Post: #101

(08-29-2013 03:55 AM)la_mode Wrote:  What none of you understand is that the economy is purely theoretical. There's hundreds of theories and each one can make a compelling argument; however it's irrelevant and nothing but collegiate textbook fodder.

There are trillions of dollars just sitting there as "buffer" that will never be touched. No book will tell you that, but it should be obvious given that no matter what there's always money for war, new prisons, FEMA, welfare, etc.

There isn't money "just sitting there".

The money is "printed". Which the federal government isn't supposed to actually do so they use the Federal Reserve to purchase their bonds. The Federal Reserve prints money to purchase bonds which is essentially trading newly created cash for a promise to repay in the future. The end result is inflation.

Inflation is a tax.

So the money for war, new prisons, FEMA etc. comes out of your pocket trough the inflation tax.

Post: #102

(08-29-2013 01:47 AM)scorpion Wrote:  You're coming across as the caricature of a big business Republican. You sound like Larry Kudlow, for fuck's sake. Their entitlement? To what, exactly? A basic standard of living in the year 2013 in the wealthiest and most powerful country to ever exist? Is that too much to ask?

We have to consider what made us the wealthiest and most powerful country to ever exist. Our greatest period of growth measured in GDP came after the Civil War, before minimum wage laws existed. Before the central bank was created and given control of interest rates. Before government took up 20%, and now over 40% of GDP.

As for raising the minimum wage and interfering there, what's there to say? Is making someone more expensive to hire going to make him more or more likely to be unemployed? Not to mention the layoffs and cutting down of hours that companies will be forced into. This is without even talking about passing the costs down to the consumer, which is going to reduce demand for fast food, which will in turn hurt the industry and the workers raising the minimum.

That's what will happen. And how do we know this? Because this has already happened. It wouldn't be the first time minimum wage was raised.

Yes, it is humane, it is the ethical thing to do on the surface. Making unemployment compulsory by raising it is going to shift the consequences. It's the invisible victim, the coworker who got laid off or his hours cut, or was never employed in the first place, that is always overlooked.

Also, hundreds of thousands of the job gains in 2013 have been in the fast food sector. Think on that for a moment.

(08-29-2013 01:41 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinio...-debt.html

Those concerns are complete nonsense.

The United States doesn't face a debt crisis. Interest rates are perpetually low. We are not going to default. Our deficit is falling rapidly.

Our military spending is out of control, our healthcare spending is way too high because of our stupid system that costs more than Europe's. But overall our level of government spending is more than manageable, as evidenced by the fact that interest rates on our bonds are terribly low.

I had a suspicion from your first several posts in this thread that you were a liberal/progerssive with absolutely zero credibility. Who were directly responsible for putting us on the path of deficits from the 1960s into eternity, straight onto this highway straight to hell.

This is an article Krugman wrote in 2009: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11...ntes/?_r=0 pointing out that the bond vigilantes were nowhere to be seen.

None of the commentators voicing concerns about the deficits now. It's about when interest rates rise, in the future. When the availability of credit renormalizes. When the companies and businesses that are running on false demand finally have no recourse but to liquidate, like the telecommunications companies in the dotcom bubble and homebuilding companies in the housing bubble - but have now spread beyond that into multiple sectors of the economy, and can't even be listed in totality.

I'll note that the article you linked was written in 2012, when QE3 was chugging merrily along, and everyone at the Fed was uniformly dovish on monetary policy.

All of this is predicated on a continuation of quantitative easing. If you understand its technical definition, you'll understand its nature relating to check-kiting and frontrunning, and how it is functionally legalized bribery of those who would otherwise be bond vigilantes.

Bernanke's tapering announcement exposed it by triggering a major bond selloff. The 10 year is fluctuating at around 2.9%, which is a two year high. Every rise of a full hundred basis points costs us $170 billion in taxes for debt service. Merely the mention of tapering caused that.

You blame the Pentagon budget? Well, we are now in a situation where we are (and already have) actually using our military to enforce dollar hegemony and its exchange value. Without all that spending and all these thousands of deaths, all those people depending on welfare would be starving.

Goldman Sachs, one of the primary dealers who act as the Fed's counterparties in its open market operations, came out with a client distribution in 2010 openly recommending the strategy of frontrunning by purchasing treasury securities.

