Kerry's Plan and Why it Will Backfire (1542 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.09 on 61 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Robert (View user info) at 2004-06-22 22:57:26 EDT
Regardless of my political view, when basic economics is applied to Kerry's economic plan, it contradicts itself. His platform is that Bush has given unfair tax breaks to the rich and done nothing for the "working class" Americans. In his quest to raise the standard of living for these workers, he has decided to increase minimum wage to $7 an hour. Unfortunately, he is just one more politician that fails to grasp the effects his decisions will have on those he intends to help, even with good intentions. If minimum wage is increased, so will the cost for companies to hire American labor. Every American company is in the business to provide goods or services to people at a cost. Capitalism works because companies provide goods and services cheaper than their competition, which translates to benefits for the consumers. On the other hand, when companies are forced to pay higher prices to provide their services, this will translate to higher prices for consumers and less American labor employment. Those who will naturally be affected most by these will be the poor. With the higher cost of living, the standard of living for any American will drop.
The second major issue is that companies will no longer be hiring American labor. Those who are most expendable, the minimum wage workers, will be the first jobs that leave America for another country with cheaper labor. Companies do not enjoy sending their jobs overseas. All things the same, it is more expensive for American companies to have things produced overseas than it is in America, but with higher costs of business, it becomes more profitable for them to do so. Yet, as these jobs leave and the prices are raised, it will not be governmental policies that are blamed, it will be the "evil" and "greedy rich" people that are blamed.
In some places, France for one, when policies such as this are instituted, further governmental policies are passed to make it difficult for companies to fire people when the cost of business is too much to employ them. These policies fail to realize that when companies have foresight and will just hire fewer people so they never have to worry about firing them, yet another cost incurred by the consumer. But let us hope it does not go that far. In fact, let us do our best to prevent any of these policies from ever being introduced.
User Reviews
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 15:46:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Any president is that involved in any company as big as Enron. Enron was a huge company in trouble, naturally it met with the president. I have neither heard nor seen any evidence that links Bush to Enron in any unprofessional manner. Please choose arguments that aren't just Bush bashing its just so sickeningly repetitive.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 12:52:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I will address the rest of what you said, but this, specifically, stood out to me:
Submitted by Thanatos (user info) at 2004-06-23 10:48:19 (#)
Ranking: 2
Queen Ashlee
Why do you immediately blame everything on Bush? I am fairly open minded politically, but I'm sick and tired of everything being blamed on him.
1) Corporate malfeasance can't be blamed on him, its not like he stole from Enron, or had anything to do with it
______
From ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/enron011210.html
"The Houston-based company [Enron] was among the first to back Bush when he ran for governor of Texas. Enron and its executives went on to become the largest source of financial support for Bush's gubernatorial campaigns, giving more than $500,000, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity."
"Enron was the number one career patron for George W. Bush," said center director Charles Lewis. "There was no company in America closer to George W. Bush than Enron."
"Enron CEO Kenneth Lay has been a friend of Bush and the Bush family for years. When Gov. Bush ran for president, Enron gave him access to a company jet. "
"When Vice President Dick Cheney drafted a new energy policy, he met with Lay and other Enron executives. Enron was reportedly the only company to be granted such a meeting. "
"Enron alumni also fill prominent slots in the Bush administration. The president's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, and the top trade negotiator, Robert Zoellick, both served as advisers to the company. Secretary of the Army Thomas White was an Enron executive before joining the administration"
"There is a very intimate connection between Enron and the Bush administration... we need to find out what people in the administration knew, many of whom used to work for Enron."
From Alternet.org:
http://www.alternet.org/story/12155
(mirrored at http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bushsenronties.htm )
"the Enron Corp. scandal involves millions of dollars in campaign contributions to Bush, U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm and other members of Congress. The cozy relationship between the Bush White House and Enron enabled Kenneth L. Lay, then Enron's CEO, to meet in secret with Vice President Richard Cheney to help mold the nation's energy policy. Bush's presidential campaign received $1.14 million from Enron."
"Shortly after taking office, President Bush waged a battle against the imposition of federal price controls in California that allowed Enron to price-gouge consumers by extending the energy crisis in California, costing the state billions of dollars. Enron reported increased revenues of almost $70 billion from the previous year."
"Bush also resisted attempts to crack down on Enron's utilization of its 847 offshore subsidiaries in countries with lax banking-regulation laws. The consumer-rights watchdog organization Public Citizen alleges that some of these offshore havens helped Enron defraud its stockholders."
"Waxman also mentions 'the fact that senior Enron executives were enriching themselves at the same time that Enron was lavishing large campaign contributions on President Bush and the Republican Party and apparently influencing the administration's energy policies.'"
And that's only two of thousands of sources.
http://web.ask.com/web?q=Bush+ties+with+Enron&o=0&qsrc=0
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+enron+ties&btnG=Google+Search
But Bush didn't have anything to do with Enron, right?
Submitted by Thanatos (user info) at 2004-06-23 10:48:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Queen Ashlee
Why do you immediately blame everything on Bush? I am fairly open minded politically, but I'm sick and tired of everything being blamed on him.
1) Corporate malfeasance can't be blamed on him, its not like he stole from Enron, or had anything to do with it
2) The internet bubble burst, causing massive loss of jobs. How can this be blamed on Bush? Its suddenly his fault that idiots were paying $50 a share for companies with no assets, revenue, or prospects.
3) 9/11 Wow, what a shocker, thousands thrown out of work be an unprecedented terrorist attack. We better blame Bush....Hmmm that sounds like the Democrats' new political slogan. 'Out of work, Blame Bush!', 'Low wages, Blame Bush!', 'Car accident, Blame Bush!', 'Can't get laid, Blame Bush!'
To address some of your other comments: Yes there are many people that can't make ends meet in this country. The problem is a large portion of them have only themselves to blame. If you get someone pregnant in high school your life is pretty much over. Accept it and find a dead end job for the next forty years. Too many people, middle class and the poor, are living paycheck to paycheck not because they don't have the means to survive, but because they don't know how to save and budget their money.
Going to McDonalds instead of cooking yourself, buying a new car every few years because you want a new style or someone else got one, buying a boat/cabin/jetski instead of saving the money.
The only thing my parents have paid for me since high school is my car insurance, and could easily pay it, they won't let me. I had shit jobs some summers, but if you find a job and work hard you should be able to go to college and have a decent life. Just don't major in liberal arts.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2004-06-23 10:44:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 10:16:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
oh and all of my articles seem to get negative becuase they usually blantently say my opinion and why others are wrong, people don't like that.
Submitted by atz (user info) at 2004-06-23 10:16:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Screw hard work. Communism rules.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 10:15:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
absolutely running, I think it's almost enlavement because many liberal politicians do oppress the poor and blame it on commerce, I'm not sure if it ENTIRELY intentional but it sure seems to happen.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-06-23 10:04:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't have the quote anymore, but a strong advocate for minimum wage once said that if companies couldn't afford to pay minimum wage they didn't deserve to be in business.
Of course he failed to see the other side, that if a worker didn't deserve to earn on his/her own more than minimum wage without the gov't interfering, then maybe that worker didn't deserve to work in the first place.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-06-23 10:01:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love this post. It is a shame it has a negative rating because liberals refuse to understand economics.
mapleburner21
I totally agree with everthing you said. The minimum wage does increase unemployment as evidenced in numerous surveys. It is interesting that labor unions are strong advocates for a higher minimum wage. This way the alternative sources of labor are more expensive and less competitive.
When minimum wage was originally put in place the wording stated that it shouldn't increase to fast or it would lead to increased unemployment. I laughed when one of my professors once said he thought that maybe the democrats (who get many votes from welfare recepients) kept raising the minimum wage so that they could keep more poor and on welfare, thus increasing their voting base.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 09:02:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree Bob, it's almost like enslavement because when the cost of business goes up and all of the bad things start to happen, it won't be the government policies that are blamed, it will be the "greedy" corpororate executives and the "evil" republican party. Those who cannot sea beyond this fallacy and deception will just elect another leader to institute more pollicies to discourage business.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-06-23 08:01:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Indeed. Let's raise the cost of living by raising minimum wage.
Kerry is pandering himself to the lower classes again.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:53:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Death Metal,
Great argument friend. I've never seen anybody put up a better argument. I love how you individually analyzed the policies and made a concise and clear counter-argument. Possibly the best argument I've seen today and you are the most qualified to vote of anyone here.
I hope you get killed by a meteorite, attracted to the earth by the gravity of Kerry's hair, on your way to the voting booth.
Submitted by My_dixie_wrecked (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:50:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well done maple. I stand corrected.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:49:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry about the grammar here's a re-written reply.
Bart,
You're an idiot. Don't you realize politicians want power? Vote for the ones whose policies will benefit America the most. Kerry is not an economist; my views are from economics which I have studied with a passion. Though I am not an economist, my opinions are better thought of than some Massachusetts senator that wants power. It's not only him. Bush also institutes policies just for the vote. But I'm glad you included your view on the matter from a personal standpoint and not just hiding behind your party leaders. Oh wait.
Dumbass
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:48:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
" Don't you realize politicians want power. Vote for the ones that aren't quite as stupid."
So you're voting for Kerry now?
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:32:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bart your an idiot. Don't you realize politicians want power. Vote for the ones that aren't quite as stupid. Kerry is not an economist, my views are from economics which I have studied with a passion. Though I am not an economist, my opinions are better thought of than some Massachusettes senator that wants power. It's not only him. Bush also instites policies just for the vote. But I'm glad you included your view on the matter from a personal standpoint. Oh wait.
Dumbass
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:26:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
BRILLIANT DIXIE YOU GOT IT (KINDA)
If his business does fail, the competition will take over because they can provide the same service at a cheaper price. Unfortunately, Kerry's economic plan will not allow the supermarkets to be able to afford to hire these new people. It is also unfair for Joe's pizza place to go out of business just becuase Kerry set the minimum wage to high for small businesses to afford. Dixie you point would only make sense, however, if Joe's business went under in a FAIR market place. A high minimum wage is not fair on the pizza place and really is, I guess, only benefitting the "evil" big business that liberal are supposed to hate since the big businesses are the only that can afford the minimum wage though it will still result in lay offs and high business costs.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:21:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm sure you've thought about this topic in much more detail than a US senator who's running for president.
Dumbass.
Submitted by My_dixie_wrecked (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:16:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well joe, after your pizza business goes under, people will spend their money elsewhere. For example, lets say they buy more digiorno frozen pizza. The supermarket will need more people to stock the shelves, and digiorno will need more people to produce the pizza. Jobs will be created to replace those were lost.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:14:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
GAH! there's *SO* much more i want to say, and honestly, I have to thank you, because this is the first time in a long time that i've gotten into a political discussion with anybody from the other side and not gotten so mad that I was seeing red (it happens. i know a lot of idiots.), but I REALLY need to get some sleep. I'll try tomorrow to remember to come back and respond to the most recent things, if I have a chance to get online. But for now, I've gotta get my rest, or I'll be horrible to deal with in the AM.
Have a +2 for being such a good sport.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:06:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ashlee,
First the economic drop was not due to Bush. The most powerful governmental brance is the legaslative branch and in the Clinton years, that belonged to the Republicans. Second, Clinton, I'll credit, besides drastically raising the cost of business at the beginning, for the most part stayed out of the economy, much less than Mr. Kerry will. The economy dropped because people lost confidence im their investments because of the instability of America in the post 9/11 atmosphere. People were afraid to travel and lost confidence.
Dixie,
I'll credit Ashlee to at least reading the article and offering her counter-points. You sound like you don't understand any the affects of miniumum wage. The cost of everything will go up. People will lose their jobs. There is a substantial net-loss to the economy when my catastrophic predictions are compared to the few extra bucks in the economy. Please don't rate this article if you don't understand it.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-06-23 01:04:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Maybe good morals are good for not only individuals, but the entire nation, no Ashlee? I can't help it that the two in your scenario screwed themselves so much. "But they couldn't help it! They had raging hormones!" Screw that. I am not, nor is the government, responsible for other people's bad decisions.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 01:00:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Rixes (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:56:18 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:43:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh and not to mention the billions of people who have lost their jobs thanks to the shie economy bush has created. So there are many single-income and even no income families trying to get by right now.
Do you have any statistics at all to back that up. The economy is doing as good if not better now than during Clinton's administration, unemployment is at an all time low.
_____
I don't know, offhand, where I read this from, but I did read recently that unemployment is currently at 6%, up from the 4% that it was when bush took office.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-06-23 00:59:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That won't happen, dixie, if the shop goes under, along with other struggling businesses.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:57:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Also, you can't outsource certain jobs, like supermarket cashiers and such, which is why i used them as examples. The company will be more likely to hire them, because as high school dropouts, they aren't in a position to demand raises or promotions, and the company is happy to have desperate and uneducated kids in the lowest dregs of their job market.
