Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: jstcrsn Jan 29 2014, 01:02 PM

in our rulers "state of the union" address " , he wants America to raise its minimum wage to 10.10 an hour. Sounds good and kind and bla, bla bla , but that is almost 3 dollars an hour more than what it is now. Obama (you noticed how I capitalized his name to show respect that I don't have) talks about minimum wage jobs as if they are supposed to be the jobs that people raise their family on, They are starter jobs, now sometimes thats all people can find(see the current economy for many examples, under our rulers implementation), but for the vast majority these are young kids, that if they have any brains, usually have a raise beyond that within 3 months. despite the proof for how this trick has always hurt the ones the democrats say they are trying to help
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/02/25/obamas-minimum-wage-hike-will-raise-unemployment
it has always been in their bag of tricks that some fall for time and time again

do they have minimum wages in your country ?

Posted by: Mertay Jan 29 2014, 01:44 PM

I personally don't know a country that hasn't (maybe besides north Korea, everybody there is on minimum wage ).

The amount of minimum wage to me doesn't have much to do with ones needs although we like to think like that, in its core its purpose is in-humaine.

Its simply one of the wheels that keeps the economy flowing its standard no matter how strong or weak it is (if no or slow flow, that means the worst has happened). Rising it mostly means the expense (usually by taxes) of everything will raise too sooner or later, turning that plus to a negative in reality and such balance change of income is always preferred to be reflected to the people in a longest term possible so they won't react as strong

Minimum wage in Turkey reflects to a big percentage of working class like agriculture (unlike USA the fields here are smaller which means the lands are shared by more people), construction and jobs like you just mentioned that require more (very simply) physical challenge.

But this won't make much sense when comparing countrys cause each has its own balance and acceptance to it, maybe only similarity is that the minimum wage (no matter where) is never enough

Posted by: Gabriel Leopardi Jan 29 2014, 02:32 PM

Our president is doing something similar nowadays and the results that are being predicted are the same that the stated here:

"If he gets his way, and the federal minimum wage is increased to $9 per hour from the current $7.25, it will raise the cost of labor in an economy that is hovering just above recession levels. Higher labor costs mean fewer people get hired. Employers have to find ways to do more with less and look for other ways to economize. Unskilled workers get laid off, replaced by machines and higher-skill workers who are more valuable. "

In my country the things are difficult (as in many other countries). There is a lot of corruption, and politicians stealing money as it usually happens, and there are also very powerful rich people who can "stop" the country if there is something in the politician decisions that they don't like. I can notice some good intentions in their goal that is based in letting our industries grow, but they don't' implement good strategies and plans so in the end everything gets worse and people is unhappy.

Posted by: vonhotch Jan 29 2014, 03:29 PM

I don't follow politics much, but stuff like this always reminds me of a quote by Thomas Jefferson. "A gov't powerful enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take it away." I think all this would do is cause problems with small business's that can't afford to pay that, and the bigger companies that can are just gonna jack their prices up to compensate anyway.

Posted by: SpaseMoonkey Jan 29 2014, 05:08 PM

Yup and as they typically want it, the poor and the rich. No middle ground what so ever.

It upsets me because I started my job 9 years ago at the price they want minimum wage to be. So I went from having a fighting chance, to now I make enough to get by and get some guitars here and there. If it hits that price and the company doesn't compensate it, well I am now poor and may as well apply for some food stamps and government assistance.

Posted by: Azzaboi Jan 29 2014, 05:58 PM

In New Zealand:

If your 16 or older - min wage is $13.75NZD ($11.36 USD)

If you a kid or starting out as a training with zero experience (<6 months, <40 hours and under the age of 20) - min wage is $11.00NZD ($9.09 USD)

We have low level equal rights jobs, in which even people with disabilities do really good work and get pay reasonably well. You will find some kids however get paid more via other means. My friend worked as a kid part-time at the skate ring, they weren't allowed to fully pay in cash more than $11, so they gave extras as for free skate hire, free food, etc. It's not always about a high pay check.

Posted by: klasaine Jan 29 2014, 06:35 PM

The exec order of $10.10 an hour will be for contracted federal agency employees only. It's currently $9.00 an hour.
The proposed across the board federal min wage will have to get through two houses of congress. Pretty unlikely.

12 states already have a min wage higher than the fed level.

The USA is ranked 23rd in the minimum v. median wage in the world.

