Should We Drop Minimum Wage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I like your analogy; the problem is there are 3 adults currently living on welfare for each kid that rides his bike for a menial wage. There is no incentive for an adult currently on welfare to lose his benefits just to sooth his pride.

Supply and demand has control, there are at the present far more people than there are jobs, I personally lay the blame on the free market nuts, Ronald Reagan leading the way.

We need more industry in America.

You seem to believe that there is a limited amount of jobs.

There isnt.

There is however a limited amount of jobs people are willing to create and take when there is welfare and minimum wages.

So you are really complaining about a problem your attitude has created and what is your answer?

More government intervention.

And what if you get your way and that creates even more problems, what will your answer be then?

Undoubtedly even more intervention.

Here in America we have three point six million jobs in the last thirteen months. Now if you have some magic for creating jobs. Email me privately and we will retire when this recession is over

You will have to be more specific of what jobs Americans are refusing to create.

I am going to answer your second question with a question, what you will do if I get my way and you find out it is not only a better world for the poor but a better world for all.

a) I have some magic fopr creating jobs. Do not interfere with the market and do not make creating jobs more expensive than it has to be.

and

b) shit bricks. Fortunately what you suggest has been tried for 80 years now and it is unlikely that it will suddenly start to work.

Back to retoric with no reasoning

Moi?

Dude show me one case where what you are proposing works?

They tried that for almost 100 years now!

These countries do not feel the need to decimate their poor. They all feel the need for social nets and that all labor is honorable and should be adequately compensated

Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Czech Republic
[/quote]

What “need” they feel is entirely irrelevant.

If you “feel” the need to fly you still cant do it.

You are also ignoring that in all these countries there are enormous tax breaks for the rich and incorporated companies which simply means that you shift money around in the middle class and make sure that they will never get independent from the state.

Or, to put it differently, if the Republicans stay in power by keeping the rich rich, the Democrats stay in power by keeping the poor poor.

282

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Here in America we have three point six million jobs in the last thirteen months. Now if you have some magic for creating jobs. Email me privately and we will retire when this recession is over

You will have to be more specific of what jobs Americans are refusing to create.

I am going to answer your second question with a question, what you will do if I get my way and you find out it is not only a better world for the poor but a better world for all.

It’s not magic, it’s common sense. 1) Eliminate corporate taxes. Companies that had taken their work overseas will flock back. 2) Eliminate capitol gains tax so that investment will increase. 3) Stop spending money we don’t have.

News flash, we’ve been trying it your way since FDR. How’s it been working?

Are you talking cutting taxes like Bush, look what that got us? I can not believe all the jobs that flocked to America

I agree stop spending money you don�??�?�¢??t have.

You must live on different planet than I. We have had social programs, but never an attempt to motivate people off the welfare dole

Oh you mean the 1% of taxes Bush cut, oh such a big fucking cut. Compare that to the double digit increases over the past couple of presidential terms.

You will have to scroll down to economic policy, it states it was the largest tax cut in history .

Wikipedia, that just sounds really gay. I wouldn’t trust that at all buddy. Even if it was the largest tax cut in history, that’s still does not say much. Especially with the double digit increases over the past 4-7 presidents.[/quote]

don’t know what to tell you . Maybe you should reserch it

283

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I like your analogy; the problem is there are 3 adults currently living on welfare for each kid that rides his bike for a menial wage. There is no incentive for an adult currently on welfare to lose his benefits just to sooth his pride.

Supply and demand has control, there are at the present far more people than there are jobs, I personally lay the blame on the free market nuts, Ronald Reagan leading the way.

We need more industry in America.

You seem to believe that there is a limited amount of jobs.

There isnt.

There is however a limited amount of jobs people are willing to create and take when there is welfare and minimum wages.

So you are really complaining about a problem your attitude has created and what is your answer?

More government intervention.

And what if you get your way and that creates even more problems, what will your answer be then?

Undoubtedly even more intervention.

Here in America we have three point six million jobs in the last thirteen months. Now if you have some magic for creating jobs. Email me privately and we will retire when this recession is over

You will have to be more specific of what jobs Americans are refusing to create.