Submitted by Rixes (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:56:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:43:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh and not to mention the billions of people who have lost their jobs thanks to the shie economy bush has created. So there are many single-income and even no income families trying to get by right now.
Do you have any statistics at all to back that up. The economy is doing as good if not better now than during Clinton's administration, unemployment is at an all time low. And last I checked, their wern't billions of people living in the United States. Kerry has less than 30% attendance to his congressional votes. He just tells people what they want to hear.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-06-23 00:54:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Hmm... I had a good rebuttal, but maple took care of it for me. Ashlee, if one is frugal enough, he can get through nearly any financial problem. I just hate to see how the democrats want the frugal ones to give up their money to the lazy ones.
And in this piece of shit town I live in, almost no one gets a sheltered life with their parents, but the hard workers still can go to collage.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:52:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Actually, I think you missed the point of that scenario, which was to show that people can and are living in poverty, contrary to random joe's belief that only people who wasted their money were poor.
Your second paragraph SOUNDS good, but with regard to the fact that Bush has, in four years, taken the best economy in the history of America and turned it into the worst since the Great Depression, it's clear that his reelection would not make a scenerio like that possible. Putting Bush back in office would be dooming the lower class in this country to another four years of drowning in debt with no way out, putting the middle class where the lower once was, and watching the upper class keep on getting richer.
Submitted by My_dixie_wrecked (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:50:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If minimum wage goes up, people will have more disposable income and so will buy more luxury items (like joes pizza). The company's will do more business resulting in more profit which will pay for the increased wages.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:45:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ashlee in the first paragraph I meant to say they were forced to use welfare in the hypothetical Kerry situation
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:44:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That situation is unfortunate, and realistic. Let's say Kerry gets elected and raises minimum wage. Because of the high employment costs, all jobs have gone overseas and neither Alex nor Stacy can get a job. The cost of doing business has gone up since outsourcing is more expensive than American labor would have been so the cost of goods goes up. Neither Stacy nor Alex can even afford diapers. They are forced in to using minimum wage as the only way out and the cost is incurred by taxpayers who made good decisions and double-wrapped, abstained, or were not so unlucky.
Now imagine if there was no minimum wage and taxes were so low that virtually every program not essential to the existence of the country had been eliminated. The cost of business in America is lower than anywhere else in the world. Companies compete; some are phased out, while the most efficient rise to the top. The price of goods are at an all time low and because of all this new business, labor is short and companies are paying all-time high prices for labor. Alex and Stacey, though not as wealthy as some of their old peers, have a comfortable two bedroom house, both with relatively unskilled jobs, but still manage to afford a TV and DVD player that they could afford due to the competitive market. They manage to save enough for them to take a bit of time off work and get their diplomas. As the twins grow up, money they managed to save due to the high demand of unskilled labor, pays for them through college and both of the twins each get 4 bedroom houses and each have a Chrysler, which though American, is as nice as any BMW or Mercedes because the American Companies could afford to higher better designers and materials for there cars.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:43:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh and not to mention the billions of people who have lost their jobs thanks to the shie economy bush has created. So there are many single-income and even no income families trying to get by right now.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:38:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
That comment was for random joe.
And my MAIN issue with job outsourcing is that I don't want to have to talk to "Ismael, bage noomber free-seex-seex" when they fuck up my Sprint bill.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:30:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh suddenly, you, your brother, and your shit job represent the entire country, eh?
Try to open your mind just a little bit, for just a second. Imagine a hypothetical situation, think you can do that?
Stacy and Alex are highschool sweethearts. Most popular kids in school, they're really going places. Now, like most normal kids, they're hormonal, and do *GASP* have sex. They're careful, of course, but one day something horrible happens; the condom breaks. Stacy gets pregnant, her parents kick her out, and she goes to Alex and tells him everything. Being a good, stand-up guy, he does the right thing and proposes. They get married, find a cheap place to live, and start to prepare for the baby.
Now, when Alex goes to find a job, he has a tough time because so many of the jobs he's at this time qualified to do are outsourced to other countries. Finally, he gets a minimum wage gig, 60 hours a week, loading and unloading trucks for a local trucking company. Unfortunately, he has to drop out of school to do so. Stacy, too, has to drop out due to her pregnancy.
