70% of Food Stamps/Medicaid recipients work full time, new study GAO And more results

[Jtbrig7390]

Look we have our differences but never aspire to defend or promote china.

The fact of the matter is China is handling the problem better then US. If China can do it so can the US but the people in power and the idiots who vote for them refuse to do anything.

It isn't a China is better, Its a if they can do it so can we.

[Endus]

Look the main thing and thenomenthing you are desperate to not address comes down to property. Unless you love in an area that already has a surplus of homes the rent will increase as more and more people are willing to pay more to live in that area.

Sure given years you can accommodate for that maybe half a decade if you take into account the demolishing and construction but you can keep harping on the market when simple supply and demand leaves you baffled.

I'm not avoiding the idea of property/housing at all.

It's a solveable problem. You need only enough additional housing to be made to account for both population growth and replacing housing that's had to be demolished because it's beyond repair. Beyond that, in any given moment, there's a finite amount of housing you can functionally benefit from; you need slightly more than what's actually needed, so there's empty housing available for people to move to, but it's still a finite number.

That doesn't mean rents will constantly rise. If you ensure that there's enough housing, demand doesn't outstrip supply, and thus there's no market pressure to increase pricing. Markets 101, dude. If you're gonna complain that I don't "get" markets, don't pretend that it's impossible to manage supply to address demand. Which your argument here implicitly does.

Sure, if we flip to a new economic system right now, there'll be a few years of adjustment before things work out. So what? That's true of literally any major reform. Doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. "Haw, your system might take half a decade to produce better outcomes for all of those in poverty!" is not the damning condemnation of my point of view that you seem to have thought it was.

No one should aspire to be china... I don't have a lot of faith in people but at the very least I expect that if they run over a child they will remove the body from the road rather then have a time lapse uploaded to the internet of one slowly ground into a brown clump on the road.

Look we have our differences but never aspire to defend or promote china.

I neither defended nor promoted China.

What I did was point out that, by your proposed metric of a nation's success, China is more successful and seeing far greater gains than the USA, or indeed any developed nation.

The point was that I expected you to infer that your metric was bad and wrong, and that other metrics of evaluation, considering the welfare and security and liberty of the people for instance, are better measures of what makes a nation strong and successful.

And the USA does a pretty shit job at those measures. At least, if we consider real liberty, which means not being denied healthcare or decent housing or employment protections or whatnot because you're part of the underclass.

[Theodarzna]

I didn't know the details and I wasn't going to side with your characterization of it. I did disagree on the point that Trump supporters are critical of him, by in large they are not. I am just dejected to know the next 4 years we won't accomplish much and it gives the GOP an avenue to take back control of Government. Also, I am left, but only a Registered Democrat because my state forces me too in order to vote in the primary. Most Liberals aren't sufficiently critical of their leadership. Pelosi is a perfect example.

Ever since Connal hoped off the train of endless "Orange Man Bad" posts and started posting literally anything else, and him crediting me with persuading him that that stuff is a waste of time; people on this forum have credited me with super natural levels of power. Like to read and agree with anything I say will paralyze them and make them incapable of staning Kamala Harris as she drone strikes that Yemeni kindergarten.

- - - Updated - - -

No he didn't, and if he did I don't care. After so many so called liberals defended Dems green lighting Trump's expansive Military budget last year he isn't that far off.. Well except for Trump supporters, they are as die hard as Obama defenders.

I wouldn't say its all or even most. I am stating I've physically seen it where as these Ride or Die Democrats, its like pulling teeth. They could be shown children killed by a drone strike Obama ordered, and they'd say the kids must have deserved it.

[Krakan]

The fact of the matter is China is handling the problem better then US. If China can do it so can the US but the people in power and the idiots who vote for them refuse to do anything.

It isn't a China is better, Its a if they can do it so can we.

They just let people die on the street... I don't think people grasp how nightmarish living in china actually is from the media blackout... they paint their fruits and vegetables torture coes by force feeding them water to inflate them to try and get a better deal for selling them.

You have a very romanticized view of their country. I would go into it more but it woukd derail the thread.

I mean ffs they send their old to starve to death in a isolated city.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not avoiding the idea of property/housing at all.

It's a solveable problem. You need only enough additional housing to be made to account for both population growth and replacing housing that's had to be demolished because it's beyond repair. Beyond that, in any given moment, there's a finite amount of housing you can functionally benefit from; you need slightly more than what's actually needed, so there's empty housing available for people to move to, but it's still a finite number.

