big.

 

[Walt]

That there would DEFINITELY be a LOSS of jobs.

We are trying to lose jobs right now, so it might be a nicer way to lose jobs. Remember we need to cut jobs(or at least job openings) to reduce inflation. Which would you rather, a wage bump or an interest bump? We are going to lose the jobs from one or the other, so the jobs loss is no longer a factor in the decision.

This is basic, economics 101.

Economics 101 never covers anything that is real in the real world. It is so theoretical that it is garbage.

Most economic studies show that minimum wage that is too low causes job losses, and minimum wage that is too high causes job losses. There is a sweet spot that is actually a long plateau. $15 would probably do more good than bad.

 

[McRocket]

We are trying to lose jobs right now, so it might be a nicer way to lose jobs. Remember we need to cut jobs(or at least job openings) to reduce inflation. Which would you rather, a wage bump or an interest bump? We are going to lose the jobs from one or the other, so the jobs loss is no longer a factor in the decision.

Who exactly is 'we'?
And where is your link - please - that backs up the notion that the best way to fight inflation is to lose jobs?

The traditional - and highly effective - method has been to raise, interest rates.

Economics 101 never covers anything that is real in the real world. It is so theoretical that it is garbage.

Most economic studies show that minimum wage that is too low causes job losses, and minimum wage that is too high causes job losses. There is a sweet spot that is actually a long plateau. $15 would probably do more good than bad.

Fine...as soon as you show me links to these 'studies'?
That are from respected, UNBIASED sources?
PLUS, are based largely/solely on hard data?
And not just the babbling rhetoric from biased, think tanks/university prof's?

Then I will believe such studies are 'worth the paper they were written on'.

Good day.

 

[Walt]

The question over whether raising minimum wage within reason costs jobs is a very open question. It was thought to be established, but when it was actually studied, there is less evidence than one would think. I for one insist on data supporting theory.

Who exactly is 'we'?

The Fed acts for our collective economic interests.

And where is your link - please - that backs up the notion that the best way to fight inflation is to lose jobs?

This is economics 101... Seriously, if you know anything about economics, you know this. It has been called into question, like many things in economics, but it is basically considered right. The traditional explanation is the Phillips Curve, you can read all about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve

The traditional - and highly effective - method has been to raise, interest rates.

The assumption is raising and lowering rates raises and lowers unemployment. The problem happened when rates cannot be lowered anymore (around zero), or cannot be easily raised anymore. Then we have to look at other ways to raise and lower unemployment.

Fine...as soon as you show me links to these 'studies'?

The empirical study which revitalised the debate on minimum wages in the 1990s was by David Card and Alan Krueger, both then at Princeton University. In 1992 New Jersey increased its hourly wage floor from $4.25 to $5.05. Neighbouring Pennsylvania kept its own at $4.25. Thrilled at the prospect of a naturally occurring case study, the two economists gathered information of employment at fast-food restaurants in both states before the April increase and again several months later. Fast food seemed to offer the ideal conditions for a study, as a homogenous sector employing unskilled workers.

The increase in the wage floor did not lead to jobs being lost in New Jersey; employment in the restaurants they looked at went up. Nor did the authors find any indication that the opening of future restaurants would be affected. Looking at the growth in the number of McDonald’s restaurants across America, they saw no tendency for fewer to open where minimum wages were higher.

Their book, “Myth and Measurement” (1995), changed a lot of minds. By 2000 only 46% of aea members were certain that a minimum wage increased unemployment among the young and low-skilled: to the rest the textbook view—that, faced with a rise in the cost of employing workers, firms would use fewer of them—was wrong. But why? Over the past 20 years a growing body of research has shown that a key consideration is the power enjoyed by employers.


This school of thought argues that some labour markets are characterised by a market structure known as monopsony. Under a monopolistic regime one dominant supplier sells to many buyers, whereas under a monopsonic regime, one dominant buyer purchases from many sellers. Just as a monopolist can set prices higher than would be the case in a competitive market, a monopsonist can set prices artificially lower.

Thus, though it may sound counterintuitive for a higher wage to lead to more employment, it makes sense if what the legislation is doing is pushing a wage kept artificially low by monopsony back to where it would be in a market where supply and demand were matching each other freely. People who may not have bothered to look for a job at $10 an hour may be drawn into a job market offering $15 an hour. Push the minimum wage significantly beyond that point, though, and jobs will indeed be lost as companies find labour too expensive to afford.

Once the role of competition in the labour market is accepted, the debate on minimum wages becomes more nuanced and more empirical. Gathering data is not easy. Researchers must consider whether to track jobs or workers, and whether to study certain groups, such as teenagers or the unskilled, or broader sectors. And the job market is affected by more than just minimum-wage rules. Constructing reasonable counterfactuals is hard.

In 2019 a review commissioned by the British government of more than 50 recent empirical studies into wage floors found the effect on employment to be generally muted, even with relatively ambitious increases. Yet some studies did find higher impacts. Arindrajit Dube, the author of the review, warned that the evidence base is still developing. It is, for instance, too soon to opine on South Korea’s 25% increase in its minimum wage between 2016 and 2018.

https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2020/08/15/what-harm-do-minimum-wages-do

Even the CBO, which used the most conservative numbers, found that a modest increase in minimum wage would have no effect on employment:

A $10 minimum—According to the CBO's projections, the $10 minimum wage would raise earnings for up to 3.5 million workers and "have virtually no effect on employment." Nor would it have an appreciable impact on the number of people in poverty.
21

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...015/how-minimum-wage-impacts-unemployment.asp

 

[Street Glider]

I haven't touched cash in years. I use credit for everything, but I also never carry any debt. I earn $1,000+ annually in cash back rewards as a result.

I buy and sell a lot; cars, cameras, watches. When dealing with a private seller, cash money gets me deals that plastic never will...

 

[Althea]

It's up to the voters. You favor a party that favors itself.

Independents like myself often believe it's wrong to give away money that must be paid for by the grandkids of those receiving "free money".

It's not just the Democrats who are guilty. It's every President who signed a bill that raised the debt without a means to pay for it.

Exactly my point. Harris was a token thrown at S. Carolina in order to get the black vote in the primary.

Debt forgiveness was a carrot thrown at kids to inspire them to vote.

It doesn't matter what you or I think about anything. It's always about pandering.

Which is sad.

 

[Althea]

In theory, yes.
But what you seem to not realize is the consequences of having to do that.

My link above already showed that the non-partisan CBO says that if the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour?
That there would DEFINITELY be a LOSS of jobs.
And that the number could be as high as 1.9 million over the next ten years.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681


It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to lower worker efficiency/productivity?
And have that be a good thing for the company or the consumer.

This is basic, economics 101.

Didn't read the study, but there are states that have already done it.

It will hurt small businesses perhaps. Skilled trades all pay more than that now, so what jobs are at stake?

Even Walmart pays $16+ to start.

A gradual hike in the min wage would reduce job turnover. One of the biggest issues facing employers in this market. Demand creates jobs. Higher pay means more people who can create demand.

 

[Althea]

I get between 1 and 5% of my spending back, and it is tax free(back to that in a minute). Where does the money come from? Originally from the sellers, but in the end from people who do not use credit cards. I try to tell them there is an unfair private tax on them to pay me, and they scream at me it is not possibly true.

In the end, I just keep making money off the idiots.

Back to the tax free thing. It appears that it is completely tax free. There is still no limit on the cash back I can get on it. So if I have a cloud computing services company that resells Amazon cloud services, and I pay for the cloud services it uses on my personal credit card, the 5% cash back I get is tax free. If I buy and sell a million in services, then the IRS says I made no profit. But, if I put the buying on my personal Amazon credit card, then I get $50k back (5% of a million). That $50k is tax free.

I am still working out the details... But this is big.

That's interesting. I'm not sure how it could be tax free? I typically use my earnings by applying it to my balances, so it's a wash. If it's a card I use to purchase mostly non business related items/services, then it goes unnoticed by the IRS. Otherwise it just reduces my debits, which might be to my detriment if what you say is true.

 

[Monad Portal]

If you payoff your entire balance, every month, you usually get between 1% and 5% of whatever you spend back, and get a better return policy on what you buy. Basically, the non-credit card users are being charged extra, so people who pay off their balance can get a discount.

rich people problems.

 

[Monad Portal]

who doesn't have a fucking credit card.

shut the fuck up walt. focus on the WEF trying to kill everybody you idiot.

 

[Althea]

There isn't one thing here I disagree with. I also think Harris has a personality problem. Is it unfair? In large part yes, but it is what it is.

I forget the name of the user who had an avatar of his clothed butt? I haven't seen him in a while. I proposed that Harris' voice doesn't help her one bit, and her demeanor is similar to Hillary's. She's competent, but for some reason disliked. I got attacked for telling the truth.

trump is an empty headed empty suit. But he attracts voters. Personally, I want a nerd like Buttigieg in the White House.

No. It's not fair, but it's a game that must be played.

 

[Althea]

We are trying to lose jobs right now, so it might be a nicer way to lose jobs. Remember we need to cut jobs(or at least job openings) to reduce inflation. Which would you rather, a wage bump or an interest bump? We are going to lose the jobs from one or the other, so the jobs loss is no longer a factor in the decision.



Economics 101 never covers anything that is real in the real world. It is so theoretical that it is garbage.

Most economic studies show that minimum wage that is too low causes job losses, and minimum wage that is too high causes job losses. There is a sweet spot that is actually a long plateau. $15 would probably do more good than bad.

It's simple enough to ignore estimates and look for studies re. states/cities that already raised min. wage.

The job loss argument tends to fall flat.

We heard the same argument about the ACA. Employers would fire people if they were forced to give them health insurance.

Demand creates jobs.

Nothing else does.

Especially not tax cuts for the wealthiest among us.