That's how the market works consumption will always increase and this isn't a bad thing, you oppose government control but provide no alternative what so ever that is realistic on how to manage spending.
I find that governments should enforce banks to give out sensible loans if they don't they should be fined for it, i find that banks aren't allowed to use savings money and pension funds what are suppose to be reliable and safe assets and pour them into high risk ones without the INFORMED consent of the holder. Every crisis we had recently is not on the person taking the loan but is on those who handed out the loans, it is in the bank responsibility to inform the person. The same way that credit cards should not be handed out as candy canes, you need to have a stable and reliable income before you get one and need to have no debt and not be black listed by utility companies due to large back payments you never made. I am happy that in Europe banks are no longer allowed to play with our savings, i am happy that they need to be able to proof to have that much actual capital if they want to play with money on the market, so we'll never get another bubble of that sort that we saw before where money was being invested due to toxic loan products, money that didn't exist as it was basically a loan, repackaged a couple of times and sold between banks.
The whole reason we got in these previous messes is that you had incompetent republican governments such as the Bush administration that threw around the one liner "release the bull!" markets do not self regulate equally, they create social bloodbaths. How many more mass foreclosures do you want to see?
So i don't get how you say you know people aren't sensible and self controlling, but at the same time you provide no alternative to the government stepping in and making sure institutes like banks have to enforce that sensibility.
As i said before your idea while works in theory requires a time machine back to the 40's-50's. Your idea is essentially removing a large group to buy on credit nowadays, i don't think you realize how much of a butterfly effect that would create if you suddenly remove their ability to buy either due to credit or state support.
So yes i'm all for government influence, as it works every time the control apparatus slips or gets dismantled you get a market crash as the only thing more greedy then a person is a bank, an investment bank with easy access to personal savings and funds.
Me and you have completely different views on history.
Who bailed out the banks and corporations when their own shitty practices fucked them over?
Nah, I'm never going to believe that the government is the end all and be all of solutions. They have a role but micro-managing is a shit idea and I'm not budging.
Edit: You know what, that's only partially true. The former that is. The latter is a bit over-the-top. I could budge. Just not tonight. Too tired for this shit tonight.
Last edited by Rudol Von Stroheim; 2016-08-14 at 07:53 AM.
Government isn't the end to all solutions but it's a much needed apparatus in the banking world since they have shown time and time again self regulation isn't even in their dictionary.
The bailing of banks were done as it would hurt everyone else more if they would have failed, if they failed a lot of people would have lost more houses, assets and savings, funds and so on. Not just in the US but globally. The banks should have been punished more afterwards something you oppose as you oppose government control.
Again i keep hearing you say "no government!" but you provide no other sensible solution and no self regulation does not exist, since it never happens. It's also not a matter of views, the cause and effects of the crisis's we had before are well documented. We know what went wrong and therefor Europe has installed several measures to prevent it from happening again and these banks were recently tested.
Such a stupid argument. I never understood you overpopulation guys.
The problem isn't when well educated employed people have children. It's when some third world lady has 8 kids. THAT is what you should be focusing on.
Hey but it's totally cool that YOU got to be born right?
The problem I have is not the amount of money, so much as the people who are not making $15/hour at the moment who had to go to school to get a degree, or at least a certificate to get their job. For example, I am currently working to get my AS in Respiratory Therapy. According to people I have asked in the field, starting pay is around $16-18/hour. I have worked for a year, and have a year to go on just the core work alone (thats not counting pre-reqs). I have had to jump through hoops to make it where I am. With this proposed increase, unless my hourly pay goes up as well, I will make little more than others who didn't have to go through all those hoops to get their job. Where is the incentive to go and get a degree if you don't make much of an improvement at the end? If there is no incentive, you lose all the interest in it.
I'm not against people getting a higher pay. I would love that. I definitely feel you when people link the pay of one single person making millions or even billions per year while the rest of us make scraps. What I want to know, and no one seems to be able to answer is... how do we increase the pay of people on the bottom without screwing over other people in the process?
I'm sure McDonalds and Walmart can pay twice the amount they do now, on labor costs. However, they would need to pay more to have everything be fair to those who have more responsibilities within the company. After a while, they will adjust costs to cover the difference in the profit they have lost. If they increase the price of everything they have by a lot, then whats the point?
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, let's let companies make a monopoly because others can't get to their status... great idea!
/sarcasm
Why is it that you think this will suddenly become an issue THIS time around, when wages have NOT reacted that way at any other minimum wage increase in history?