Posted by: TeoWulf Jan 29 2014, 08:19 PM

Our minimum wage in Hungary is 564 huf per hour wich equals percisely 2.5$ And the prices are genarally higher than in America / Western Europe (with the exception of basic food ingredients, wich maybe a little bit cheaper). The current american minimum wage is about 30% higher than our average income. It seems rather unnecessary to raise that.

Posted by: AK Rich Jan 29 2014, 09:09 PM

This is correct, but I don't believe he has the authority to raise anyones minimum wages on his own. Federal or Private, Does it need to be raised? Maybe so, but it is beyond his enumerated powers to do it by himself IMO.
A couple stories out today on other executive over reach.
You may agree with it now, but we will see what people think when executive over reach is done by the other party in the future if this allowed to continue.Where does it end?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/attorney-general-eric-holder-cant-explain-constitutional-basis-for-obamas-executive-orders/article/2543100

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304632204579338793559838308?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304632204579338793559838308.html

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jan 29 2014, 11:49 PM

Sadly, more and more Americans are raising their family on minimum wage jobs. Those folks with nice, higher paying, jobs usually think min wage jobs are only for teenagers. Again sadly this isn't true anymore. Half of Min Wage earners are younger, but HALF ARE NOT. The "other half" are between 25-65 and earning minimum wage to feed their families. Here are the Dept of labor Statistics. We have not hat this many people close to or at poverty in 50 years. It's around 5 million people. And that's not including folks not on the books.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm

Wages have been stagnant in the U.S. for median income workers for nearly 50 YEARS accounting for inflation. On top of that, in the "great recession" many of the jobs eliminated never came back are not going to come back so now you will find people serving coffee at starbucks with graduate degrees and the people that used to have those jobs are among the "long term unemployed".

But I digress In point of fact, Obama is only changing min wage for federal works on federal contracts. He simply "asked" the rest of the nations biz owners to follow suit. Not a demand, not a federal action, not a law, just a simple request to pay workers a bit more. That seems like a overdue request to be honest. But I have noticed a huge negative response on fox news and from right leaning media in general. As if he banished congress or something. Sad.

Well said But "facts" seem to rarely penetrate the bubble as it were

Posted by: klasaine Jan 30 2014, 12:17 AM

We Americans have never been real good with 'facts'.

As for fed min wage - and I didn't know this either but yes, the prez can by exec order raise the min wage of federally contracted employees - he, technically, is their (the fed contractors') boss. Also, that raise of 1 dollar and 10 cents will only apply to new contracts. So, in actuality, a minuscule amount of actual workers.

*Minimum wage in the States should be $15.00 an hour.
Min wage jobs haven't been entry level for kids work since the mid 70s. Which exactly coincides with the time CEO pay in this country went from being about 20 X's the average employee wages to 354 X's the average employee wages.
RIP Pete Seeger.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jan 30 2014, 04:41 AM

Great info in your post And yes, he can decide what people in the "Executive Agencies" can be contracted to be paid. And as you said, it's really only going to impact a small fraction of workers, NOT those working as subcontractors, just direct Federal Executive Agencies contract bidders on new contracts. So it's mostly just a show of effort on a much needed change. Does the Minimum wage need to be raised? Yup. 50 years of stagnant wages is just shameful.

The left leaning news outlets are mostly praising the decision while the far right leaning outlets are saying he's turned in to a "Dictator" and bypassed congress and it's a "slippery slope" to him taking our guns/money/taxes/property/souls etc.

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Jan 30 2014, 04:42 AM

If those are the facts then so be it, I am still not so sure but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And to be honest, the raising of min wage for fed contracted employees or even in the private sector doesn't bother me because I believe min wages are probably too low myself , considering the cost of living these days,but for me this was never the point.
The exec orders I am more concerned with are the ones that circumvent laws already on the books and the threat to circumvent other laws on the books as well as Amendments to the Constitution.
The President took an oath , and it is his duty to make sure that ALL laws are followed faithfully, not pick and choose which ones he likes and ignore the ones he doesn't like, or alter them to fit his agenda or to try and save face.
And these are not just the concerns being brought forth in right wing media, they are also being brought forth in media from the left as well.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jan 30 2014, 12:25 PM

ONE QUESTION have you ever owned a small business, delt with employees, tardiness, sick days, government regulations and then tried to make it profitable


same question

Posted by: klasaine Jan 30 2014, 05:30 PM

Yes, albeit very small. Sometimes I have to hire guys and sometimes I don't. Sometimes it's one guy and other times it's 20. I have a business license, I pay city business tax and I do a full sched C for profit and loss. I know what a hassle being the boss can be. I make my living as a guitar player but I also contract gigs (and recording sessions) with and for other musicians. I have to deal with other subcontractors - food, sound, transpo, occasionally insurance, tax IDs, W9s, W2s, union contract forms, release forms etc., make sure everybody who I hire gets paid and replace those (quickly) who either don't show up, get sick or screw up badly enough. I'm not dealing with un-skilled workers so It all pays above minimum wage.