That doesn't mean rents will constantly rise. If you ensure that there's enough housing, demand doesn't outstrip supply, and thus there's no market pressure to increase pricing. Markets 101, dude. If you're gonna complain that I don't "get" markets, don't pretend that it's impossible to manage supply to address demand. Which your argument here implicitly does.

Sure, if we flip to a new economic system right now, there'll be a few years of adjustment before things work out. So what? That's true of literally any major reform. Doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. "Haw, your system might take half a decade to produce better outcomes for all of those in poverty!" is not the damning condemnation of my point of view that you seem to have thought it was.



I neither defended nor promoted China.

What I did was point out that, by your proposed metric of a nation's success, China is more successful and seeing far greater gains than the USA, or indeed any developed nation.

The point was that I expected you to infer that your metric was bad and wrong, and that other metrics of evaluation, considering the welfare and security and liberty of the people for instance, are better measures of what makes a nation strong and successful.

And the USA does a pretty shit job at those measures. At least, if we consider real liberty, which means not being denied healthcare or decent housing or employment protections or whatnot because you're part of the underclass.

That isn't how housing works. At least not in a city rural areas are different there isn't that excessive amount of space to suddenly offset the demand and would take years to correct if ever.

As for the second half of your post. What should be aimed at is the heavy taxation of all imported goods. If something is to be imported it must be taxed to the level that it is several times the price of a locally produced good.

You do that and you can start to see the lower class recover and gain the stand of living you call true liberty without it you will continually be in a race to the bottom as they desperately try to compete with slave labor.

[Endus]

That isn't how housing works. At least not in a city rural areas are different there isn't that excessive amount of space to suddenly offset the demand and would take years to correct if ever.

You're not explaining yourself very well, then.

Cities largely aren't stuck for space, by the by. Building vertically is almost always an option. And there isn't infinite demand for housing, in the first place, and your suggestion that there would be is just bafflingly unreasonable.

As for the second half of your post. What should be aimed at is the heavy taxation of all imported goods. If something is to be imported it must be taxed to the level that it is several times the price of a locally produced good.

Taxing imports and tariffs and the like don't do anything to protect local consumers. They increase prices for those consumers. The only time they're useful at all is if you have a local industry that should be protected and supported, and subsidizing that industry is somehow not a reasonable option.

The idea that taxing imports will benefit those in poverty is just . . . devastatingly out of touch with reality.

[Felya]

Ever since Connal hoped off the train of endless "Orange Man Bad" posts and started posting literally anything else, and him crediting me with persuading him that that stuff is a waste of time; people on this forum have credited me with super natural levels of power. Like to read and agree with anything I say will paralyze them and make them incapable of staning Kamala Harris as she drone strikes that Yemeni kindergarten.

Uhm... literally none of this happened...

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't say its all or even most. I am stating I've physically seen it where as these Ride or Die Democrats, its like pulling teeth. They could be shown children killed by a drone strike Obama ordered, and they'd say the kids must have deserved it.

You two are confusing support of democrats, with hate of Trump. How well did democrats do, outside the presidential election?

[Krakan]

You're not explaining yourself very well, then.

Cities largely aren't stuck for space, by the by. Building vertically is almost always an option. And there isn't infinite demand for housing, in the first place, and your suggestion that there would be is just bafflingly unreasonable.



Taxing imports and tariffs and the like don't do anything to protect local consumers. They increase prices for those consumers. The only time they're useful at all is if you have a local industry that should be protected and supported, and subsidizing that industry is somehow not a reasonable option.

The idea that taxing imports will benefit those in poverty is just . . . devastatingly out of touch with reality.

For the first part you can't really rapidly construct new affordable housing in older cities the land their is already claimed and when it is for sale it is at an exorbitant price and wouldn't be used for lower class housing. It sounds good on paper but in practice it just isn't how it functions

As for heavily taxing imports. I can't actually think of a way to restore buying power to the lower class beyond that. Simply rasing all wages will lead to rapid inflation you have to to return value back to the labor they have to offer if you want to make a real difference.

[unfilteredJW]

Simply rasing all wages will lead to rapid inflation you have to to return value back to the labor they have to offer if you want to make a real difference.

This will continue to be verifiably false no matter how many times it is said.

