FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
The Real News - Does a higher minimum wage cost jobs?

The Real News - Does a higher minimum wage cost jobs?

(20:51) Economists Bob Pollin and Anthony Davies debate whether a higher minimum wage means less jobs for young people with less skills.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1256 days ago)

very nice debate, very well moderated. we should have a poll on this.

ReplyVote up (368)down (365)
Original comment

very nice debate, very well moderated. we should have a poll on this.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1255 days ago)

I actually agree with you for once. It was a good debate and well moderated. The two people with opposing views did not talk over each other or resort to name calling. I even liked how the guy on the left would say that the guy on the right was correct when he agreed.

The one thing that is always missing from these conversations is the domino affect raising the minimum wage causes. Let's say, for example, you raise the minimum wage to 10.10/hr. There are some people making $10.10 now because they have higher skills than an unskilled minimum wage worker. Those people will suddenly be making minimum wage and will be unhappy knowing they are getting paid the same as an unskilled worker. Why should they continue to do a harder job for the same pay as someone cruising through life at McDonalds? So those higher skilled people will demand a higher pay or they will quit and go "where the grass is greener." This causes a shift in pay for everyone at the lower end of the pay scale. It may take a little time but eventually all the lower paid labor force makes a little more money.

When everyone makes more money, the costs of goods sold gets higher and the increase in the cost of goods is a major contributing factor to inflation. Once you get an increase in everyday goods, the buying power of your salary increase is diminished. The salary increase becomes temporary and you eventually have the same buying power as before.

ReplyVote up (382)down (440)
Original comment

I actually agree with you for once. It was a good debate and well moderated. The two people with opposing views did not talk over each other or resort to name calling. I even liked how the guy on the left would say that the guy on the right was correct when he agreed.

The one thing that is always missing from these conversations is the domino affect raising the minimum wage causes. Let's say, for example, you raise the minimum wage to 10.10/hr. There are some people making $10.10 now because they have higher skills than an unskilled minimum wage worker. Those people will suddenly be making minimum wage and will be unhappy knowing they are getting paid the same as an unskilled worker. Why should they continue to do a harder job for the same pay as someone cruising through life at McDonalds? So those higher skilled people will demand a higher pay or they will quit and go "where the grass is greener." This causes a shift in pay for everyone at the lower end of the pay scale. It may take a little time but eventually all the lower paid labor force makes a little more money.

When everyone makes more money, the costs of goods sold gets higher and the increase in the cost of goods is a major contributing factor to inflation. Once you get an increase in everyday goods, the buying power of your salary increase is diminished. The salary increase becomes temporary and you eventually have the same buying power as before.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest God (1255 days ago)

They are useless. They would be more usefull if they manufactured some plastic toys. Anybody who thinks min wage has any major effect in life quality of masses is an idiot.

ReplyVote up (438)down (430)
Original comment

They are useless. They would be more usefull if they manufactured some plastic toys. Anybody who thinks min wage has any major effect in life quality of masses is an idiot.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1255 days ago)

I agree. Increasing the min wage is only going to get people not to be AS DESPERATE as before. In the US, they might get some people to no longer qualify for "middle class TAX sponsored food stamps".

I must say that i agree with the scruffy guy on the left... since he's for increasing the min wage and he's also... a LEFTist (get it? cause he's on the left side of the screen? ). And i Also think the guy on the left shot every argument the guy on the right had, but the guy on the right did get to have the last word, courtesy of the moderator.

As for cengland0's oppinion... what can i say, everybody allready knows what i think of it.

ReplyVote up (410)down (350)
Original comment

I agree. Increasing the min wage is only going to get people not to be AS DESPERATE as before. In the US, they might get some people to no longer qualify for "middle class TAX sponsored food stamps".

I must say that i agree with the scruffy guy on the left... since he's for increasing the min wage and he's also... a LEFTist (get it? cause he's on the left side of the screen? ). And i Also think the guy on the left shot every argument the guy on the right had, but the guy on the right did get to have the last word, courtesy of the moderator.

As for cengland0's oppinion... what can i say, everybody allready knows what i think of it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1255 days ago)

"In the US, they might get some people to no longer qualify for middle class TAX sponsored food stamps" Actually, as the guy on the right stated, those people may be replaced by technology and be completely out of a job. The current minimum wage is better then them getting zero pay. If they get the current minimum wage, the amount of food stamps and other government benefits is less than if they had no job at all.

You, along with some others, somehow think you can infinitely increase the minimum wage and have absolutely no negative ramifications.

As the congressional budget office report points out, if the minimum is increased to $10.10/hour, an estimated 1 million people will be most likely be out of a job while 1 million people in poverty will no longer be in poverty. This means out of 2 million people currently on minimum wage, half of those will be out of a job while the other half will be barely out of poverty. Is that a good compromise, in your opinion?