I am going to answer your second question with a question, what you will do if I get my way and you find out it is not only a better world for the poor but a better world for all.

a) I have some magic fopr creating jobs. Do not interfere with the market and do not make creating jobs more expensive than it has to be.

and

b) shit bricks. Fortunately what you suggest has been tried for 80 years now and it is unlikely that it will suddenly start to work.

Back to retoric with no reasoning

Moi?

Dude show me one case where what you are proposing works?

They tried that for almost 100 years now!

These countries do not feel the need to decimate their poor. They all feel the need for social nets and that all labor is honorable and should be adequately compensated

Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Czech Republic

What “need” they feel is entirely irrelevant.

If you “feel” the need to fly you still cant do it.

You are also ignoring that in all these countries there are enormous tax breaks for the rich and incorporated companies which simply means that you shift money around in the middle class and make sure that they will never get independent from the state.

Or, to put it differently, if the Republicans stay in power by keeping the rich rich, the Democrats stay in power by keeping the poor poor.

[/quote]

I can fly, that is why the invented planes

I have not checked out all of those but this seems to contradict your staement thatthey seem to tax the middle class more , This says at one time it was the most agressive tax on the wealthy. Their corporate taxes do seem to be one of the lower

“Or, to put it differently, if the Republicans stay in power by keeping the rich rich, the Democrats stay in power by keeping the poor poor.” Quote

We both know that you will not change my mind , just as I know I will not chage your mind. But debate is about your reasoning skills not bout your ability to recite retoric.

284

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

You will have to scroll down to economic policy, it states it was the largest tax cut in history .

Wikipedia, that just sounds really gay. I wouldn’t trust that at all buddy. Even if it was the largest tax cut in history, that’s still does not say much. Especially with the double digit increases over the past 4-7 presidents.

don’t know what to tell you . Maybe you should reserch it[/quote]

How come everytime I research anything you say, it proves you wrong?

http://www.davidrhenderson.com/articles/0401_twogoodreasons.html

285

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

The thing I find faulty, from my knowledge of economics is that let’s say legislation thinks that if we increase the minimum wage to $1000/hr from $7.25/hr. Legislatures thinks this will increase the standard of living. Let’s look at the affects, Johnny gets paid $1000/hr, so McDonald’s has to raise their prices for a McDouble to $140. Now let’s look at what all this did to Johnny’s standard of living for this one example. Sure Johnny now makes $8000/day. He can still only buy the same amount of burgers, the same kind of apartment, the same kind of car, etc.

The way standard of living increases is that by lowering the amount of time you put into a making a fixed amount of products. The other way you can increase standard of living is increasing the amount of product you make in a fixed amount of time, or a mixture of the two. They are essentially the same. It comes down to increasing efficiency.

No matter how much you try to increase the minimum wage all it will do is cut off the bottom of the work force that has not caught up to the minimum wage, however it will not increase standard of living. The way I raise my standard of living is by making it so I can do less. So, if I have three companies to look after I can raise my standard of living buy hiring three CEO’s to run my company and start on another company. I could also take those three companies and make them bigger. It’s up to the worker, either make the same in less time or in the same time, make more.

You know Chris, I agree one hundred percent with you on the first two paragraphs your last paragraph, I do not understand.

As far back as I can remember the productivity rate has gone up, the top one percent has gone up, why is the bottom ninety nine percent been flat?

Actually the bottom ninety percent hasn’t been flat. It has increased, I am talking about the unemployed, the ones that have no income. When you raise minimum wage, they are now pushed out of the range.[/quote]

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand:)

http://www.factcheck.org/update_on_kerrys_shrinking_middle_class_-.html

286

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

The thing I find faulty, from my knowledge of economics is that let’s say legislation thinks that if we increase the minimum wage to $1000/hr from $7.25/hr. Legislatures thinks this will increase the standard of living. Let’s look at the affects, Johnny gets paid $1000/hr, so McDonald’s has to raise their prices for a McDouble to $140. Now let’s look at what all this did to Johnny’s standard of living for this one example. Sure Johnny now makes $8000/day. He can still only buy the same amount of burgers, the same kind of apartment, the same kind of car, etc.