You can pull $16/hour today because you have skills that allow you to have some sway in wage negotiations. That doesn't stop being true.
Same way its worked every time before; wages are constantly renegotiated. Minimum wage laws protect those whose skills, or lack thereof, mean they CANNOT effectively negotiate.I'm not against people getting a higher pay. I would love that. I definitely feel you when people link the pay of one single person making millions or even billions per year while the rest of us make scraps. What I want to know, and no one seems to be able to answer is... how do we increase the pay of people on the bottom without screwing over other people in the process?
If they raising prices to raise their profit margins, that's got nothing to da with their payroll costs. Otherwise, a comparable price increase is literally mathematically impossible, due to higher wages alone.I'm sure McDonalds and Walmart can pay twice the amount they do now, on labor costs. However, they would need to pay more to have everything be fair to those who have more responsibilities within the company. After a while, they will adjust costs to cover the difference in the profit they have lost. If they increase the price of everything they have by a lot, then whats the point?
It is completely possible for companies to pay their employees a lot more than most do. I work for a company that has over 30,000 employees internationally, and earns several billion in revenue annually. Odds are they could pay every employee an extra $5,000 per year right now and still rake in record profits. If they paid people more, they would also attract better people who fill the jobs that are vacant and in need of filling.
$30,000 a year was fine back in 1985 when a detached house cost $100,000-150,000 in Ontario. It isn't today, when a house costs $300-500,000 on average. I make around 37k annually at regular time, which is bullshit considering I should be in the $20 an hour range by now but our general manager refuses to allow supervisors to give out big raises, even to those of us who are bending over backwards for the company.
- - - Updated - - -
When I first started working, minimum wage was $6.40 for part time and $7.25 for full time, 14 years ago when I was 17 and this is here in Ontario. Here it only really spiked once when it went to $10 for full time. Last time I had a job like that I was making $11 an hour 6 years ago. Minimum wage is actually a pretty bad thing to have, wages should be based on skill, education and experience rather than having a forced wage requirement.
You're assuming everyone lives in cities. The realistic expectation for most people in my area is around 500-600 per month rent. that's for a HOUSE. Low crime area, good schools, plentiful jobs.
- - - Updated - - -
You've just given me two excuses. Must not want it bad enough. Most success stories have great personal sacrifice as a common theme. You could start there. Options are everywhere if you have the motivation to find them.
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly Never mind the fact that if you use the population density of india, the whole world's population would fit inside of texas. "overpopulation" is a myth, there's plenty of land to live and farm on. It's just governments will shoot you before they let you live free of their control.
“Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”
"Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
Ambrose Bierce
The Bird of Hermes Is My Name, Eating My Wings To Make Me Tame.
1973, the minimum wage was $1.60. They passed new legislation updating that over the next few years, with yearly increases until 1981, when it settled at $3.35.
That's more than double. If you mean in one year, nobody has been arguing that the shift to $15 should be immediate. These things are always rolled out through yearly incremental updates. So you're attacking a nonsense argument that nobody's making.
My metropolitan area is three cities, and their combined population is a little over 300k; not "big city" by any means.
But in general, yes; the vast majority of people live in urban areas. In the 2010 Census in the USA, that was over 80% of the population. it's flat-out unrealistic to expect that to change, for a host of reasons.
5 bucks for 20. If I'm having a fat girl day, I'll get 2 of those, and use the McD's app to get 2 bucks off a 10 dollar or more order.
- - - Updated - - -
Hey now, you better stop with that union talk before you get labeled a socialism or communist or worst.
I don't know you or your story so i cant just make a snap judgement. But i'm sure people who have less and have it worse have changed their life around; they just decided they weren't going the live the way they were living anymore. It's not my job to find the way out for you. "Get busy living or get busy dying."
- - - Updated - - -
I don't live in a rural area, and prices are still manageable. Maybe im one of the few lucky ones, though. People are never stuck where they're at, however. If they don't like it, they can always leave and find a location more suitable to their tastes/finances.
That would imply that people aren't afraid of change, and/or they aren't lazy. Like i said before, it has to be wanted bad enough for anything to be done about it. Otherwise its just apathy. Stop eating out, stop buying new clothes and electronics, cancel any gaming subscriptions, sell off anything you haven't used in the past year. Save every dime that isnt going towards expenses. Don't have any dimes left over? sell everything you own and move to an area with a lower cost of living. You do what you HAVE to do until you can do what you WANT to do. Find an area that has high (and growing) employment rates. It IS possible, but it WILL take work, determination, and sacrifice.
The smarter people are, the more they earn
I applaud him for the stunt.