[Endus]

For the first part you can't really rapidly construct new affordable housing in older cities the land their is already claimed and when it is for sale it is at an exorbitant price and wouldn't be used for lower class housing. It sounds good on paper but in practice it just isn't how it functions

Errors you made here;

1> Talking about "affordable housing". I presume you mean that in the modern sense, as in "housing for those in poverty". As we're talking about economic reforms with the goal of eliminating poverty, this wouldn't exist any more.
2> That land is "claimed" means nothing. That land is overpriced means nothing. You're trying to use the status quo as an argument against radical change. That's not an argument, that's you refusing to honestly consider the possibility.
3> Again, no "lower class housing" would exist. At least, not in the sense that currently means.

And finally, pretty much no cities are at capacity in terms of space, anyway. Pretty much all of them have plenty of vertical expansion room, and the vast majority have suburbs and the like that could become more dense. Nor would anything we're talking about drive a massive shift towards particular urban centers, anyway. You're arguing against an explosive growth in urban population that there's no reason to expect.

As for heavily taxing imports. I can't actually think of a way to restore buying power to the lower class beyond that.

And it literally could not restore buying power. Heavily taxing imports does nothing but raise prices, which means it necessarily reduces buying power. Not only should you make more effort to consider the question, your one answer would do the opposite of what you think it would.

Simply rasing all wages will lead to rapid inflation you have to to return value back to the labor they have to offer if you want to make a real difference.

I repeat, it is literally, mathematically impossible for raising wages to contribute to proportional inflation relative to that wage raise. It cannot possibly ever happen, not unless you're covering up the real cause of that inflation and trying, dishonestly, to blame the wage raise for it.

You keep repeating this really obvious falsehood, but anyone who knows Grade 7 mathematics knows enough math to know what complete horseshit the idea is. It cannot possibly work out the way you think.

[Krakan]

Errors you made here;

1> Talking about "affordable housing". I presume you mean that in the modern sense, as in "housing for those in poverty". As we're talking about economic reforms with the goal of eliminating poverty, this wouldn't exist any more.
2> That land is "claimed" means nothing. That land is overpriced means nothing. You're trying to use the status quo as an argument against radical change. That's not an argument, that's you refusing to honestly consider the possibility.
3> Again, no "lower class housing" would exist. At least, not in the sense that currently means.

And finally, pretty much no cities are at capacity in terms of space, anyway. Pretty much all of them have plenty of vertical expansion room, and the vast majority have suburbs and the like that could become more dense. Nor would anything we're talking about drive a massive shift towards particular urban centers, anyway. You're arguing against an explosive growth in urban population that there's no reason to expect.



And it literally could not restore buying power. Heavily taxing imports does nothing but raise prices, which means it necessarily reduces buying power. Not only should you make more effort to consider the question, your one answer would do the opposite of what you think it would.


I repeat, it is literally, mathematically impossible for raising wages to contribute to proportional inflation relative to that wage raise. It cannot possibly ever happen, not unless you're covering up the real cause of that inflation and trying, dishonestly, to blame the wage raise for it.

You keep repeating this really obvious falsehood, but anyone who knows Grade 7 mathematics knows enough math to know what complete horseshit the idea is. It cannot possibly work out the way you think.

Very few have vertical room to expand as you have to convince the owners of said land to sell. People won't suddenly be able to move into new homes their old ones will simply become valued more. A boon to home owners and a cost to renters. I am not overly engaging in some of your arguments admittedly but that is mostly due to them not being applicable in an actual city. No one is going to yield land willing in those areas.

It isnt about raising wages for producing locally it us about raising buying power. Those are two drastically different things. I honestly have no doubt you have a handke in grade seven mathematics as you put it but your understanding of economics leaves quite a bit to be desired.

[Calfredd]

Is this the secret to why Venezuela is the happiest place on earth?

Would help if you had your facts straight. It's actually Denmark which is the happiest place on Earth and because of a lot of the things you've been fighting against.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I suggest @Krakan look at minimum wage value/increases in history not just in the US, but across the world. I suggest @Krakan look at inflation graphs, and then of course, @Krakan should overlap minimum wage value and inflation graphs. The US has increased its minimum wage multitude of times throughout the years, and it NEVER did anything to change the course of inflation, EVER, because that's not how inflation works, and that's not what a labor cost increase does.

Then of course, we don't just have the US as an example, we have a huge multitude of countries with economic histories and minimum wage. There has literally never been a time in history when minimum wage hike ever, EVER led to inflation. It's literally never happened.

You guys keep trying to explain this to them with math, but understanding math might be a bit difficult, so I suggest using another method.

[Endus]

Very few have vertical room to expand as you have to convince the owners of said land to sell.

Again, you're begging the question, here.