I've also worked since I was 15 years old starting in 1978. Fed unemployment was 10% at that time (very difficult to get any type of job), min wage was $2.65 an hour. In Jan of '79 it rose to $2.90 (about 12%) ... I didn't lose my job at the gift shop. I have a family and a mortgage. My wife works too. She teaches part-time at the community college. We don't make a ton of money but I love my job (and she likes her's). For me that equalizes it.

The hassle it may be for me or for you to deal with the BS associated with being in charge is really not related to someone else's right to earn a living wage. Also, what I personally think min wage should be has nothing to do with what it will be. That's for two houses of congress to decide. My bet is that it won't be raised at all. Or, possibly only by $1.10 and/or scheduled to rise every one or two years with inflation percentage wise.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jan 31 2014, 12:12 AM

This is baffling me, how did someone get a "right to a living wage"

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jan 31 2014, 02:09 AM

Yes I have My small biz is called TLX INTERACTIVE (www.tlxinteractive.com) and we pay subcontractors about $35 per hour. It's mostly web work, coding that we sub out. So yes, as a matter of fact I run a small biz and deal with those things you mentioned all the time. And I still manage to pay any contractors a decent wage.

Seems like I"m not the only one to run a small biz

Todd

Posted by: Mr PowerChord Jan 31 2014, 02:11 AM

civilized society's create Countries customs and laws,
it sure beats people resorting to crime to meet basic living standards
I think you have to respect everyone's right to participate and survive
as a contributing member in Society as a basic human dignity

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jan 31 2014, 02:20 AM

CRSN, By your answer you then don't think we have a "right" to earn a living wage? I would have to say that we do have at least the right to earn a living. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". That last bit would probably cover earning enough to survive wouldn't it?

I have to say you seem really bitter and angry at the POS. He seems rather balanced and thoughtful to me so I must say I don't get it. But then again, I think it depends a LOT on what kind of media you ingest. Too much Fox news can be bad thing Any Rush Limbaugh can be a bad thing. I'd suggest adding more international news perspective if possible. Just to balance out the... perspective?

BBC,
PBS News Hour
PBS Business News
DW (English language news made in Germany with a European slant)

etc. I consume news info from Fox and Alex Jones and all the right wing nut jobs. But I also listen to the left wing nut jobs and then I listen to the folks above for some balance. It's really hard to get a balanced view these days but it is possible:)

As I mentioned before I noticed the right leaning outlets playing executive orders as a THREAT TO LIBERTY and his raising of min wage for just a few folks to a sign of things to come and the president "BYPASSING CONGRES". Little mention was made about how many executive orders the BUSH twins or Reagan passed. But again, most of those outlets are propoganda and commentary. Not. "News".


Todd

Posted by: jstcrsn Jan 31 2014, 02:51 AM

I just asked for clarification, and you guys start calling belittling my character, thanks

Posted by: Azzaboi Jan 31 2014, 04:05 AM

I hate all this crap, but can't help find it so stupid.

The government is surrounded by morons. This is what I would do...

1) Min Wage should just be greater than the Benefit (not working and living off the tax payers), but low even so small business can manage it. If on the Benefit, then you should undergo drug tests and be actively looking for a job on a daily basis.

2) Min Wage jobs should be part time (so people can study, etc) or temporary only (6-12 months, then kicked out for the next person to move in). During this time, you should be actively looking for a better job and just using this one as training and work experience. It's never ideal is sit and get comfortable with accepting min wage even as a kid. This also gives others min wage jobs quicker and progresses along.

3) Get a real job and quit complaining...

Job hunting is a b****h yes, but half the problem is no one can get the work experience to get anything better or they don't even bother to look, then they just get comfortable in their day by day slave labour, expecting nothing better for themselves. While others fight for the same low level jobs and the higher up remain empty - because they don't have the experience required. If your sitting in your same old job for 1-4 years and find it getting nowhere fast or don't even like it, look for another while your still working there, leave on a good foot but take a step up!

What is raising the min wage going to do? Make the tax payers spend more money on something that's already bottlenecked so they remain there more comfortable, therefore actually all you would be doing is making it worst... SLAPS FOREHEAD. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out, but yeah then again the US Shutdown was a real smart move too even thought warned about well in advance.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jan 31 2014, 04:17 AM

Not trying to belittle anyone Just espousing

Posted by: klasaine Jan 31 2014, 08:59 AM

Philosophically we have a difference of opinion ... and that's totally cool with me. I'll explain my philosophical POV.

We live in a country that exacts taxes, insists (on paper) that we be registered as a citizen/resident or are in the process of becoming one and abide by it's myriad laws or suffer penalties. IMO it's only fair to pay at least a wage that allows one to sleep and eat. I realize that that's all very 'general' ... a lot of grey ... but that's how I see it.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jan 31 2014, 11:48 AM

you called me bitter , went off on some liberal tirade against fox news( which I only have basic cable and have never seen it, not once)can,t get it , lumping me in with them, and I might be, but to post that, lump me in with them and then go off like that demeans them( and me cause you lumped me in their) , call it whAT YOUR CONSCIOUS NEEDS TO
dont get my wrong , i am not angry or hurt, but starting to attack ones bitternes or lack there of based on the question is what the liberal media does

Posted by: AK Rich Jan 31 2014, 12:43 PM

The right to a living wage has it's roots in socialism and communism and is inherently flawed because it would automatically and artificially drive up the cost of goods and services in order for a business to make a profit , this especially would affect small businesses. And then after the prices of goods and services go up, you then need to increase the living wage again.
It kind of reminds me of a public service announcement that used to air years ago that went like this.
I do coke so I can work longer , so I can make more money , so I can do more coke , so I can work longer, so I can make more money, so I can do more coke, until the guy finally explodes or implodes or whatever.
Maybe not the best analogy but I think you can get the picture of a circle that just keeps spiraling upwards and is unsustainable.
Also it may make business owners less likely to hire non skilled workers which could end up hurting the people a living wage is supposed to help because there are fewer jobs. Why hire a laborer in a construction job when for a few dollars more you can hire a framer who is much more productive and you don't have to train?
Maybe there are ways of avoiding this that I don't know of, and if there are I would love to hear them.

Posted by: klasaine Jan 31 2014, 05:50 PM

I can only respond anecdotally. A lot of large cities have min wages higher than their respective states.

Los Angeles (where I live), a city now approaching 10 million documented inhabitants, has a city ordinance of a minimum wage which is higher than the fed and higher than the CA min (which is higher than the fed). This is for city contracted workers (similar to the latest exec order). $10.91/hour, with health benefits, or $12.16/hour, if no health benefits (effective 7/1/13 and adjusted annually), 12 compensated days off per year for sick leave, vacation, or personal necessity, plus 10 additional uncompensated days off for family or personal issues.
NYC has a similar ordinance.
No employer that's contracting a construction job or food service gig, transportation project, or any kind of public works project, etc. hires a farmer (unless the farmer really wants to do that- ?) for that kind of job. Even entry level McDonalds jobs here pay .75 higher than the fed min wage.
*Both LA and NYC have huge rural tracts just outside the city so yes, there are lots of farmers here potentially for hire.

An employer never has to pay minimum wage. There's always undocumented workers and other 'shadow' work force participants - relatives, your kids, interns ... it all depends on the skill level you need. Illegal? Technically but I know restaurant owners who tell me that the fine for hiring undocumented workers off-sets the money they'd pay in wages and insurance.
The super right wing, pro business, laissez faire capitalist view is to maintain a high influx of illegal immigrants so that there's always an unskilled and low paid work force. I'm not denigrating that point of view. That's been a basic tenet of big biz since the industrial revolution. That's why it's so difficult to get any kind of immigration reform no matter who's in congress or the white house ... and why conservatives were so jaw droppingly shocked and awed at Reagans 1986 amnesty bill.

If the fed minimum went up a buck or two, from $7.25 to 9 or 10 dollars an hour, several states (I think 12) and many large cities wouldn't even have to do anything - as their minimum wage is already higher than the fed standard.

This is an age old debate and I doubt a bunch of guitar players are gonna figure it out. I try to stay away from rhetoric. I, along with other's may 'call' for $15.00 per hour min wage but I know full well that that'll never happen. It's the political bargaining process. Aim high and accept lower - compromise. My prediction: if there's real debate and some legislation on this, is it'll fall somewhere between $9.25 - $10.10 an hour for the fed min. and it'll happen w/in the next 2 to 4 years regardless who's in the white house or congress.

Posted by: jstcrsn Feb 1 2014, 08:52 PM

sorry it took so long , been busy and am a slow typer .so I knew it would take time
1st wanting to know your business experience helps clarify how I need to answer, in that regards I am glad you can pay a good wage ,and a lot of your work seems like its subcontract and is the prevailing market wage. mine how ever starts at minimum wage,
To have a kid come out of high school and some don't even know how to read a tape measure, and now I have to pay him 9 an hour when it took about a month and a half of training before he starts producing something worth considering as profit.Now the 9 dollar an hour guy is looking at me saying he gets the same for less work, and you now were this is going and you probably know about 30 percent more than an employee's salary is needed to pay taxes , insurances , etc. Thats why raising it to me causes me problems, I can't raise my bid or I don't get the job , so what am I to do ? I would much rather see states change it with regards to their needs . 9 in California is different than 9 here
Now the life liberty , pursuit of happiness
life and no one has the right to take it, liberty and no one has the right to take it, and pursuit of happiness -no one has the right to take it
this is the problem , when you empower your government to enter my house by force of a gun , take money out of my pocket , and give it to somebody else who you deem needs it, you in fringe on both my liberty and happiness , when you tell me you are superior and know how to better run things, especially the money I worked hard for, now before you go there don't start talking about me not wanting rules and government regulations because I believe that it is necessary , its just when you use them to take money to give to another person is were the problem is.
yes I know it sounds mean and angry , but to me it goes against my right of liberty. any true Libertarian feels this way

now minimum wage, yes 50 percent 25 and under , and thats sad, I will concead it has been a while since it has been raised and is probably due, but since you want facts I guess i will give them

fact the recession started in the last year of bush(even though the media was telling us we were on the brink for every year of the bush administration
fact in 2006 the senate and congress majority was democrats(seems strange we were not in a recession till two years after that)
don't say its bush's fault or it was worse than Barack' teams knew, to say either is ignorant because bush could not have signed some thing he did not receive from the democrat controlled house and senate, yes bush is at fault for these things but so are the democrats equally.
and to say the Obama didn't know how bad it is , clearly states that him and his team were incapable and unprepared for this .how do we know this. President Reagan inherited almost the exact same economy from carter( i am not going to give you a source, you will probably cry foul)but, why was there not a great recession then. Is it possible to at least do a little bit of unbiased wondering after Reagan did almost the exact opposite of Obama
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2012/10/09/when-it-comes-to-job-creation-obama-doesnt-hold-a-candle-to-reagan/
and as far as them not knowing, Bush new,on congressional record his administration , before congress tried( many , many times) to slow down the lending of freddy mac and fanny mae, being blocked by democrats at every turn http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac

Fact the bank bailout from bush , brought to him by the democratically controlled house and senate, don't say bush loved the bankers without saying the democrats loved them just as much http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26987291/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bush-signs-billion-financial-bailout-bill/#.Uu1AdLSGeQI

now back to minimum wage in the first 2 years of Obama, they could have passed immigration and minimum wage hikes and didn't.Remember there are no filibusters in the house and the democrats had a super majority to vote out the filibuster in the senate. Don't you want to wonder why didn't they if it was something Obama could have done ,
Back to Klasaine's post about neither one wanting to about immagration. It is atrocious and I myself don't want to send "law abiding" people back, but will be opposed to anything until are borders are locked tight.and am fearful that if they dont lock it before they never will , a new congress does not have to implement and can overturn laws not fully implemented by their predecessors.

fact Obama said he would cut the deficit in half , He has added 7 trillion and it looks like at least 1 trillion more each of his 3 remaining years
.So I tend wonder the last hike in 09 did not help and we don't have wiggle room.
In december the jobs report came out 76,000 new jobs added, now America needs 140,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with the workforce( coming out of high school or college), now how in the world do we have half the jobs created that we need to break even , but the unemployment number goes down by . 3 percent. Does this not make ant light bulbs of curiosity go off

Klasaine you say you would like 15 an hour, my first question is , do you think prices will not rise to accommodate , how much will your hamburger cost when McDonald has to double its wages, do you not understand prices will raise and we will be back in the same boat- but you want an example http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/28/pf/north_dakota_jobs/ , this is what happens when the government is not in the way 15 an hour for serving fries- this is how capitalism works , yes some make it rich- look at the true trickle down economy, not what they teach you works in a classroom , but real life. Would you rather have a guitar teacher that can play it or a guitar teacher that knows what the book says to do , but the other way( social justice) everybody loses every time it is tried.
Sure I now you environmentalist are going to go crazy, but there are enough resources in America to cut dependency on foreign oil and before you say I want to kill the planet and have dirty drinking water( if you were thinking this you are a die hard liberal)why don't we keep all this possible money here in the us while we learn to be greener, I am not against saving the planet, but it will take a while, paying a known enemy for it so we can have our cake and so called eat it to is ridiculous

Sure I know how far from this topic I went but this all relates and affects other areas
so Reagan 5.7 million new jobs after 4 years- Obama 800,000

I am not really that concerned with the minimum wage crumbs that their fighting over , but we know what works and a vibrant economy that would relagate minimum wage jobs back to a fist job, learning experience in stead of it being necessary to put food on the table sounds more attractive to me, but when will we say this 9 trillion in dept and more of the same ain't workin

Side not for you Europeans when we use the term poor in America, they still live better than the middles class in Europe http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/

P.S. no one minds the government taking something from some one else until they are the some one else, be careful what you empower your government to do, it might come back to haunt you

Posted by: Spock Feb 1 2014, 09:35 PM

It's a very tough position to side very strongly on - either way. I understand the plight of the minimum wage worker as well as the plight of the small business owner.

When we look at what happened - it all took place in the 90s. Remember back when everyone made fun of Ross Perot because of his funny accent, big ears, short-man syndrome and then claimed the government sent an asian hit-squad to his daughters wedding? Yea, that guy. Well, I voted for him. And I would again today. Remember when he talked about NAFTA and GAT and that big "sucking sound" of jobs going over seas, while Bush 1 and Widgum Clinton smirked?



It wasn't long after Clinton got elected that Levis closed up and went south of the border.

So, who is at fault? Republicans? YES!!! Democrats? YES!!!

When it all boils down to it, the ruling elite is at fault. And the ruling elite is corporatism gone rampant. As one of the "whack job right-wingers" said best, "capitalism without heart is just as evil as communism" - Glenn Beck.

And that is true.

There is no sense in blaming either of the parties - they are both to blame. It is going to take a true revolution in the U.S. to counter the current coupe taking place. China commands the dollar and any day now the world can decide to stop using it, because the world will realize that the gold which backed the dollar is no longer there - just like Germany when they wanted to audit their gold in New York and the U.S. government said they would have to give it back to them in a 7 year installment plan - then fell miserably short on their first payment.

The United States is BEYOND BROKE! And corporations hold the power in Washington. Look into Monsanto and others.

So as long as corporations are in power, the people will always be driven down to being no more important than a common gasket.

I just read an article today written by Pat Buchanan which summed up the state of affairs and how we got here, perfectly, in an article titled, "How the GOP Lost Middle America".

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/how-the-gop-lost-middle-america/

You want change? It's coming, one way or the other - and I hope it doesn't come via the current administration, the democrats or another term of neo-cons. We have to vote all these bums out of a job and stop listening the the MSM when they poke fun at anyone running other than the standard two tickets. That is the game, they have done it every year there is a valid third party candidate - and people lap up the venom like honey and pass it around as gospel.

We must WTFU as a nations and realize we're being played.

I'm sick of Washington, and these arguments will go on and on, polarized by standardized media, while the solutions are laughed out of the primaries.

Posted by: tonymiro Feb 1 2014, 10:54 PM

As a non-American I can't speak to the specifics argued here. I am of the opinion that basic Keynesian economics however works and that appears lost by current and previous English Goverments of both Left and Right. A significant aspect of such a policy is that people are paid more and so are also able to spend more on non-essential goods and services, which in turn generates more taxes for the Government and also helps stimuate industry. I'm not the only person who believes in this - Henry Ford did as well.

For what it's worth I do have a small business and I have also always paid more than minimum wage.

Posted by: klasaine Feb 2 2014, 03:00 AM

A little inflation isn't a bad thing. It's a bad thing for prices to stagnate, or worse - drop. * The 1929 crash and subsequent depression was all about falling prices. When I started to work in the 70s inflation was relatively bad. In the winter of 72/73 it was about 4.5% . During 1973 it more than doubled to 8.8%. By 1980 it was at 14%. The US was about to become a Weimar Republic. Between 1969 and 1980 min wage only rose $1.50 - from $1.60 to $3.10. Inflation is a result of many many factors, min wage in this case had nothing to do with it. There are volumes of economic tomes written on this specific period. Just Google 1970s inflation.

As I said, shoot high ($15) and accept lower ($9 to $11) min wage. 2 or 3 bucks is overdue and won't hurt anybody. Raising the min wage a couple of bucks here and there has never resulted in any statistically noticeable rise in unemployment or inflation.
Since 1955 the most min wage has risen in a year was 60 cents. The average is about 25 cents a year.

The Europeans at this forum may take issue with that Forbes article.
My wife is Italian from Italy and our son has dual residency/citizenship. All of her family still lives there and is middle class. I can guarantee you they live far better than the lower strata of our economy and 'generally' better than most of our middle class here in the states. I spend a lot of time over there and I've also worked there. They may pay more tax but they get a lot for it. I'm not sure what part of Europe the Forbes article looked at. Maybe current Greece and Albania - ? It def wasn't Germany, Netherlands, Italy, France, Sweden or Denmark. *Russia as well as Turkey are both European and Asian due to their geography. Neither are EU members and they have their own currency.

*Despite the rhetoric from both sides, US borders will never be secured. Bottom line ... it's bad for business (and this country is all about business). Immigrants, legal or not, will work cheap and long and they buy stuff (so even the illegals pay at least sales tax).

**The national debt (what we owe) is and has been huge for a long time (spiked really high under Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan and Bush I) but our deficit (how much we spend v. how much we take in) is going down ... fast. In fact it's going down at it's fastest rate since just after WWII and we even had a surplus in December. Many economists (the sane ones on both sides) posit that this is precisely because the govt. can't/doesn't do anything. As in,[i] 'no news is good news'.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Feb 2 2014, 03:53 AM

Always fun to engage in a little political banter Thanks guys!!! I'm switching back go guitar playing before this thread gets "partisan"

Posted by: jstcrsn Feb 2 2014, 10:17 AM

ever heard of the fair tax http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
would fix many problems, of course congress and the senate would never give the power back to the people once we gave it to them- I can dream can't I


this is what is being taught in most colleges these days, my opinion differs ( who'd of thunk it) http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4683/another_example_of_the_failure_of_keynesian_economics

it might work , but , to me human nature always kicks in and the ruling class always starts to get evil and the rich

Posted by: Spock Feb 2 2014, 02:26 PM

I feel ya man - me too, the last thing I want to do is think politics - most of my love for guitar is escaping that stuff and lord knows I get an earful of it at work everyday.

In a nutshell, I'm for the fair-tax. Pulling ALL troops out of foreign lands and using our massive "defense" budget, which is really an "Offense" budget to tidy up things here at home. I think there would be more than enough money for a nice healthcare system if we stopped using tax dollars to pay off debt used to fight wars in countries we have no business being in the first place. Individual liberties, and the government staying out of our living rooms and bedrooms.

Just seems the current trend is more Orwellian everyday.

Okay - I'm done.

GO SEAHAWKS!!!

Posted by: jstcrsn Feb 2 2014, 05:12 PM

okay for the hawks too just cause they have never won the dance

Posted by: klasaine Feb 2 2014, 05:15 PM

And create just as many more. I really don't want to pay 23% sales tax (it's actually 30% but I don't have the typing stamina demonstrate the math here - think mortgage/amortization) on a new house or car ... or utility bill, or dentist/doctor bill or investment interest ... food. And can you imagine the black market and potentially crime ridden economy that would manifest? It's a classic regressive tax. The wealthy can totally afford it, the poor can't and will get 'rebates' and the middle class will bear the brunt. I personally would stop a lot of my 'consuming' of bigger ticket items. I've already got my house. I'd never buy a new car again and I have enough guitars. I'd buy everything accept food and energy second hand (which I do a lot already). And so would many others. How would you regulate the re-sale market? Would you need an agency to do it? I wonder what the unemployment rate would be like after a dozen years of that?
Never gonna happen.

Posted by: jstcrsn Feb 2 2014, 05:30 PM

by your response you have not researched it for yourself but have listened to the bashers that lie about it,
goods and services have 22 percent taxes imbedded along the way to retail outlets
so it would fall first by 22 percent when income tax is abolished then it would raise by 23
so you would be paying 1.7 percent more for only what you purchase new( resold items are exempt)
but you would be doing it with 100 percent of your paycheck
no IRS thats the first thing that has to happens before it is implemented
please honestly look into it and don't regurgitate the lies

but I will be more than happy to clarify an misconceptions you might have heard, if you have a question , let me know

Posted by: klasaine Feb 2 2014, 06:10 PM

As I said, never going to happen.
As far as regurgitating lies - it's a system that's never been implemented. It's all theory at this point, from either side.

But here's the thing ...
I'm sure you can tell by my posts that I'm about two small steps to the right of being a socialist. I'm being serious. I'd personally pay some more tax if we could get our public transpo, healthcare and public education somewhere close to matching the rest of the civilized world.

And yes, GO SEAHAWKS!

Posted by: jstcrsn Feb 2 2014, 06:15 PM

so you basically have been scheming , trying to talk civilized when all along you have no desire to look reasonably at anything but press ever forward towards the prize

now everybody see ,everything Obama wants , this guy wants , and he has just confessed to wanting socialism

any questions class

man I am still beside my self, so happy , you know how long it would take tell some one who is on the fence about Obama being a socialist.
and now you confirmed all that, man, thank you

Posted by: klasaine Feb 2 2014, 08:36 PM

Lol! I don't scheme and I was never uncivilized in the discussion. I'm very compromising and very much a realist. I Said I'm two small steps to the right of being a socialist - as in I'm not. I'm a SoCal, left leaning democrat - that should be pretty obvious even from just reading my guitar posts. I never mentioned or criticized anything about your political leanings. My point being with the statement in my previous post is that we will probably always philosophically disagree (on this). Fine with me. It's America, we're allowed to.
*If our prez was an actual socialist there'd be the 'public option' for health care.

I can't get behind a 'fair' or 'flat' tax because the States as well as the Cities (whom we also pay tax to) would never have any of it. You can't have just 'federal' tax in republic of separate states. No matter what tax system we implement it will always be as complex as the one we have now. Which compared to a lot of countries is actually fairy straight forward. Again - I know this because both my brother in law and father in law are accountants in Europe.

I have a rehearsal and then I'm watching the game. Enough 'policy' for today.

Posted by: jstcrsn Feb 2 2014, 08:57 PM

enjoy the game

Posted by: jstcrsn Feb 3 2014, 03:01 PM

you show that you have not looked into it at all , when you lump the fair tax and flat tax together with quote marks you don't do it justice
it is not called that as some nick name, that is just the name business men cane up with after spending 20 million of their own money to develop this . I wish you would at least glance at it to make an informed decision http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxFAQ.pdf

There is an answer to your individual state tax question

and if you don't mind , just how is 2 steps from socialism different ?

3 tiered flat tax is what we have now, there has just been so many changes, amendments / loopholes since then , its this complicated

Posted by: klasaine Feb 3 2014, 06:12 PM

I know they're not the same (Fairtax/flattax) but I don't think either is feasible w/o changing the fundamental socio-economic and governmental structure of this country. That may be what has to happen for any real change(?).

Two steps to the right (as in politically right) of socialism for me is ...
*I don't think I need to elaborate but I'm not talking about current North Korean socialism or Soviet era socialism (those are/were dictatorial communism).
Universal health care (single payer), free day care starting at age 2 and a half and free pre-school, high quality and free public education K - 12, reasonably priced Jr. College (IMO the single biggest negative for this country is our current education standard or lack of), a higher min wage that adjusts for inflation, county, city, state and national museums should have free entry, national and state parks also free entry, higher percentage of public funds for public transportation, better care/rehab for returning veterans, more mental health care (when appropriate) as opposed to blanket incarceration for law breakers, drug addiction treated as an illness not a crime, marriage equality, way more oversight of financial institutions, pro union (in general), completely legal marijuana (I don't even smoke weed anymore), public works programs like the CCC during the 'new deal' era ... stuff like that. Things that I believe make society better in general for everybody.
In the 70's they'd a just called me a liberal democrat.


And as I said, I would actually be willing to pay some more tax if these things were addressed by fed/state/city govt.

315 million people within 3.794 million sq miles (9.827 million km²) is a very unwieldily amount of both land and people. Change is slow and expensive. I know that within the rest of my lifetime I probably won't see too much of what I'd like to change - so be it. Maybe for my kid - ?

And the Superbowl kinda sucked. Blowouts are no fun.

Posted by: jstcrsn Feb 3 2014, 11:51 PM

i agree with you

























blow outs aren't any fun

did you forget everyone's unicorn

Posted by: klasaine Feb 4 2014, 05:10 AM

I don't believe in unicorns. Now Bigfoot and aliens
*We had a fair amount of my little wish list under Einsenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon/Ford. Like I said, probably not in my lifetime.
























And speaking of unicorns ... change the tax system in the USofA.

We're both dreamers.