The way standard of living increases is that by lowering the amount of time you put into a making a fixed amount of products. The other way you can increase standard of living is increasing the amount of product you make in a fixed amount of time, or a mixture of the two. They are essentially the same. It comes down to increasing efficiency.

No matter how much you try to increase the minimum wage all it will do is cut off the bottom of the work force that has not caught up to the minimum wage, however it will not increase standard of living. The way I raise my standard of living is by making it so I can do less. So, if I have three companies to look after I can raise my standard of living buy hiring three CEO’s to run my company and start on another company. I could also take those three companies and make them bigger. It’s up to the worker, either make the same in less time or in the same time, make more.

You know Chris, I agree one hundred percent with you on the first two paragraphs your last paragraph, I do not understand.

As far back as I can remember the productivity rate has gone up, the top one percent has gone up, why is the bottom ninety nine percent been flat?

Actually the bottom ninety percent hasn’t been flat. It has increased, I am talking about the unemployed, the ones that have no income. When you raise minimum wage, they are now pushed out of the range.

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand:)

http://www.factcheck.org/update_on_kerrys_shrinking_middle_class_-.html
[/quote]

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand :0
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

287

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

The thing I find faulty, from my knowledge of economics is that let’s say legislation thinks that if we increase the minimum wage to $1000/hr from $7.25/hr. Legislatures thinks this will increase the standard of living. Let’s look at the affects, Johnny gets paid $1000/hr, so McDonald’s has to raise their prices for a McDouble to $140. Now let’s look at what all this did to Johnny’s standard of living for this one example. Sure Johnny now makes $8000/day. He can still only buy the same amount of burgers, the same kind of apartment, the same kind of car, etc.

The way standard of living increases is that by lowering the amount of time you put into a making a fixed amount of products. The other way you can increase standard of living is increasing the amount of product you make in a fixed amount of time, or a mixture of the two. They are essentially the same. It comes down to increasing efficiency.

No matter how much you try to increase the minimum wage all it will do is cut off the bottom of the work force that has not caught up to the minimum wage, however it will not increase standard of living. The way I raise my standard of living is by making it so I can do less. So, if I have three companies to look after I can raise my standard of living buy hiring three CEO’s to run my company and start on another company. I could also take those three companies and make them bigger. It’s up to the worker, either make the same in less time or in the same time, make more.

You know Chris, I agree one hundred percent with you on the first two paragraphs your last paragraph, I do not understand.

As far back as I can remember the productivity rate has gone up, the top one percent has gone up, why is the bottom ninety nine percent been flat?

Actually the bottom ninety percent hasn’t been flat. It has increased, I am talking about the unemployed, the ones that have no income. When you raise minimum wage, they are now pushed out of the range.

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand:)

http://www.factcheck.org/update_on_kerrys_shrinking_middle_class_-.html

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand :0
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
[/quote]

http://www.heritage.org/ They refer to the left so I am sure I can asume they are what they would call the Right. So it would not qualify as unbiased

288

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

As far back as I can remember the productivity rate has gone up, the top one percent has gone up, why is the bottom ninety nine percent been flat?

Actually the bottom ninety percent hasn’t been flat. It has increased, I am talking about the unemployed, the ones that have no income. When you raise minimum wage, they are now pushed out of the range.

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand:)

http://www.factcheck.org/update_on_kerrys_shrinking_middle_class_-.html

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand :0
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/ They refer to the left so I am sure I can asume they are what they would call the Right. So it would not qualify as unbiased

[/quote]
Is the US Federal Gov’t unbiased enough for you? From the US Census Bureau:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Clearly in the last 30 years the bottom 1% has not been flat. It’s standard of living has increased dramatically.

289

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

As far back as I can remember the productivity rate has gone up, the top one percent has gone up, why is the bottom ninety nine percent been flat?

Actually the bottom ninety percent hasn’t been flat. It has increased, I am talking about the unemployed, the ones that have no income. When you raise minimum wage, they are now pushed out of the range.