ReplyVote up (327)down (325)
Original comment

"In the US, they might get some people to no longer qualify for middle class TAX sponsored food stamps" Actually, as the guy on the right stated, those people may be replaced by technology and be completely out of a job. The current minimum wage is better then them getting zero pay. If they get the current minimum wage, the amount of food stamps and other government benefits is less than if they had no job at all.

You, along with some others, somehow think you can infinitely increase the minimum wage and have absolutely no negative ramifications.

As the congressional budget office report points out, if the minimum is increased to $10.10/hour, an estimated 1 million people will be most likely be out of a job while 1 million people in poverty will no longer be in poverty. This means out of 2 million people currently on minimum wage, half of those will be out of a job while the other half will be barely out of poverty. Is that a good compromise, in your opinion?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1255 days ago)

the information you provided is false even though you took it from a dot gov website.

Part of those million people work in the restaurant industry and the other NRA got their minimum wage (through lobbying) as low as 2 dollars an hour.

The i million dollar number is there because the anonymous person who made that report from your dot gov website is assuming that restaurant owners, based on their political inclination, might or might not fire them, so he/she puked up a number of 1000 000.

The minimum wage has only beneficial effects on the economy. Any other effects can be fixed through other government policies such as education, encouragement manufacturing of artisanal goods by small and medium businesses, and a lot of other policies that will not be put in place because corporations and banks like yours will always lobby against them.

Even the guy on the right said that this raising of the minimum wage will affect mostly people very young people that didn't finish or are not out of highschool. The guy on the left added that this will encourage peole to at least finish highschool and the guy on the right agreed that this is a good thing.

Automation is a reality, which is why the only viable options in the end, for ensuring a decent human existence, are a universal basic income, but i don't see this happening in the near future anywhere other than Switzerland, and syndicates. The problem with syndicates is that they eventually they will be managed by corrupt people.

The question remains: what kind of society do people want to live in.

I am sure that people want, at a minimum, a society where they get to call the shots through a democratic process, instead of oligarch ran kleptocratic society THAT YOU TACITLY and sometimes OPENLY endorse.

And fu*k you , you stupid fu*king lying manipulative codger banker!

ReplyVote up (351)down (334)
Original comment

the information you provided is false even though you took it from a dot gov website.

Part of those million people work in the restaurant industry and the other NRA got their minimum wage (through lobbying) as low as 2 dollars an hour.

The i million dollar number is there because the anonymous person who made that report from your dot gov website is assuming that restaurant owners, based on their political inclination, might or might not fire them, so he/she puked up a number of 1000 000.

The minimum wage has only beneficial effects on the economy. Any other effects can be fixed through other government policies such as education, encouragement manufacturing of artisanal goods by small and medium businesses, and a lot of other policies that will not be put in place because corporations and banks like yours will always lobby against them.

Even the guy on the right said that this raising of the minimum wage will affect mostly people very young people that didn't finish or are not out of highschool. The guy on the left added that this will encourage peole to at least finish highschool and the guy on the right agreed that this is a good thing.

Automation is a reality, which is why the only viable options in the end, for ensuring a decent human existence, are a universal basic income, but i don't see this happening in the near future anywhere other than Switzerland, and syndicates. The problem with syndicates is that they eventually they will be managed by corrupt people.

The question remains: what kind of society do people want to live in.

I am sure that people want, at a minimum, a society where they get to call the shots through a democratic process, instead of oligarch ran kleptocratic society THAT YOU TACITLY and sometimes OPENLY endorse.

And fu*k you , you stupid fu*king lying manipulative codger banker!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1255 days ago)

"corporations and banks like yours will always lobby against them" Hypothetically, if there is absolutely no negative effects to the business when you increase the worker's wage, why are corporations lobbying against it? Could it be that you're wrong and there is a downside to arbitrarily forcing a higher wage requirement on companies?

ReplyVote up (348)down (432)
Original comment

"corporations and banks like yours will always lobby against them" Hypothetically, if there is absolutely no negative effects to the business when you increase the worker's wage, why are corporations lobbying against it? Could it be that you're wrong and there is a downside to arbitrarily forcing a higher wage requirement on companies?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1255 days ago)

I am not wrong, the negative effects are reflected in the bonuses of the CEO's of the multinational companies.

The multinational corporations will oppose this because their CEO's want that bonus at the end of the year, and an increase in minimum wage might marginally reduce the profits of the banks and corporations. No more bonuses.

Plus, the right wing rhetoric has to oppose everything that is good for humanity (at least in the US) because otherwise there might be a domino effect where all sorts of laws will be passed that will destroy their kleptocratic system that they command.

the banks and corporations will always oppose this because the men that lead them want to be in control, want more money, more power and they don't give a sheit about anything else.

just like you.