You don't have to convince anyone to sell anything, if you're moving beyond a capitalist model in the first place. Plus, eminent domain is a thing, if you want an applicable legal maxim we can apply right off. The idea that government has to be at the beck and call of capitalist developers is . . . not an argument. It's just you insisting that we can't move to a different system, as your argument against the possibility that another system could be a success.

People won't suddenly be able to move into new homes their old ones will simply become valued more.

Not how things work, at all, no. You're flatly ignoring supply and demand, here.

A boon to home owners and a cost to renters. I am not overly engaging in some of your arguments admittedly but that is mostly due to them not being applicable in an actual city. No one is going to yield land willing in those areas.

Why do you presume they'd have a choice? Eminent domain doesn't let landowners hold up government development. It just means government has to make a good-faith offer for a reasonable price, first.

And that's without getting into actual changes to the economic systems, which is what was being proposed, and which you're arguing are impossible. And your only argument is "that's not how it works right now. No duh. If you change things, they're not the same as before.

It isnt about raising wages for producing locally it us about raising buying power. Those are two drastically different things.

Well, no. They're directly related. "Buying power" is the relationship between prices and income. As long as incomes increase at a faster rate than prices, buying power goes up. Raising wages directly affects buying power, as a result.

And since applying massive taxes to imports directly increases prices to consumers, that increase in prices without an increase in wages directly leads to a reduction of buying power. For the same reason. Heavy import taxes or tariffs reduce buying power, because they raise prices. It's the citizens within the country who's enacted those tariffs who pay the revenue they generate, not the exporters trying to sell to them.

I honestly have no doubt you have a handke in grade seven mathematics as you put it but your understanding of economics leaves quite a bit to be desired.

When your arguments ignore how import taxes work and claim they do the opposite of what they really do?

https://www.investopedia.com/article...s%20a%20result.

"Tariffs increase the prices of imported goods. Because of this, domestic producers are not forced to reduce their prices from increased competition, and domestic consumers are left paying higher prices as a result."

You're completely wrong about basic economic systems. Stop making shit up and read some introductory information on this stuff from actual sources, not whatever bullshit disinformation rag you got this nonsense from.

- - - Updated - - -

I suggest @Krakan look at minimum wage value/increases in history not just in the US, but across the world. I suggest @Krakan look at inflation graphs, and then of course, @Krakan should overlap minimum wage value and inflation graphs. The US has increased its minimum wage multitude of times throughout the years, and it NEVER did anything to change the course of inflation, EVER, because that's not how inflation works, and that's not what a labor cost increase does.

Then of course, we don't just have the US as an example, we have a huge multitude of countries with economic histories and minimum wage. There has literally never been a time in history when minimum wage hike ever, EVER led to inflation. It's literally never happened.

You guys keep trying to explain this to them with math, but understanding math might be a bit difficult, so I suggest using another method.

Part of the problem there is that inflation is essentially a positive thing in a capitalist system; inflation reduces the value of cached funds over time, encouraging the wealthy to do something with that cash. Even if that "something" is often just "invest it for some reliable returns" or "buy expensive luxury items that tend to accrue value over time, like art or real estate". Inflation isn't an accident or byproduct, it's deliberately managed by treasury departments in various nations, in careful balancing acts.

This makes it easy for dishonest actors to point to inflation rates and minimum wage hikes and claim there's some correlation. And, of course, there is. Because inflation continues on, by deliberate economic principle, minimum wages need to be adjusted to account for that inflation. The causative relationship is that inflation drives minimum wage increases, not the other way around; that's wolf-howling lunacy and doesn't even make mathematical sense.

[Krakan]

Again, you're begging the question, here.

You don't have to convince anyone to sell anything, if you're moving beyond a capitalist model in the first place. Plus, eminent domain is a thing, if you want an applicable legal maxim we can apply right off. The idea that government has to be at the beck and call of capitalist developers is . . . not an argument. It's just you insisting that we can't move to a different system, as your argument against the possibility that another system could be a success.



Not how things work, at all, no. You're flatly ignoring supply and demand, here.



Why do you presume they'd have a choice? Eminent domain doesn't let landowners hold up government development. It just means government has to make a good-faith offer for a reasonable price, first.

And that's without getting into actual changes to the economic systems, which is what was being proposed, and which you're arguing are impossible. And your only argument is "that's not how it works right now. No duh. If you change things, they're not the same as before.



Well, no. They're directly related. "Buying power" is the relationship between prices and income. As long as incomes increase at a faster rate than prices, buying power goes up. Raising wages directly affects buying power, as a result.