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand:)

http://www.factcheck.org/update_on_kerrys_shrinking_middle_class_-.html

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand :0
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/ They refer to the left so I am sure I can asume they are what they would call the Right. So it would not qualify as unbiased

Is the US Federal Gov’t unbiased enough for you? From the US Census Bureau:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Clearly in the last 30 years the bottom 1% has not been flat. It’s standard of living has increased dramatically.[/quote]

On Aug. 26 the Census Bureau released its annual survey of income in the US.

But even so, median income has declined by $1,535 since Bush took office , or 3.4 percent. And while the decline leveled off last year and may even be climbing again in 2004, most households are clearly worse off economically now than they were when the President was sworn

Televisions are cheap, you can find them that work in trash piles, same with VCRs are the cars operable or just registered and on blocks. Your bench mark is like evaluating a prostitute by her jewelry :slight_smile:

290

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

As far back as I can remember the productivity rate has gone up, the top one percent has gone up, why is the bottom ninety nine percent been flat?

Actually the bottom ninety percent hasn’t been flat. It has increased, I am talking about the unemployed, the ones that have no income. When you raise minimum wage, they are now pushed out of the range.

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand:)

http://www.factcheck.org/update_on_kerrys_shrinking_middle_class_-.html

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand :0
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/ They refer to the left so I am sure I can asume they are what they would call the Right. So it would not qualify as unbiased

Is the US Federal Gov’t unbiased enough for you? From the US Census Bureau:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Clearly in the last 30 years the bottom 1% has not been flat. It’s standard of living has increased dramatically.

On Aug. 26 the Census Bureau released its annual survey of income in the US.

But even so, median income has declined by $1,535 since Bush took office , or 3.4 percent. And while the decline leveled off last year and may even be climbing again in 2004, most households are clearly worse off economically now than they were when the President was sworn

Televisions are cheap, you can find them that work in trash piles, same with VCRs are the cars operable or just registered and on blocks. Your bench mark is like evaluating a prostitute by her jewelry :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Three points, and then I’m tired of trying to make the same points over & over. 1) The living standard of the American poor has dramatically increased over the last 30 years. 2) Compared to the rest of the world, American poor would be considered middle class or wealthy. 3) Minimum wage does not increase anybody’s standard of living. In fact it inflates prices and brings everyone’s standard of living down.

291

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

As far back as I can remember the productivity rate has gone up, the top one percent has gone up, why is the bottom ninety nine percent been flat?

Actually the bottom ninety percent hasn’t been flat. It has increased, I am talking about the unemployed, the ones that have no income. When you raise minimum wage, they are now pushed out of the range.

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand:)

http://www.factcheck.org/update_on_kerrys_shrinking_middle_class_-.html

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand :0
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/ They refer to the left so I am sure I can asume they are what they would call the Right. So it would not qualify as unbiased

Is the US Federal Gov’t unbiased enough for you? From the US Census Bureau:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Clearly in the last 30 years the bottom 1% has not been flat. It’s standard of living has increased dramatically.

On Aug. 26 the Census Bureau released its annual survey of income in the US.

But even so, median income has declined by $1,535 since Bush took office , or 3.4 percent. And while the decline leveled off last year and may even be climbing again in 2004, most households are clearly worse off economically now than they were when the President was sworn

Televisions are cheap, you can find them that work in trash piles, same with VCRs are the cars operable or just registered and on blocks. Your bench mark is like evaluating a prostitute by her jewelry :slight_smile:

Three points, and then I’m tired of trying to make the same points over & over. 1) The living standard of the American poor has dramatically increased over the last 30 years. 2) Compared to the rest of the world, American poor would be considered middle class or wealthy. 3) Minimum wage does not increase anybody’s standard of living. In fact it inflates prices and brings everyone’s standard of living down.

[/quote]

I agree withpoints one and two but this discussion is about point three and we disagree

292

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I agree with points one and two but this discussion is about point three, and I disagree with microeconomics and common sense.

[/quote]

FTFY

293

I can’t believe you guys are still arguing with this jag…

294

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I agree with points one and two but this discussion is about point three, and I disagree with microeconomics and common sense.