ReplyVote up (343)down (331)
Original comment

I am not wrong, the negative effects are reflected in the bonuses of the CEO's of the multinational companies.

The multinational corporations will oppose this because their CEO's want that bonus at the end of the year, and an increase in minimum wage might marginally reduce the profits of the banks and corporations. No more bonuses.

Plus, the right wing rhetoric has to oppose everything that is good for humanity (at least in the US) because otherwise there might be a domino effect where all sorts of laws will be passed that will destroy their kleptocratic system that they command.

the banks and corporations will always oppose this because the men that lead them want to be in control, want more money, more power and they don't give a sheit about anything else.

just like you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1255 days ago)

You're mistaken again. Any additional profits earned by the company go to the owners of said company. If it's a small business, then directly to those owners. If it's a large corporation, then to the shareholders of that company through stock dividends.

CEO pay is unrelated to the minimum wage laws. If you raise the minimum wage, the CEO's pay will not go down. The wages are pre-negotiated. Sometimes bonuses are calculated based on profitability and sometimes CEOs are given stock options so the higher the stock value goes, the more their bonus.

If a worker at McDonalds doesn't get a salary increase because the minimum wage law is not changed, the CEO doesn't automatically get any salary increase unless their stock value goes up and/or they receive more profit for an unrelated reason such as creating more efficiencies through technology or using kangaroo meat or adding cheap fillers.

I don't know where you get your ideas from but it's obviously not from the real world.

ReplyVote up (331)down (348)
Original comment

You're mistaken again. Any additional profits earned by the company go to the owners of said company. If it's a small business, then directly to those owners. If it's a large corporation, then to the shareholders of that company through stock dividends.

CEO pay is unrelated to the minimum wage laws. If you raise the minimum wage, the CEO's pay will not go down. The wages are pre-negotiated. Sometimes bonuses are calculated based on profitability and sometimes CEOs are given stock options so the higher the stock value goes, the more their bonus.

If a worker at McDonalds doesn't get a salary increase because the minimum wage law is not changed, the CEO doesn't automatically get any salary increase unless their stock value goes up and/or they receive more profit for an unrelated reason such as creating more efficiencies through technology or using kangaroo meat or adding cheap fillers.

I don't know where you get your ideas from but it's obviously not from the real world.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1255 days ago)

your theory is correct, but your reality is fu*ked up.

You are obviously wrong, and the proof for that is the scandals in which your Bank Of America has been and will continue to be involved in, not to mention other banks and corporations.

your theory is there to disorient, it's just smoke and mirrors for the people who don't know any better.

Cengland zero, i've been around regional CEO's, i've heard and saw them act, i heard the rumors, everybody knows how the world spins, including yourself, i know i'm right and i am 100% you are wrong and you know it too, but you go ahead and say it anyway just for the hell of it.

You do it for the LULZ like a troll.

And FU*K YOU ! (for good measure)

ReplyVote up (375)down (324)
Original comment

your theory is correct, but your reality is fu*ked up.

You are obviously wrong, and the proof for that is the scandals in which your Bank Of America has been and will continue to be involved in, not to mention other banks and corporations.

your theory is there to disorient, it's just smoke and mirrors for the people who don't know any better.

Cengland zero, i've been around regional CEO's, i've heard and saw them act, i heard the rumors, everybody knows how the world spins, including yourself, i know i'm right and i am 100% you are wrong and you know it too, but you go ahead and say it anyway just for the hell of it.

You do it for the LULZ like a troll.

And FU*K YOU ! (for good measure)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest God (1254 days ago)

I can't decide which one of you is more idiot. none of you has any originial opinion but copy paste.

For a country production must be bigger than minimum consumption. It is so simple. If not you have several ways to make it.

If you can not increase production or the consumption is already at minimum possible, you either loot other countries or kill some of your people to equate. It happens naturally anyways.

the consumers in the order of highest to lowest:

-Mass population,

-govermnent

-rich people

The producers in th order of highest to lowest:

Mass poplation

Rich people

Goverment

So choice is simple. Replace goverment with more priductive system and convert goverment people backt to mass mpopulation who has to produce more. Playing with wages, taxes, laws will have only minor affect to production or minimum consumption.

ReplyVote up (363)down (340)
Original comment

I can't decide which one of you is more idiot. none of you has any originial opinion but copy paste.

For a country production must be bigger than minimum consumption. It is so simple. If not you have several ways to make it.