Earlier this summer, I had the opportunity to meet someone working at Morgan Stanley's securities division (another primary dealer). He showed me, in confidence, internal memos to new hires explaining the same thing as GS did, and, in his words "If QE stops, government bonds go from AAA+++ to FFF---." The day that happens, no one shows up at the Treasury to buy those bonds... This is even being generous and giving the most leeway to optimism and saying the Federal Reserve does this on its own terms, not when investors independently decide they're going to get out of the way of the chainsaw.

This is without even going into its ramifications on the rest of the world. The same day as Bernanke's announcement, the Nikkei lost ~10%.

All right-wing fearmongering nonsense, right?

WELL...let's take a look at one other article written in 2003 by someone else:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinio...wreck.html

Peter Schiff Wrote:With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.

Quote:From a fiscal point of view the impending war is a lose-lose proposition. If it goes badly, the resulting mess will be a disaster for the budget. If it goes well, administration officials have made it clear that they will use any bump in the polls to ram through more big tax cuts, which will also be a disaster for the budget. Either way, the tide of red ink will keep on rising.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office marked down its estimates yet again. Just two years ago, you may remember, the C.B.O. was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now it projects a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion.

And that's way too optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account -- as the C.B.O. cannot -- the effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it's clear that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion.

Quote:So what? Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.

Admission that the Bush tax cuts were necessary:

Quote:Of course, Mr. Fisher isn't allowed to draw the obvious implication: that his boss's push for big permanent tax cuts is completely crazy. But the conclusion is inescapable. Without the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population. With those tax cuts, the task is simply impossible. The accident -- the fiscal train wreck -- is already under way.

Quote:How will the train wreck play itself out? Maybe a future administration will use butterfly ballots to disenfranchise retirees, making it possible to slash Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe a repentant Rush Limbaugh will lead the drive to raise taxes on the rich. But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.

And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. It won't happen right away. With the economy stalling and the stock market plunging, short-term rates are probably headed down, not up, in the next few months, and mortgage rates may not have hit bottom yet. But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Co. were already pushing forth the agenda to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, so we already had the Military Keynesian stimulative effects. Whoever this author was, not even that could cure his cynicism.

The Baby Boomers weren't retiring en masse then, Americans still had savings then, we hadn't hit the zero lower bound so the Fed still had room to maneuver, GDP growth was greater (even though the economy was still a bubble.) and now the bond market is bleeding and the asset purchase program has been a miserable failure, with half of the FOMC wanting it to end outright. Ordinary working class Americans are being ground beneath the government's heel under 40% effective tax rates.

This guy couldn't possibly be more optimistic in 2013 than he was in 2003, could he?

... Wait a minute. I got the author wrong. That's not Peter Schiff. That's not Ron Paul. That's not Bob Murphy. That's not Richard Ebeling. That's not Zerohedge. That author's name is none other than...

Quote:A Fiscal Train Wreck
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Everyone knows. Bernanke, the chairman himself, knows. Krugman knows. He just won't tell his fawning little followers at the New York Times because it's not his job to do so while the Democratic Party is in power. He's there to spin some random shit explanation so that those uninformed in economics who correlate heavily with the left can reassure themselves that they, in voting for a massive government and cheering for irreversibly sprawling budget deficits for about half a century now, are not responsible for this.

His job is to create a narrative whereby the nonexistent free market is to take the fall, and after shit hits the fan, legitimize an even more massive government, higher taxes on everyone, a more centrally planned economy in which the number of private sector workers is approximately 0.

One more pithy quote to make the point?

Mystery person, July 17, 2013 Wrote:If we were to tighten, the economy would tank.

Three guesses as to who delivered this doomsday testimony?

... Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Benjamin Bernanke.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents...30717a.htm

Post: #103

The entire reason all of these problems exist is the petrdollar.

American exports are too expensive because every time demand for the dollar goes up for oil, our exports cost too much. The whole system benefits handful of rich people.

This sped up the whole outsourcing craze which destroyed any real manufacturing jobs. A perfect set of opportunities for low IQ people to do.

This wage thing is a symptom of it all. Our "cost of living" can easily be lowered and the value of the dollar dropped to make us an export economy again. The real question is, does the US really want this to happen? We stand the chance of losing our hegemony abroad not to mention it's going to be super shitty here if the dollar lost its reserve status.

All of our problems, welfare/warfare state, feminism, lack of jobs, etc are all caused by a reserve status dollar. Lower the global demand on the dollar and then we become an export economy again and manufacturing returns.

Post: #104

(08-29-2013 01:11 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Would be marvelous to see these people paid well.

Doubling the minimum wage would be a great way to get the economy moving again, redistributing money from the rich who stuff it under their mattresses to the poor who will of course spend it.

I am curious as to what you are doing in your life to help the poor? I say that because you seem to be anti rich but your profile states your lifestyle bank roll is over 10k/month. Full disclosure...I don't do shit to help the poor.

Post: #105

Quote:This is the part you should have bolded. We pay for these people one way or another. If you don't require businesses to pay a living wage, these people simply turn to the government. So instead of a company's customers and shareholders bearing the burden like they should, the taxpayer picks up the tab. Due to the economic system we've created, people have to have some form of income to survive. It's not like everyone can just move to a farm and grow their own food. So if you deny low-skilled, low IQ people (there are millions of them) the ability to honestly earn a living wage, you are essentially sentencing them to death or a life of crime.

There are only three solutions to this problem:

1) Allow companies to pay extremely low wages, and subsidize the poor with government handouts (the status quo).

2) Force companies to pay higher wages, passing on the costs to their shareholders and customers (what the strikers want).

3) Eliminate all welfare and wage regulations, and if people can't make themselves productive enough to survive, let them die (something most people would find morally unacceptable).

I would argue, that if most people would *really* find #3 morally reprehensible, then charities will naturally form to assist those people, rather than them dying. Beauty of the free market.

Although, as you point, getting that policy passed is effectively impossible.

Post: #106

(08-28-2013 11:47 PM)Gopher Wrote:  Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be for people who need to raise a child and support your unemployed significant other. Minimum wage jobs are for entry level people with no marketable skills so that they can gain experience and then move on to better jobs who will hire them based on past work experience and increased responsibility.

And this to me is the key part. These people think it's 1940, and they get to have the same crap job for the rest of their life and still somehow afford two cars, a house, three kids, etc.

If you want to better your life, better yourself. Why does this maxim apply to men and Game, but low-skill drones in the labor market get a pass? Maybe we should get the Federal Gov't to pass a law guaranteeing that all the betas and herbs get one notch a week?

Post: #107

I work in McDonalds.

Last year the owner of my franchise made 500,000. That's the money he got to put in his pocket and do as he likes.
Last year, I got a raise of 5 cent, bringing my hourly wage to 9.05.

If someone thinks that the companies will raise the price of goods because of a forced wage raise, there is a high chance that this someone also watches Fox news. The real reason the prices would rise is because the companies would still want to make the profits that they are making now.

Any fast food company could pay much more that they do now but at the risk of reducing the owners profits.
The shareholders will still get their dividends from the franchise licence that the owners pay.

Post: #108

Quote:What if I called you a lazy sack of shit, and a complete failure in life because you're unable to compete in the NBA or the NFL? Do you think maybe if you worked harder you could start for the Knicks? That wouldn't really be fair of me, would it? Because obviously, not everyone is capable of playing in the NBA. But you seem to think that everyone is capable of performing at the same level you are, by virtue of hard work

You're missing the point so bad with your analogy. If other average white dudes were making the NBA and I wasn't, then yes i should be called lazy, failure etc.

Post: #109

Working at McDonald's flipping burgers is not meant to be a career, it's mean to be a job while you are going to school or trying to find something better. Only high school and college kids should be there for more than a few months. That is why you don't need to increase minimum wage, it tells people that they can survive with a shitty status quo. Her low wage should make her want something better, if she does not have the motivation to advance her life she does not deserve better.

Post: #110

(08-29-2013 08:40 AM)CarCrashKid Wrote:  I work in McDonalds.

Last year the owner of my franchise made 500,000. That's the money he got to put in his pocket and do as he likes.
Last year, I got a raise of 5 cent, bringing my hourly wage to 9.05.

If someone thinks that the companies will raise the price of goods because of a forced wage raise, there is a high chance that this someone also watches Fox news. The real reason the prices would rise is because the companies would still want to make the profits that they are making now.

Any fast food company could pay much more that they do now but at the risk of reducing the owners profits.
The shareholders will still get their dividends from the franchise licence that the owners pay.

It isn't what we "think", it is what already had happened time and time again when wages are forced to be increased.

Yes, the owner of your franchise made $500,000. He made that much after taking BIG risk with his money and years and years of hard work to get ahead. There needs to be a reward for working harder and taking more risk than the average person. Because if there is not, then no one will do such things and we end up like Cuba where society never advances.

To know how much these companies can afford you have to look at profit margins and risk/reward of investment. When you do this you will find there isn't as much money just sitting around as you think.

Post: #111

Very interesting discussion. A couple of things I can add that I don't think have been stated, at least not directly:

1) People earning minimum wages in most countries, including the US, still end up paying some federal, state and sometimes local income taxes if they work full-time hours. This is insane. As far as I'm concerned the basic annual tax deduction for all people should be $minimum wage x 2,000 hours. More for people with dependents etc. And before you say everyone must contribute etc. etc. consider that the poor, by virtue of spending so much of their income on consumables, already contribute a huge chunk of their earnings by way of various consumption taxes, like sales taxes.

2) It would help quite bit if low paid workers could simply rely on a steady full time (40 hour) workweek, rather than getting screwed around by corporations and franchisees who want their workers to be available all the time, but reserve the right to to diminish their hours, and earnings, on a whim. A good union agreement could be as simple as guaranteeing full time hours, and eliminating random reductions in hours.

3) Aside from the wisdom, or not, of raising the minimum wage I think we must all concede that even if it was raised it wouldn't eliminate the problem of poverty. Poverty is pretty much defined as the poorest X% of people in a society, so no matter what the minimum wage was X% of people would still be defined as poor. Psychologically we are built to compare our lot with those we see around us. Those workers new to earning $15/hour would still feel themselves to be poor since nobody is making less than them. We think we'd be happy with an absolutle increase in income,say, but we live in a world of relativity, and we would soon be just as unhappy as our relative position hasn't changed.

Other than that, I agree that a substantial increase in the minimum wage in the fast food sector on a national scale in the US will be a STRONG motivator for the corporations to move towards automation. In fact, I'm surprised they haven't already invested in developing entire frozen burgers, fries etc. that can simply be microwaved/heated and have the same taste and consistency as a product prepared in full in the store. Here is an example of what I mean. A company called Febo doing something very much like this is active in the Netherlands. No doubt many of you have come across these outlets in Amsterdam. I must say that their food is absolute CRAP (If you thought McD's was crap...). The food science would have to be a bit more advanced before current fast food outlets labour intensive practices could be replaced. But I don't think there is much doubt that it is technically feasible to create burgers and such product on a factory assembly line, freeze/dehydrate/shrinkwrap them, and simply have a procedure to reconstitute them at retail outlets. Here is a photo of one of Febo's outlets:

This kind of thing is probably popular in Japan too.

The debate about poverty, IQ and personal choices is very interesting. I agree that all people, including poor people, must be responsible for their choices and that they often have more options than appologists concede. e.g. To eat healthy whole foods rather than expensive prepared foods. But we can all be our own worst enemies, and sabotage our best interests no matter where we are on the poor - rich spectrum. Some human understanding may be in order.

Post: #112

(08-29-2013 08:59 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 08:40 AM)CarCrashKid Wrote:  I work in McDonalds.

Last year the owner of my franchise made 500,000. That's the money he got to put in his pocket and do as he likes.
Last year, I got a raise of 5 cent, bringing my hourly wage to 9.05.

If someone thinks that the companies will raise the price of goods because of a forced wage raise, there is a high chance that this someone also watches Fox news. The real reason the prices would rise is because the companies would still want to make the profits that they are making now.

Any fast food company could pay much more that they do now but at the risk of reducing the owners profits.
The shareholders will still get their dividends from the franchise licence that the owners pay.

It isn't what we "think", it is what already had happened time and time again when wages are forced to be increased.

Yes, the owner of your franchise made $500,000. He made that much after taking BIG risk with his money and years and years of hard work to get ahead. There needs to be a reward for working harder and taking more risk than the average person. Because if there is not, then no one will do such things and we end up like Cuba where society never advances.

To know how much these companies can afford you have to look at profit margins and risk/reward of investment. When you do this you will find there isn't as much money just sitting around as you think.

He has 4 stores and plans to open another.
2 of the 4 are in the Capital in busy areas, the one I work in makes thousands every day.

If he has money to open another, he definitely has the money to pay more. It's only a part time job for me while I'm at University but the people in there put up with shit hours and shit conditions.

Post: #113

(08-29-2013 09:16 AM)CarCrashKid Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 08:59 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 08:40 AM)CarCrashKid Wrote:  I work in McDonalds.

Last year the owner of my franchise made 500,000. That's the money he got to put in his pocket and do as he likes.
Last year, I got a raise of 5 cent, bringing my hourly wage to 9.05.

If someone thinks that the companies will raise the price of goods because of a forced wage raise, there is a high chance that this someone also watches Fox news. The real reason the prices would rise is because the companies would still want to make the profits that they are making now.

Any fast food company could pay much more that they do now but at the risk of reducing the owners profits.
The shareholders will still get their dividends from the franchise licence that the owners pay.

It isn't what we "think", it is what already had happened time and time again when wages are forced to be increased.

Yes, the owner of your franchise made $500,000. He made that much after taking BIG risk with his money and years and years of hard work to get ahead. There needs to be a reward for working harder and taking more risk than the average person. Because if there is not, then no one will do such things and we end up like Cuba where society never advances.

To know how much these companies can afford you have to look at profit margins and risk/reward of investment. When you do this you will find there isn't as much money just sitting around as you think.

He has 4 stores and plans to open another.
2 of the 4 are in the Capital in busy areas, the one I work in makes thousands every day.

If he has money to open another, he definitely has the money to pay more. It's only a part time job for me while I'm at University but the people in there put up with shit hours and shit conditions.

I'm sure he does have money to pay his employees more. But why would he do that when he can find another employee just as suitable for the same price?

And if you involve the govt. to force these guys to pay more, it is just another investment hurdle and if the hurdle is too high they will simply close up shop and find another investment (most likely overseas) or just sit on their money and live easy, while the only ones who truly get hurt are those who used to work for him.

Post: #114

(08-29-2013 08:52 AM)nmmoooreland20 Wrote:  You're missing the point so bad with your analogy. If other average white dudes were making the NBA and I wasn't, then yes i should be called lazy, failure etc.

I think you're the one missing the point badly. Show me the great number of job opportunities that pay a decent wage for millions of low IQ, low skilled workers.

They just aren't there.

Just like jobs for average white guys playing in the NBA. They don't exist.

So calling people lazy because they can't get jobs that don't exist is a little ridiculous, no?

Post: #115

(08-29-2013 09:16 AM)CarCrashKid Wrote:  He has 4 stores and plans to open another.
2 of the 4 are in the Capital in busy areas, the one I work in makes thousands every day.

If he has money to open another, he definitely has the money to pay more. It's only a part time job for me while I'm at University but the people in there put up with shit hours and shit conditions.

He has the money to open new stores and hire more people because he does pay "shit wages". If his labor costs rose, you know, since he has the "money to pay people more", he would be less likely to open these new stores and hire more people.

The people at fast food are there because that's the best they can do. If it wasn't, they would be elsewhere. I'm sure you'd like higher wages to be able to have more "fun money" while in University, but once you're out there in the real world making real money, you'll be in an entry level job somewhere wondering why someone who has no experience, no skills and working a replaceable worthless job is making the same or more than you.

Post: #116

(08-29-2013 09:16 AM)CarCrashKid Wrote:  If he has money to open another, he definitely has the money to pay more.

That's a very socialist mentality. Rob from the rich to give to the poor. This sense of entitlement is dragging down society. Besides, fast food joints are paying $15 hr in N. Dakota and they can't find help. Why aren't those complaining moving up there to cash in?

Post: #117

(08-29-2013 08:56 AM)Barada22 Wrote:  Working at McDonald's flipping burgers is not meant to be a career, it's mean to be a job while you are going to school or trying to find something better. Only high school and college kids should be there for more than a few months. That is why you don't need to increase minimum wage, it tells people that they can survive with a shitty status quo. Her low wage should make her want something better, if she does not have the motivation to advance her life she does not deserve better.

Not to mention who is stupid enough to want to start a family while working a crap job.

I worked crap jobs and over time "moved up" but I always put off the big things -- house, family, etc. -- till I knew I could comfortably afford them.

Isn't this just fucking common sense?

Post: #118

(08-29-2013 11:16 AM)scorpion Wrote:  I think you're the one missing the point badly. Show me the great number of job opportunities that pay a decent wage for millions of low IQ, low skilled workers.

They just aren't there.

They certainly are there.

Unclogging toilets, mowing lawns, gardening work, painting walls.

These all require no education or skills to do, yet will pay $15-20 AN HOUR.

If one wants to actually learn a little, say by watching a friend do it or even studying youtube videos, they can then do work such as: laying tile, installing toilets/faucets/garbage disposals, car detailing, etc. These will get them $30 AN HOUR.

I'm stating all these because I've hired guys off craigslist for each of these tasks before, and these are the rates they charge. If I need a paintjob, I have to pay $20-25/hr to someone on craigslist who speaks English and who will do a decent job, as my only alternative is hiring some scrub outside of home depot who may get paint all over the carpet and doorknobs.

Ever hire a mover? I recently had to pay $65/hr for 2 guys with a piece of shit $500 pickup, and they had a 4hr minimum. They were the best deal on craigslist, everyone else wanted $85/hr for 2 guys or more.

Why can these unskilled laborers charge such exorbitant rates? Because there is no competition. There may be a 100k unemployed day laborers in Los Angeles who know how to unclog a toilet, but only 5 bother to put an ad on craigslist and answer the fuckin phone.

Instead of spending a bit of time browsing handyman forums, or even just typing up a craigslist ad, that time is spent watching cable TV.

Post: #119

(08-29-2013 12:08 PM)Sombro Wrote:  Not to mention who is stupid enough to want to start a family while working a crap job.

I worked crap jobs and over time "moved up" but I always put off the big things -- house, family, etc. -- till I knew I could comfortably afford them.

Isn't this just fucking common sense?

Americans want everything RIGHT NOW. Student loans, big mortgage, gas guzzling SUV. No one wants to put the work in on the front side. They see others that are successful and think they deserve the same lifestyle. Thus the desire to take from the earners.

Post: #120

(08-29-2013 12:15 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  Americans want everything RIGHT NOW. Student loans, big mortgage, gas guzzling SUV. No one wants to put the work in on the front side. They see others that are successful and think they deserve the same lifestyle. Thus the desire to take from the earners.

And on that note: Reynolds' Law: “Subsidizing the markers of status doesn’t produce the character traits that result in that status; it undermines them.”

Quote:The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.

A modern version of Cargo Cult thinking, in other words.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/reynolds-law/

Post: #121

(08-29-2013 12:11 PM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 11:16 AM)scorpion Wrote:  I think you're the one missing the point badly. Show me the great number of job opportunities that pay a decent wage for millions of low IQ, low skilled workers.

They just aren't there.

They certainly are there.

Unclogging toilets, mowing lawns, gardening work, painting walls.

These all require no education or skills to do, yet will pay $15-20 AN HOUR.

If one wants to actually learn a little, say by watching a friend do it or even studying youtube videos, they can then do work such as: laying tile, installing toilets/faucets/garbage disposals, car detailing, etc. These will get them $30 AN HOUR.

I'm stating all these because I've hired guys off craigslist for each of these tasks before, and these are the rates they charge. If I need a paintjob, I have to pay $20-25/hr to someone on craigslist who speaks English and who will do a decent job, as my only alternative is hiring some scrub outside of home depot who may get paint all over the carpet and doorknobs.

Ever hire a mover? I recently had to pay $65/hr for 2 guys with a piece of shit $500 pickup, and they had a 4hr minimum. They were the best deal on craigslist, everyone else wanted $85/hr for 2 guys or more.

Why can these unskilled laborers charge such exorbitant rates? Because there is no competition. There may be a 100k unemployed day laborers in Los Angeles who know how to unclog a toilet, but only 5 bother to put an ad on craigslist and answer the fuckin phone.

Instead of spending a bit of time browsing handyman forums, or even just typing up a craigslist ad, that time is spent watching cable TV.

It's a workers market. Back in my hometown most of the younger skilled labor grabs the paycheck on Friday and stays drunk and doped up until the money runs out. Then they drag their withdrawing ass back to work and half step until the next check.

Guys I know that keep their shit together always have work, and the contractor pays them well due to reliability. Men have gotten lazy and want something for nothing. I contracted for years, and when dumbass 1 finds out another employee in the same title is earning more, the hate and discontent sets in across the workplace. They don't take into account the other guys is more skilled, or a better negotiator. All dumbass 1 sees is he should be making the same, then gets butthurt and sits on his ass.

It's frustrating to be around this. One of the last jobs I was on, the company hired through a headhunter, and those employees were making around half of what we were making. They guy I was stuck with wouldn't shut the fuck up about it, but he literally couldn't use an air gun to take off a fucking tire. He didn't want to learn and was a safety hazard every second of the day.

Post: #122

(08-29-2013 12:11 PM)Bolthouse Wrote:  They certainly are there.

Unclogging toilets, mowing lawns, gardening work, painting walls.

These all require no education or skills to do, yet will pay $15-20 AN HOUR.

If one wants to actually learn a little, say by watching a friend do it or even studying youtube videos, they can then do work such as: laying tile, installing toilets/faucets/garbage disposals, car detailing, etc. These will get them $30 AN HOUR.

I'm stating all these because I've hired guys off craigslist for each of these tasks before, and these are the rates they charge. If I need a paintjob, I have to pay $20-25/hr to someone on craigslist who speaks English and who will do a decent job, as my only alternative is hiring some scrub outside of home depot who may get paint all over the carpet and doorknobs.

Ever hire a mover? I recently had to pay $65/hr for 2 guys with a piece of shit $500 pickup, and they had a 4hr minimum. They were the best deal on craigslist, everyone else wanted $85/hr for 2 guys or more.

Why can these unskilled laborers charge such exorbitant rates? Because there is no competition. There may be a 100k unemployed day laborers in Los Angeles who know how to unclog a toilet, but only 5 bother to put an ad on craigslist and answer the fuckin phone.

Instead of spending a bit of time browsing handyman forums, or even just typing up a craigslist ad, that time is spent watching cable TV.

You're really making the argument that the country has no employment problems for low-skilled workers because of odd jobs posted on craigslist?

You think everyone could earn a decent wage if only they became a traveling handyman?

It's never occurred to you that there are only so many gardens to be weeded, toilets to be unclogged and tiles to be laid? That if lots of people started doing this, there wouldn't be nearly enough work to go around? And that this type of work is extremely sporadic and unreliable anyway, so that $20 an hour sounds good but doesn't mean much if you can only find odd jobs for 2-3 hours a day and have to drive 50 miles a day to do so?

You just seem to have a very detached understanding of what it's like to be a low-skilled worker in today's economy. Next time you hire someone off craigslist, offer them a beer and talk to them for awhile. It will be eye-opening, and you might come to understand that this situation is not as black and white as you think.

Post: #123

I think we all really forget a small but very popular California chain:

http://www.examiner.com/article/in-n-out...reddit-ama

And they start their employees at $10/hr.

It's not only doable, but possible. I would be curious to see what In and Out's balance sheets look like.

Post: #124

I'm willing to pay some low iq unskilled guy 7.25 an hour to shovel all those dead emaciated bodies.

Come on scorpion, you've got a dead beat boyfriend living there not earning any money. Could he work and pay for what the taxpayer currently does with govt assistance?

These people work as little as they have to, they do as little as they have to, and take as much as they can from the taxpayer.

Post: #125

I haven't read this entire thread, but let's enroll all fast food workers in an online basic economics class to shut them up. A minimum wage screws up the wage equilibrium in the first place and raises the unemployment rate and also results in more under the table paid work. Raising the minimum because they "deserve" it will result in mass layoffs in the industry.

So fuck it, let's let them have their 2x raise and then fire half of them, resulting in the ones that stay having to work twice as hard.