And since applying massive taxes to imports directly increases prices to consumers, that increase in prices without an increase in wages directly leads to a reduction of buying power. For the same reason. Heavy import taxes or tariffs reduce buying power, because they raise prices. It's the citizens within the country who's enacted those tariffs who pay the revenue they generate, not the exporters trying to sell to them.



When your arguments ignore how import taxes work and claim they do the opposite of what they really do?

https://www.investopedia.com/article...s%20a%20result.

"Tariffs increase the prices of imported goods. Because of this, domestic producers are not forced to reduce their prices from increased competition, and domestic consumers are left paying higher prices as a result."

You're completely wrong about basic economic systems. Stop making shit up and read some introductory information on this stuff from actual sources, not whatever bullshit disinformation rag you got this nonsense from.

- - - Updated - - -



Part of the problem there is that inflation is essentially a positive thing in a capitalist system; inflation reduces the value of cached funds over time, encouraging the wealthy to do something with that cash. Even if that "something" is often just "invest it for some reliable returns" or "buy expensive luxury items that tend to accrue value over time, like art or real estate". Inflation isn't an accident or byproduct, it's deliberately managed by treasury departments in various nations, in careful balancing acts.

This makes it easy for dishonest actors to point to inflation rates and minimum wage hikes and claim there's some correlation. And, of course, there is. Because inflation continues on, by deliberate economic principle, minimum wages need to be adjusted to account for that inflation. The causative relationship is that inflation drives minimum wage increases, not the other way around; that's wolf-howling lunacy and doesn't even make mathematical sense.

I don't think eminent domain would apply here nor would it address the situation as you would undermine the commerce area of the city by adding apartments.

I am not really ready to move past a capitalist system so all of my point are going to be centered around that.

[Hinastorm]

Is this the secret to why Venezuela is the happiest place on earth?

I agree if we had limitless endless and easily accessible resources it would be an amazing idea. I'm far to skeptical to believe such a system would work out that way.

Though yes. If I accept your hypothetical situation without close examination would work. Though let me defeat utopia by utopias rules. Who cleans the toilets in such a world?

Spotted the fox news viewer.

Venezuela, and what they are doing and did, is not relevant to the discussion of re-vamping the US economy. At all.

It's one of the laziest, and dumbest, right wing talking points. Please don't go around parroting this baseless non-sense that AoC wants to turn the US into Venezuela. Or even more ridiculous, center right Biden wants to do it.

It's just full horse shit.

[Felya]

I don't think eminent domain would apply here nor would it address the situation as you would undermine the commerce area of the city by adding apartments.

Depends on the judge... Trump has failed filing eminent domain against people’s homes, to build a mall. But, it didn’t stop Trump the president with trying it to build a wall.

I am not really ready to move past a capitalist system so all of my point are going to be centered around that.

That’s propaganda, not reality... US is a mixed economy... We are not purely socialist nor purely capitalism. With Medicare as an example... How is setting an age limit on universal coverage, transform it into a capitalist principle? In the same sense, how is removing the age limit, turn it into socialism?

Anyone talking about moving passed socialism or capitalism, is an ideologue that can largely be ignored... because they don’t really want to discuss the issues.

[Elegiac]

I don't think eminent domain would apply here nor would it address the situation as you would undermine the commerce area of the city by adding apartments.

You do realise that there is such a thing as mixed-use zoning, right?

[Twdft]

Simply rasing all wages will lead to rapid inflation

You should inform yourself what inflation actually is and how it increases. A good start is to google "fractional reserve banking", I think The Case Against the Fed explains it well.

[Endus]

I don't think eminent domain would apply here nor would it address the situation as you would undermine the commerce area of the city by adding apartments.

1> Eminent domain applies literally anywhere the government wants it to apply. Property ownership, fundamentally, is only ever an agreement you have with the State, and the State has the capacity to adjust that agreement.

2> I'm not sure you realize exactly how prevalent housing is in big cities, even downtown. Zoning is often mixed, meaning you've got residential mixed in throughout the commercial. It's actually a lot more common to see exclusively-residential zoning than exclusively-commercial. Separating your city out into concrete, distinct districts based on single-use zoning is . . . not how any city on the planet actually works.

I am not really ready to move past a capitalist system so all of my point are going to be centered around that.

Then what you should say is that you're not interested in the discussion, and leave.

Lying about really basic shit and getting mathematics and economics completely ass-over-head wrong in an effort to apparently shitpost and disrupt the conversation is not good faith participation.

Also, yeah, no developed country on the planet is truly capitalist, y'know. Haven't been for nearly a century.