Nine months pass, and SURPRISE! Stacy has TWINS! Now, she can't work because both sets of grandparents refuse to have anything to do with their children, and they can't afford childcare, so this family is soley dependant on Alex's meager income for everything they need, and to top it off they're deep in debt from Stacy's hospital bills.
Stacy can't start work until the twins are old enough to start school, and even then it can only be parttime because she needs to be around when the kids leave and when they return. So she takes a parttime job at the local supermarket. She and Alex are barely making ends meet, and often have to forgo minor neccessities because they just can't afford them.
The moral of the story:
Not everyone can live with their parents until they can afford to support themselves comfortabely, and not everyone starts independant life with a college education and a good paying job, idiot.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:26:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
and kellio, I'm not and executive or have any dreams of becoming one, I'd be happy if I went in to the military after high school or just had a comfortable suburban life, as long as the wife is hot!
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-06-23 00:26:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Kellio,
It's not about the big corporations. It's about small business who cannot afford to pay higher prices. We don't need to burden the small business across America to death, and that's what Kerry will do.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:23:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Kellio,
Management is payed highly because their services are required and it is a very skilled profession, though Office Space may not think so! Enron executives were in fact stealing money, not earning, send their asses to jail, it's not economical to steal as their is a money transaction with only one side recieving the wealth and no goods or services in exchange. Conservatives are not evil, we just manage to look things at a level underneath such views as managment getting more money=not fair to those being paid less, losing a job=bad for everyone, company going out of business=bad. Please, I beg for people to understand that economics is not a philisophy, it is a reflection of what is happening on a whole, there is no prediction in economics unless it is based on previous experiences.
Submitted by Kellio (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:17:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If American companies didn't offer management such exhorbitant remuneration packages to begin with, they wouldn't have a problem being able to cover the costs of a minimum wage increase. The reason that many American companies fail is because they are being looted by management on a daily basis. Do names like Enron mean anything to you?
As for the comment that companies don't enjoy sending jobs overseas... are you fucking kidding me? Most executives will send American jobs overseas in a heart beat if it means their share packages will increase by half a percent. People like yourself have obviously never had to work two jobs on minimum wage just to meet their basic costs. Economic policy (although flawed) should not have to take the blame for this, it is clearly the fault of American management. The "greedy rich" should be blamed, because they are the ones downsizing the workforces and outsourcing work to foreign markets in order to give upper management "a bit extra".
One example is the world's largest corporation General Electric. A few years back they closed a heap of American factories and sent those jobs down to Mexico to "cut costs". You wanna cut costs? How about starting with the CEO Jack Welsh (Fortune Magazine's CEO of the century, what a crock of shit!) who at that point was earning $98 000 000 a year. That's 98 million dollars per year! But of course the men in charge aren't willing to sacrifice 5% of their salary when they could just lay off a whole heap of minimum wage workers instead.
Get your facts straight. In fact it sounds like to me that you are just another greedy executive. Keep your right wing propaganda off this site!
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:17:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
meant +2, i agree with myself
glad to see some of you agree with me
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:16:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Ashlee,
It is more expensive to outsource than it is to use domestic labor because of the physical distance. Companies outsource because government policies have made it too expensive to work in America. For the record, I come from a Republican family who is struggling to put me into college. I'll probably just join the military. We are republican because we decided it was our responsiblility as voters to understand economics. Both my parents used to be liberals. Most republicans I know are not super rich like the liberal politicians make you think. If half of people paychecks were not taken in tax, it would be a hell of a lot easier to save wouldn't it. You also fail to understand the quality of life of your average poor person. Those in the bottom 20 percent bracket in 1991 had a higher quality of life than the average american twenty years earlier.
Dakingisdead,
Most conservative economists would say that the policies you describe are in fact, not economical. You are describing marxist and liberal economists that use philosophy instead of fact in their arguments.
Submitted by dakingisdead (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:10:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ashlee there is one problem with stopping outsourcing.
We live in a global market now whether you like it or not. Part of that global market relies on a small thing called free trade.
Part of free trade is that all countries can provide servbices and products to others on a 'level playing field'.
When one country puts in restrictions on say the outsourcing of work then the field is tilted. This is the same argument that America has been using for years directed at Japan to try and open up the Japanese market to the American car manufacturers. You see America imports more from Japan than the other way around. This is a problem for both countries but particularly America because it keeps adding up the defecit.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-06-23 00:08:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
People don't and can't waste money, eh? Well, in my town that is the only reason people are poor. My brother worked at the very same pizza place I do, but he saved his $5.15 dollars an hour and now he's going to collage and becoming successful. Everyone poor in this town is poor because they blow all of their money on cars, useless electronics, and crap they don't need. So, I don't believe you Ashlee. Even with the current minimal wage one can find success.
Submitted by dakingisdead (user info) at 2004-06-23 00:03:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:31:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
The problem with economists is that they just see maximum efficiency, they completely forget about the human cost involved.
..................................................................................................
I agree totally Razor. No-one has found an argument that actually disproves this basic flaw. It is a problem when academics sitting in their ivory towers cushioned from the real world start directing policy.
The other thing with Bushes policy of tax breaks to "the Rich" is the same the world over. As inflation grinds upwards so do wages. Then the good old bracket creep kicks in. This is where the wages have increased but the tax threshholds remain the same. So you get an increase but move into a new bracket and blammo yoiu have less take home pay.
You don't see the pollies giving this back too quick that is sure. Also there is a significant incentive NOT to earn more as you see your earnings stripped by tax. Why should I want to work harder and longer hours to see I am losing over 50 percent of my earnings in tax?
The other thing as stated in this post is that the increase in workers wages DOES have a direct affect on the location of companies and their ability to do business.
For example when Menzies significantly increased the minimum wages here in Australia quite a few years ago he effectively killed all manufacturing industries here and all those jobs went to Asia.
You can see the same thing with the call centres today. It is cheaper for the companies to set up their call centres in India than it is to base them in Australia. Now I know the people working in these centres here are not getting paid much. Well now many don't even have a job but some dude in India has!
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:57:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:48:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
Ashlee,
All things set aside, even if it was only the "big guys" who wanted to keep money in their pockets, Kerry increasing minimum wage is not going to prevent them from doing so and the jobs will still go overseas. The worker is still screwed, and as you say the "big guys" will still be employed and the "little guys" won't. Doesn't sound good to me.
If the cost of living goes up, so will the amount of SS going out to those receiving them now. SS does not work and should be abolished so those who earned the money can do with it as they wish, save it, invest it, etc.
___
This is what I'm saying; and this is why there needs to be some form of restriction on job outsourcing. No matter what the minimum wage is, people who own large companies that are making them rich will continually look for ways those companies can make them even richer, and job outsourcing is providing them with a great way to do that, at the cost of the lower-level worker striving just to put food on the table.
In regard to social security, I *would* agree with you, IF the fucking Republicans would stop making themselves and their country club buddies richer and richer at the expense of the lower and middle class. For you see, there comes a point when an older person simply can't work anymore, and often these people do not have any family to take them in. However, since the number of people struggling just to get by is astoundingly high and climbing every day, saving and investing just isn't an option for some people. It's not as if most people are going out and wasting money they ought to be saving; on the contrary, they don't have the money to save OR to spend. In a case like that, it's unfair to deny these people any kind of income, unless the government is willing to provide an all expense paid lifestyle for these people in some other way, which just isn't feasible.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:57:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
appreciate it Joe
If your interested, I recommend the economics series by Thomas Sowell, well written.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-06-22 23:53:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think I have confused people with my accidental -2... I'm against minimal wage and support this article.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:52:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Thanks Cigar, I'm losing confidence in Americans.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:48:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ashlee,
All things set aside, even if it was only the "big guys" who wanted to keep money in their pockets, Kerry increasing minimum wage is not going to prevent them from doing so and the jobs will still go overseas. The worker is still screwed, and as you say the "big guys" will still be employed and the "little guys" won't. Doesn't sound good to me.
If the cost of living goes up, so will the amount of SS going out to those receiving them now. SS does not work and should be abolished so those who earned the money can do with it as they wish, save it, invest it, etc.
Joe,
Cheaper service IF you go out of business because other investors will put money in another restaurant that opens to run yours out of business. Alternatively, your company downsizes, you may keep your job, and customers will not get as much as before. Both can be avoided by no minimum wage.
Submitted by cigar (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:40:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
dead on, good luck with the moronic liberals that overrun this site.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:40:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If none of that makes any sense, blame vicodin.
If it DOES make sense, blame vicodin.
I'm still in a shitload of pain, I just don't care.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-06-22 23:39:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Cannot compete? We are the only pizza place for miles! What I'm trying to say is that it will not be possible to employ the necessary amount of people to run the place, unless we stop delivering, which is bad for the customer, or raise our already high prices, which is bad for the customer, or both... VERY bad. So with that said, cheaper price and better service my ass.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:37:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't like political discussions, I REALLY don't, so I'll leave you for the most part to loki, but I have this to say.
The argument you make about how companies will be forced to take American jobs oversees in order to keep their profit margin is ridiculous. You say "Companies do not enjoy sending their jobs overseas," but it's been proven time and again by the ever-increasing instances of companies using job outsourcing that they don't give a fuck about it, so long as the big guys keep more money in their pockets. If they didn't like doing it, they wouldn't be doing it now, since, as you say, it would be the raise in minimum wage that would force them to do so.
While increasing the minimum wage is ineffective in its main goal of making economic life easier for the common worker, since the cost of living invariably goes up right along with it, it IS effective from a long-term point of view. As of right now, since the Bush administration spent ALL of the billions (or was it trillions, I forget) of dollars that was set aside specifically for Social Security benefits, there will be none available by the time you and I become old enough to qualify. Instead of paying taxes into a fund that will be available for our benefits, as we're meant to do, we're paying the current SS benefits to people recieving them right now. If the minimum wage is raised, we will be paying more money in on SS tax, thus creating an ability to save it so that we're able to collect it as intended.
I had a bunch of other shit to say, but it's late, so I'll just leave you with a "Well put, but you're still wrong" and hope to God the Bush Administration doesn't figure out a way to steal another election.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:35:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Razor,
Economics tells us of the greatest efficiency possible in a society. There will always be poor people in any society. Economics will tell us the way to the lowest possible unemployment and greatest prosperity, which will translate to a higher standard of living for those poor people and more money able to go to charity as people get wealthier.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-06-22 23:33:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah fuck berries. I meant to give this a +2. Doesn't matter, I guess.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:31:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The problem with economists is that they just see maximum efficiency, they completely forget about the human cost involved.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:31:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Joe,
Job loss is bad and when companies go out of business it is unfortunate, but it is NOT bad for the economy. When you have companies that cannot compete and are forced out of business, they are replaced with those that can provide the same service at a cheaper price and greater efficiency.
Submitted by mapleburner21 (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:28:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Money only represents goods and services. It is only a medium of exchange and a way of trading wealth, but money itself is not wealth, only a representation of such. By federal tampering with money supply, you get no net change in the amount of wealth in our society.
American companies need employment as much as employees need the employment. If a company pays too little for a employer, he will find work elsewhere. Employment is a commodity as much as any sort of imput into a company. People and politicians get very emotional when they deal with it which leads to irrational policies. For god sakes "Massive American Corporations" got that way by providing a service cheaper than their competition which translated to lower costs for the consumers. Companies are people not entities.
Please understand the essence of economics before you argue with those who do.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-06-22 23:27:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Genko,
I work at a pizza shop in a small town. I also am paid minimal wage. Though it is only $5.15 an hour, I can tell you it would be better than $7. Want to know why? My boss is having a hard time making payroll as it is. If the wage goes up, people will be fired. Not only that but when you factor in the "free" healthcare and other things that Kerry is for, this shop would almost certainly close. Now THAT is bad for the economy and creates job loss. This is only one shop, and there would be MANY across America that would have to close doors. Small business runs America, and Kerry will destroy it.
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:17:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What if Kerry got the Fed to raise interest rates when he raised the minimum wage?
Wouldn't that stabilize the cost of living by decreasing the money supply and stopping inflation? Yes, it would, and poor people would maintain the same standard of living they do now, but instead of having debt, they'd have money.
The only people to lose would be massive American corporations who pay people minimum wage. They can't raise prices, they'd price themselves out of the market. They'd simply have to compete on a lower level.
Please, understand how the economy works before you come here and argue with the big people.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:07:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're going to get in trouble for this one.
You are of course right, but reason doesn't apply here with Bush is involved. Good luck.
-Bus
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-06-22 23:06:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I made this exact same argument once in a post - it was derided as "too clinical", which is libspeak for "makes too much sense."