Politics & Economics: The Minimum Wage, UBI, Taxes, etc. - Page 2 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Stimulation works to stimulate economic activity, but it's funded with debt, and no amount of stimulation pays the cost of stimulation (see broken window fallacy. Debt being the window) What the left seems to ignore, or does not realize is, our quality/standard of life is largely fueled by government debt.

.

Mostly war debt.

Also, I'm 99% sure Matt was joking.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 05:34 PM

#27

RFlushDiamonds

cool

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 5,969

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

I think greedy is a subjective term. I don't think reaping $0.03 of every dollar they get is greedy. I don't think a business that repurposes $0.97 of every dollar to someone other than shareholders is greedy either. I don't think ownership in a company being extremely valuable is greedy either. Those folks are only wealthy becasue of what someone else will pay for that share.

Yes. Greed is subjective but you implied that someone was greedy.

Who ? We know it's not Walmart.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 05:34 PM

#28

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Knowing Mat, that was probably an answer to Victor's Jeopardy question

Quote

07-24-2020 , 05:36 PM

#29

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds

Yes. Greed is subjective but you implied that someone was greedy.

Who ? We know it's not Walmart.

I'm not entertaining this, I did not imply that.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 07:01 PM

#30

RFlushDiamonds

cool

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 5,969

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

I'm not entertaining this, I did not imply that.

You absolutely did.

You may not have any idea of that but you posted a picture of Scrooge McDuck diving into a pool of gold. And it was fairly random.

But whatever. You can take your marbles and go home.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 07:46 PM

#31

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds

Yeah, except you've seen that exact picture, posted from me, and know the correlation, and it has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with an imagined belief that wealthy people hoard cash.

Quote:

Funneling tax dollars into their own pockets

Quote:

The cartoon begins as Huey, Dewey and Louie visit their wealthy Uncle Scrooge McDuck in his bank vault and explain that they want to deposit their money, which totals a considerable $1.95. Scrooge discusses the history of money, explaining that ancient Roman soldiers were paid in salt that was called "salarium," which lead to the phrase "worth his salt" and where the word "salary" came from. He then adds that a Spanish piece of eight is made up of smaller "bits," and that ancient Greek obols were tiny enough to be carried in the mouth, thus the phrase "cough up." Scrooge also shows his nephews a large stone wheel from the Island of Yap and going even further back in time, he explains that earliest cavemen attempted to trade goods with one another but soon realized that they "needed money," or a stable standard of value at which to price different items. Many different objects of silver, copper, bronze and gold were used as currency until eventually coins and paper bills were invented, and cheques and credit cards came along when it became impractical to carry one's cash around at all times. When the nephews suggest simply printing "a few billion more dollars," Scrooge explains that a billion is actually far more than they think and that making more money would lead to dangerous inflation. He describes that it's what you can buy with what you've got is what counts, and that it's a question of economics, and how one must balance one's budget like the pieces of a pie to live comfortable, adding that income tax pays for everything from schools to roads and must be factored in as well. He clarifies that his enormous vault holds only "petty cash" and that money must circulate "like ocean currents" to keep the world moving, and advises his nephews to invest their money very wisely to make it grow. He then agrees to deposit it for them - for a 3¢ fee. Scrooge concludes that investing wisely is an art.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrooge_McDuck_and_Money

You conflate scrooge with greed, and hoarding cash, as did Huey, Dewey and Louie.

Last edited by itshotinvegas; 07-24-2020 at 07:54 PM.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 07:56 PM

#32

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

Okay, but there are many benefactors to that, not just the Waltons.

Well, as long as they pay their workers minimum wage, I guess there's no reason to be aghast at the share they take for themselves.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 08:00 PM

#33

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Well, as long as they pay their workers minimum wage, I guess there's no reason to be aghast at the share they take for themselves.

Yeah....that's just spin.

Quote:

It should also be noted that since the 2015 fiscal year annual report was released in January 2015, Walmart has increased its wages twice and that its minimum wage now stands at $10 per hour, making the $16 billion profit figure unlikely to be repeated for some time.

Quote:

In the 2015 fiscal year, Walmart made a profit of $16 billion. This figure, when divided among Walmart’s 2 million-plus employees worldwide only works out to an additional $7,355 per year, or $3.67 per hour—and that’s with the company making no profit, something that private companies aren’t in the habit of doing.

Quote:

Apple Makes $407,000 Profit Per Employee, Walmart And Retail, $6,300: Who's The Exploiter?
Source.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 08:11 PM

#34

wet work

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,260

Scrooge concludes that investing wisely is an art---

Unless you know a few of the right guys(say like a guy who can move markets with a tweet

) and then it's more like shooting fish in a barrel.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 08:21 PM

#35

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

$10/hr on 40 hrs a week and 50 weeks a year is $20000 a year, under the poverty line in a 3 person household. How generous of them.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 08:36 PM

#36

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

One-in-five female retail workers in low-wage jobs is their family’s sole breadwinner; 2-in-5 account for at least half of their family’s income.

Found this stat....and shows MrWookies is spinning again.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 08:42 PM

#37

EADGBE

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 15,841

60% living with a household income of $40k or less sounds pretty terrible iyam. No wonder so many of them are on SNAP.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 08:45 PM

#38

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by EADGBE

60% living with a household income of $40k or less sounds pretty terrible iyam. No wonder so many of them are on SNAP.

Neat trick, but obviously the two in five includes the one in five. So, it's actually 40%....

Further, these folks pay and job are not static, Walmart has about a 44% turnover rate. It's a first job, entry level-type, and you are not there for very long before you find something better.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 08:50 PM

#39

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Incidentally, increasing wages would likely lead to quicker adoption, and reliance on automation (i.e. goodbye cashiers and goodbye first job for many).

Quote

07-24-2020 , 08:52 PM

#40

EADGBE

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 15,841

Oh, misread sorry. Still sounds pretty shitty.

I would def disagree with your second point. Some minimum wage workers move on to better things, yes, but many never do. Those who move on to better jobs do so because of other factors, such as education.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

Incidentally, increasing wages would likely lead to quicker adoption, and reliance on automation (i.e. goodbye cashiers and goodbye first job for many).

This is true, but not really a reason not to give people a living wage? Also, they raised the minimum wage to $15 here in nyc last year and despite the many protests from large retailers, the world did not end AFAICT.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 08:53 PM

#41

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by EADGBE

Yes!!!

This is why we have welfare and other safety nets..for those who can't get better jobs....which incidentally walmart will get a piece of, becasue those folks shop at walmart.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 08:58 PM

#42

EADGBE

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 15,841

Yea, so they should pay their workers more and get them off welfare. Why should the government have to subsidize slave wages? No? I'm not sure what you are proposing then, exactly.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 09:00 PM

#43

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

Found this stat....and shows MrWookies is spinning again.

You're going to have to explain the spin here, bro.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 09:02 PM

#44

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

No job worth doing should be done for poverty wages. I don't care how long people stay there. The job is one that has to exist, and it should pay better.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 09:07 PM

#45

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Also, they raised the minimum wage to $15 here in nyc last year and despite the many protests from large retailers, the world did not end AFAICT.

Quote:

Its employees opted to work fewer hours as their wages rose, a tall order in a tight labor market.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/seat...ut-so-far.html

----

Studies of the effects of the Seattle wage hike have had different findings: A 2017 University of Washington study found that while wages went up, hours worked declined, resulting in less pay for low-wage workers. But in a follow-up published last year, the authors noted that this wasn’t the case for everyone, and experienced workers in low-wage jobs saw their earnings rise.

This tells you that you these folks really are not seeking a higher standard of living, financially speaking.

Also:

Quote:

The conflicting studies highlight a broader debate about what a $15 federal minimum wage might do for businesses and workers nationwide. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell even touched on the issue during his testimony before the House of Representatives this summer saying. “there is no consensus among economists … economists are all over the place on this.”

One of the challenges of measuring Seattle’s experience with the minimum wage hike is that the city’s economy is in a period of robust growth. Since the wage increase began in 2015, Seattle/Tacoma’s job growth has slightly outpaced the state of Washington as a whole, at 12.9%. The city’s population has increased some 13% over 2015, according to the Washington state Office of Financial Management. Average hourly earnings were $39.38 in October, an increase of 14.5% from the same month in 2015.

I think when it's said and done, it will show that the minimum wage increase had no practical impact other than making it harder for a first time job seeker to get a job. The folks who earn that cash will be in the same socioeconomic position they were before it went into effect, because most of these workers are not looking for a monthly nut. We will see, though.

Last edited by itshotinvegas; 07-24-2020 at 09:18 PM.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 09:09 PM

#46

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

No job worth doing should be done for poverty wages. I don't care how long people stay there. The job is one that has to exist, and it should pay better.

I don't think pay is determined by what YOU think people should earn (I actually know it's not determined by that). I also don't get why a spouse or kid of a parent making say 50-100K a year would require higher wages because of your idealism about what wages should be. You want to improve the wages for the 2 in 5 by forcing companies to pay 5 in 5 workers more than their labor is worth on the market (Not to mention many of these workers aren't demanding (as in economic demand) increase in pay, as evidence of less hours worked).

Last edited by itshotinvegas; 07-24-2020 at 09:25 PM.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 09:37 PM

#47

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

You're going to have to explain the spin here, bro.

I think I did it in my last two post, but majority of the low-wage workers are not in poverty, nor are seeking a higher socioeconomic position, that's why the wages stay low.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 09:51 PM

#48

Slighted

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 16,775

i feel like the venn diagram of people that think people shouldn't get paid a living wage for jobs because it will ruin the economy and the people that think athletes are overpaid is one big circle of economic stupidity.

Quote

07-24-2020 , 09:55 PM

#49

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

I think anyone claiming they know what people "should" be paid based on anything other than what someone is willing pay are communist.

Timing:

Quote

07-24-2020 , 10:26 PM

#50

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

He says something key here....he puts it into municipal bonds. Investments which allows other business to use that capital to grow and hire more people. Bonds that cities float to pay for things for their citizens. All the redistributive effects of capitalism.

Quote

Page 2 of 9

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 9

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Last