FTFY[/quote]

Nftfy

295

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

As far back as I can remember the productivity rate has gone up, the top one percent has gone up, why is the bottom ninety nine percent been flat?

Actually the bottom ninety percent hasn’t been flat. It has increased, I am talking about the unemployed, the ones that have no income. When you raise minimum wage, they are now pushed out of the range.

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand:)

http://www.factcheck.org/update_on_kerrys_shrinking_middle_class_-.html

I hope you do not find this too diffacult to understand :0
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/ They refer to the left so I am sure I can asume they are what they would call the Right. So it would not qualify as unbiased

Is the US Federal Gov’t unbiased enough for you? From the US Census Bureau:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher

Clearly in the last 30 years the bottom 1% has not been flat. It’s standard of living has increased dramatically.

On Aug. 26 the Census Bureau released its annual survey of income in the US.

But even so, median income has declined by $1,535 since Bush took office , or 3.4 percent. And while the decline leveled off last year and may even be climbing again in 2004, most households are clearly worse off economically now than they were when the President was sworn

Televisions are cheap, you can find them that work in trash piles, same with VCRs are the cars operable or just registered and on blocks. Your bench mark is like evaluating a prostitute by her jewelry :slight_smile:

Three points, and then I’m tired of trying to make the same points over & over. 1) The living standard of the American poor has dramatically increased over the last 30 years. 2) Compared to the rest of the world, American poor would be considered middle class or wealthy. 3) Minimum wage does not increase anybody’s standard of living. In fact it inflates prices and brings everyone’s standard of living down.

[/quote]

I have to revise my statement on point three, it would not create inflation if you did not increase wages more than production was increased. But in hind sight we could handle a little inflation to bolster the lower and middle class.

296

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

I have to revise my statement on point three, it would not create inflation if you did not increase wages more than production was increased. But in hind sight we could handle a little inflation to bolster the lower and middle class.[/quote]

pittbulll wrote:
You are right inflation affects the poor more than the rich just as the lack of money affects the poor more :slight_smile:

It takes a special level of stupidity to argue with yourself…

297

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

I have to revise my statement on point three, it would not create inflation if you did not increase wages more than production was increased. But in hind sight we could handle a little inflation to bolster the lower and middle class.

pittbulll wrote:
You are right inflation affects the poor more than the rich just as the lack of money affects the poor more :slight_smile:

It takes a special level of stupidity to argue with yourself…[/quote]

Do you all know why inflation hurts the poor and not the rich? The rich have assets and assets apreciate with inflation. Poor nothing, but maybe debt. Inflation helps pay for debt easier though so would you not say that inflation helps the poor?

298

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

I have to revise my statement on point three, it would not create inflation if you did not increase wages more than production was increased. But in hind sight we could handle a little inflation to bolster the lower and middle class.

pittbulll wrote:
You are right inflation affects the poor more than the rich just as the lack of money affects the poor more :slight_smile:

It takes a special level of stupidity to argue with yourself…

Do you all know why inflation hurts the poor and not the rich? The rich have assets and assets apreciate with inflation. Poor nothing, but maybe debt. Inflation helps pay for debt easier though so would you not say that inflation helps the poor?[/quote]

No, if 70% of their income currently goes to necessities, if prices inflate, now 100% of their income goes to necessities, or worse, they con’t afford all the necessities and they go without.

299

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
@Pittbulll:

I have to revise my statement on point three, it would not create inflation if you did not increase wages more than production was increased. But in hind sight we could handle a little inflation to bolster the lower and middle class.

pittbulll wrote:
You are right inflation affects the poor more than the rich just as the lack of money affects the poor more :slight_smile:

It takes a special level of stupidity to argue with yourself…

Do you all know why inflation hurts the poor and not the rich? The rich have assets and assets apreciate with inflation. Poor nothing, but maybe debt. Inflation helps pay for debt easier though so would you not say that inflation helps the poor?

No, if 70% of their income currently goes to necessities, if prices inflate, now 100% of their income goes to necessities, or worse, they con’t afford all the necessities and they go without.
[/quote]

That is some amazing math you did there:) how much Schooling did that take :slight_smile: