Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Putin's Impeachable Puppet vs The Rise of BootyWalker & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

as a side note, I find the Fed reaction to Trump's trade war efforts reigning in inflation to the point a rate cut is coming interesting.

 

May you live in interesting times.....for better or worse

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

As an add on:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-16/rising-federal-deficit-fuels-u-s-economic-growth

 

"The Rising Federal Deficit Is Fueling Growth"

 

that has been true for quite a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I do like the focus on increasing wages.  I'd love to see it.  

 

(And I do confess:  I've heard comments now, and have in the past, where people are actually being concerned over reports that unemployment might be too low, and that "this will lead to inflation".  And every time I hear that, what my brain translates it into is "Hew, we threw billions in tax cuts at the billionaire class, and promised that it would trickle down.  But now it looks like, if we're not careful, it might actually trickle down.  And we cannot allow that to happen.")  

 

I also have to say, I'm not at all sure how to achieve that without triggering inflation that will simply wipe out said wage gains.  

 

I think part of the problem is that the government has been tilting the negotiating table between capital and labor in capital's favor, probably for 50 years.  And now we've made capital all powerful.  To the point where, if we try to bring the bargaining table back towards level, capital will just move to another country where they're still king.  I think we've made big corporations WAY too powerful.  I think we see it in all sorts of ways.  Things like, when DOJ actually convicts Microsoft of antitrust violations, and then asking Microsoft what kind of punishment they would like.  Or things like the things over Amazon's "headquarters", or similar things.  City and state governments actually engaging in bidding wars to see which one will throw the most taxpayer money at a corporation.  

 

I wonder if maybe raising the minimum wage might be a way to encourage wage growth.  I think it might.  But I'm also certain that the transition would have costs.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to wages and wage growth, there is a difference between your specific company/corporation giving you a raise after your annual performance review, and the job you do actually being worth more money on the overall market which is a better indication of real wage growth (or lack of)

 

Too many people will try and apply their own personal situation to the greater population.  Someone who got a huge raise or maybe has been at a company for 10 years and has seen their wage go up during that time.   You can't really associate that to a President or a specific policy.  

 

I remember when Dubya was in office I actually had a friend say "well I make more under Bush than I did Clinton, so he must be doing something right" keep in mind we were barely 20 years old when Bush came into office so I think it stood as a pretty safe bet we'd be making more in our 20's then we did as teenagers regardless of who the President was. 

 

I don't like jobs reports or GDP as economic indicators of the economy.  I much prefer the basic question of how far your dollar(s) stretch.  Don't look at the raw numbers of your pay check so much as what your pay check can provide for your family in terms of food, housing, healthcare, etc etc......are your wages keeping up with the increases in prices of just about everything?  

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

I wonder if maybe raising the minimum wage might be a way to encourage wage growth.  I think it might.  But I'm also certain that the transition would have costs.  

 

 

I remember back in the Bush 43 era, reading an article about raising the minimum wage and how corporations were against much more because the real issue it would shine a light on is how underpaid the folks are working jobs that paid just barely over minimum wage. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I remember back in the Bush 43 era, reading an article about raising the minimum wage and how corporations were against much more because the real issue it would shine a light on is how underpaid the folks are working jobs that paid just barely over minimum wage. 

 

Oh, to me, I think it's glaringly obvious that raising the minimum wage, (and I'm not talking about a dollar an hour.  I'm talking more like taking it to 15 or so.  Although I'm also certain that it would have to be done gradually.) would also have the effect of raising the wages of all the low wage jobs.  That, the closer a job is to minimum, the more it would be moved upwards, too.  

 

Raising the minimum wage won;t just raise the wages of burger flippers and WalMart cashiers.  It will also raise wages for plumbers, and CNAs, and teachers, and millions of other jobs.  

 

Which also means the effects will absolutely be inflationary.  

 

OTOH, I also think it's obvious that the further a job is from minimum wage, the less a MW change would affect it.  

 

So yeah, I think it would help reduce wage inequality.  Some.  But at the cost of a serious disruption of the economy, too.  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The minimum wage hasn't risen in about 10 years. Apparently hte longest since we been giving out minimum wages under FDR.

 

This isn't good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Larry said:

So yeah, I think it would help reduce wage inequality.  Some.  But at the cost of a serious disruption of the economy, too.  

 

 

Oh I am sure it would cause some inflation, however the question is what percentage of inflation vs. the percentage of wage growth?  If for example McDonalds raises the price of their menu items 25-50 cents, so that everyone is making $15? I would gladly take that trade off as a consumer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weekly review is in.  I’m still on the Biden train but I’d abso-****ing-lutely love to see a Mayor Pete presidency.  The dude is smart and I love his way of attacking his detractors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hail2skins said:

On the other hand, you can make the case that, despite Trump's daily buffoonery showing that he hasn't grown into the job, the economic numbers (at least for now) still appear solid and we aren't involved (yet) in some big overseas crisis that can hinder the re-election bids of incumbents. Hate to say it, but based on that, as well as the current crop of Dems running (none with HRC's baggage, but none particularly politically inspiring either) I can see more people going in November 2020 and pulling the lever giving Trump four more years than those who are sick of the aforementioned buffoonery and will vote for the Dem candidate no matter what. But my opinion just a worthless prediction 18 months out, and I do think Trump will lose the national popular vote again (something the 2016 polls did get correct). 

When push comes to shove, the people who voted for Trump will do so again.

 

Regardless of who the Dem nominee is, the only way they can beat Trump; is to have turnout at around 2008 levels or even higher record turnout.

I don't see it at the moment.  Whoever the nominee is, will not have the full support of the Dem electorate.

 

I still see Trump winning, in the end.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

When push comes to shove, the people who voted for Trump will do so again.

 

Regardless of who the Dem nominee is, the only way they can beat Trump; is to have turnout at around 2008 levels or even higher record turnout.

I don't see it at the moment.  Whoever the nominee is, will not have the full support of the Dem electorate.

 

I still see Trump winning, in the end.

2016 had lower turnout than 2012.

 

Trump won with a smaller share of votes than Romney in 2012. You need to relax.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

2016 had lower turnout than 2012.

 

Trump won with a smaller share of votes than Romney in 2012. You need to relax.

If Biden is the nominee, he won't have the full support of the younger voters/progressives. They won't be inspired to come out in enough numbers for him to win.

 

If Sanders or another l;eft leaning progressive is the nominee, they moderate/conservative Dems will either stay home, vote 3rd party or even vote Trump.

 

 

 

 

Tyranny of the 70-Somethings

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

If Biden is the nominee, he won't have the full support of the younger voters/progressives. They won't be inspired to come out in enough numbers for him to win.

 

If Sanders or another l;eft leaning progressive is the nominee, they moderate/conservative Dems will either stay home, vote 3rd party or even vote Trump.

 

 

 

 

Tyranny of the 70-Somethings

 

I hope that's not true. There are no participation trophies in politics.

 

Part of adulting is realizing that picking the less bad option is what life is generally about. If young progressives don't choose to vote Biden OVER Trump, then they probably need to stop ****ing about the state of the party (and country). Willingly choosing to take your ball home so the other team wins  rather than playing a game you don't really like isn't the appropriate answer.

 

TBH, I have a hard time stomaching Bernie Sanders. I'd vote for him a billion times before Trump if they were the big 2 choices. I'd hope every Democrat would. 

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of wages, I've come to the conclusion that the minimum wage is too blunt of a tool.  I'm not so much against an increase in it, but I'm also not a positive that it helps much.  In a lot of cases, it does tend to reduce entry level jobs.  Also, low income people tend to use business/places that have minimum wage employees the most so they pay most of what is passed through.

 

I'd like to see the federal government expand the work force and pay for it with increases of taxes on the wealthy, but especially non-labor income (investment, inherentence, etc.).  The US work force (including or excluding postal workers) is now less than it was in the 1980s.  The US population has increased and the world has become more complex, but we don't have more federal workers.

 

I think there are places where you could increase the federal work force and actually save (wasted) money.  Too little food is being inspected in this country by the USDA/FDA.  If we inspected more food, I think we could down on issues with food borne illnesses and food mislabeling (there are reports that much of the honey and olive oil coming into the US are not real, which does have impacts on human health).

 

Expanding the federal work force would create more competition for good, permanent, well paying jobs (not gig economy jobs), and I suspect would trickle through the economy.

 

Even things like infrastructure.  They'd be jobs where people would have to be travel so only certain people would be interested/involved, but I'd like to see a lot of the infrastructure workers federalized.

 

I suspect that an increase in the federal workforce paid for by increases on non-labor income would have a trickle effect that would generally raise wages and reduce income inequality, and I think it could be done in a manner that in totality saved money (i.e. reduce human health issues and improve infrastructure so that transportation and things would be more efficient).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PeterMP said:

As an add on:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-16/rising-federal-deficit-fuels-u-s-economic-growth

 

"The Rising Federal Deficit Is Fueling Growth"

 

Right, a whole “movement” in the economic field started gaining popularity about this sort of thing. The government incurring debt means more money in the private sector flowing around. I’m doing a terrible job describing it because I’m way out of my element on economics but I recall someone (that’s not out of their element) sending me stuff to read about it a few years ago. 

 

My only concern about debt is the ability to handle a crisis. I wasn’t against the bail outs and QE, but the backend of those plans was to pay off the debt when the economy got better (now)

 

I realize that conflicts with the whole deficit spending boost people. It just doesn’t feel right. 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Also, low income people tend to use business/places that have minimum wage employees the most so they pay most of what is passed through

I’ve been having this argument with the living wage/20$ hr people from the start. 

 

They insist those costs won’t be passed through. I don’t know why they think that, but they do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

I’ve been having this argument with the living wage/20$ hr people from the start. 

 

They insist those costs won’t be passed through. I don’t know why they think that, but they do. 

 

Of course some of it will be passed on (but I'm not sure all of it being passed on is appropriate either since there are finite prices people will accept). That said, I don't think the current model of having Federal minimum wage be near poverty level for a 2,080 hour a year full time worker makes sense either. 

Edited by The Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with a lot of your post, Peter. But I also assert that one reason I like the idea of a MW hike is precisely because it's a blunt tool. 

 

I'm not really that interested in raising the wages of the guy who makes the coffee at McDonalds. But I want something that's going to raise the wages of nurses, teachers, plumbers and mechanics. The kinds of jobs that I kind of think of as "trailer trash jobs". Not in an insulting way, but in the sense of "yeah, you can live on these jobs, but it won't be fancy."

 

(Which is also why I have a problem with people who, when the topic comes up, want to immediately pretend that the minimum wage only affects people who make exactly the minimum wage, and not the people who make a few dollars above it.)

 

How do I raise the wages of nurses and plumbers and jobs like that?  

 

Working in health care, I could easily get behind the idea of having Medicare/Medicaid increase minimum nurse staffing levels. Mandate a lower patient/staff ratio for health care, and you've created a ton of jobs. 

 

But you've also vastly increased the cost of health care. An expense which is already exploding, on its own. And I'd prefer a solution that increases wages for all of the jobs in that pay range. 

 

Maybe if we were to reverse some of the things we've done, last few decades, to reduce the negotiating power of labor?  

 

Maybe restore some of the powers of unions?  (Although, having worked two union jobs, I have to say I'm scared of giving them too much power.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the college issue specifically:

 

I always go back to the question of how is it that our parents were able to work their way through college on minimum to close to minimum wage jobs and graduate with little to no debt.  What in the system changed for the following generations and what needs to be changed back?  I know it isn't a solution that is cut & dry, but I feel like the entire "free college" answer being proposed is more or less a reaction to the system becoming more and more rigged. 

 

I feel like "free college" would never even be brought up if it was simply more affordable to get a bachelor's degree. However because it is so expensive and getting worse with every passing year, you are going to naturally get this massive push back on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Of course some of it will be passed on (but I'm not sure all of it being passed on is appropriate either since there are finite prices people will accept).

 

I think that the amount of wage increases that doesn't get passed on will be so tiny that we can pretend it doesn't exist. That the number of businesses that even have the option of not passing it on are minuscule. 

 

For virtually all businesses, it will be a choice of passing it on, or going out of business. (Or something similar, like replacing SOME workers with robots. More worker pay per hour, less total worker hours.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

If Biden is the nominee, he won't have the full support of the younger voters/progressives. They won't be inspired to come out in enough numbers for him to win.

 

If Sanders or another l;eft leaning progressive is the nominee, they moderate/conservative Dems will either stay home, vote 3rd party or even vote Trump.

 

 

 

 

Tyranny of the 70-Somethings

 

BS - Every one of the people in this thread slamming Biden right now will vote for Biden in the GE or they’re just as bad as the Brernie bros who voted for Trump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tshile said:

They insist those costs won’t be passed through. I don’t know why they think that, but they do. 

 

Some will be passed through, but pass through is unlikely to be 100%.  People on the right frequently act like pass through is 100%, which isn't true in most cases.

 

For pass through not be 100%, all you really need is one company to make the decision that they can afford to not raise prices to match the increase in minimum wage and that be keeping prices lower, they'll sell more than their competitor and so make money.  Or just decide that they can afford to have lower corporate profits.

 

If Wendy's decides that by not raising prices to match the increase in minimum wage, they will be more likely to sell more, get a larger piece of the fast food business, and so make more, pass through will not be 100%.

 

Anybody arguing that pass through will be 0 is an idiot, especially at $20 an hour.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Larry said:

Agree with a lot of your post, Peter. But I also assert that one reason I like the idea of a MW hike is precisely because it's a blunt tool. 

 

I'd generally argue that the positions I'm talking about aren't highly skilled jobs for the most part.  That the government expanding its work force (with good paying jobs) would generally tighten the labor market and affect other people not directly in those fields (over time).

 

Nursing has an issue right now in that during the great recession (especially) a lot of people went into nursing as it was seen as a good route to get a job (nursing programs are generally pretty competitive, but especially during the great recession), which has suppressed nurses wages.  If there were good federal government jobs, then that would pull people away from being nurses to those jobs.   That would raise demand and so wages for nurses.  The effect would not be large in specific to nurses or direct.

 

I'll also point out today most nurses have a college degree.

 

(A better way to do what you want directly would be for the federal government to hire some nurses while paying a reasonable wage.  I'll say, I suspect any increase in nursing salaries (no matter how it is being done is going to cause an increase in health care costs.  Health care is an industry where I would say pass through is likely always very close to 100% unless somehow the government is causing it not to be.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.