If you can not increase production or the consumption is already at minimum possible, you either loot other countries or kill some of your people to equate. It happens naturally anyways.

the consumers in the order of highest to lowest:

-Mass population,

-govermnent

-rich people

The producers in th order of highest to lowest:

Mass poplation

Rich people

Goverment

So choice is simple. Replace goverment with more priductive system and convert goverment people backt to mass mpopulation who has to produce more. Playing with wages, taxes, laws will have only minor affect to production or minimum consumption.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1254 days ago)

Out of curiosity, which parts of my responses do you think I copy and pasted?

ReplyVote up (407)down (411)
Original comment

Out of curiosity, which parts of my responses do you think I copy and pasted?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest God (1254 days ago)

I did not read your answers. I assumed so. I still do.

ReplyVote up (330)down (381)
Original comment

I did not read your answers. I assumed so. I still do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1254 days ago)

Don't you agree it's idiotic to make an assumption without even reading the very comments you made the assumption about?

ReplyVote up (329)down (329)
Original comment

Don't you agree it's idiotic to make an assumption without even reading the very comments you made the assumption about?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest God (1253 days ago)

Not if the assumptions are statistically supported. You like others are a product of somewhat less idiot sheppards and calling people idiot without consequences helps my mental mastrubation.

Unfortunately FED is looting the world by printing money and making the world more addicted to $ to feed idiots like you as a conventional backup. Yet the same idiots are the most complaining.

Did I say idiot enough? Yes. I am releived for today.

ReplyVote up (332)down (358)
Original comment

Not if the assumptions are statistically supported. You like others are a product of somewhat less idiot sheppards and calling people idiot without consequences helps my mental mastrubation.

Unfortunately FED is looting the world by printing money and making the world more addicted to $ to feed idiots like you as a conventional backup. Yet the same idiots are the most complaining.

Did I say idiot enough? Yes. I am releived for today.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1253 days ago)

For the record, I did not call you an idiot. I said it's idiotic to make assumptions especially without reading the messages from which the assumptions are made. If you took ownership of that and considered yourself to be an idiot (which is reasonable because you did perform the idiotic act I was referring), then that is all on yourself.

ReplyVote up (315)down (411)
Original comment

For the record, I did not call you an idiot. I said it's idiotic to make assumptions especially without reading the messages from which the assumptions are made. If you took ownership of that and considered yourself to be an idiot (which is reasonable because you did perform the idiotic act I was referring), then that is all on yourself.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Dan Delion (1252 days ago)

You are good at tweaking words but not building logic. Your broken logic will not stick. You say I should read first and then make assumption. Assumtions are made on things you dont read or know. There is only one situation you can make assumtion on something you read. If you are idiot enough not to understand what you read you can still make assumtion. Appearently this is what you do and Assume others do.

ReplyVote up (342)down (431)
Original comment

You are good at tweaking words but not building logic. Your broken logic will not stick. You say I should read first and then make assumption. Assumtions are made on things you dont read or know. There is only one situation you can make assumtion on something you read. If you are idiot enough not to understand what you read you can still make assumtion. Appearently this is what you do and Assume others do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1252 days ago)

You still have it all wrong. You shouldn't make assumptions. Period.

However, if you are going to make an assumption, you should probably use all the available information you have before doing so. You didn't even read any of the messages before making your assumptions.

If you read something and do not understand what you read, you should ask for clarification, look up those big words you didn't understand, or try to get educated on the subject. Making assumptions about something can lead you down the wrong path.

As for me, I do not trust what people tell me. I do not assume they are always right. I will read their point of view and then combine it with the knowledge I already have. Sometimes I will do additional research and then I will form an opinion on the matter. If I make an assumption, which I admit I will do from time to time, it is done in error.

ReplyVote up (338)down (416)
Original comment

You still have it all wrong. You shouldn't make assumptions. Period.

However, if you are going to make an assumption, you should probably use all the available information you have before doing so. You didn't even read any of the messages before making your assumptions.

If you read something and do not understand what you read, you should ask for clarification, look up those big words you didn't understand, or try to get educated on the subject. Making assumptions about something can lead you down the wrong path.

As for me, I do not trust what people tell me. I do not assume they are always right. I will read their point of view and then combine it with the knowledge I already have. Sometimes I will do additional research and then I will form an opinion on the matter. If I make an assumption, which I admit I will do from time to time, it is done in error.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Peter Bazooka (1251 days ago)

So educate me and clarify how idiot you are. Uncertainity principal dictates everything is assumption yet you claim you rarely assume. Are you trying to be promoted to embecil level? I read enough of yours and I don't assume you are idiot anymore.

ReplyVote up (331)down (316)
Original comment

So educate me and clarify how idiot you are. Uncertainity principal dictates everything is assumption yet you claim you rarely assume. Are you trying to be promoted to embecil level? I read enough of yours and I don't assume you are idiot anymore.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1251 days ago)

actually the uncertainty principle states nothing of the sort, oh and I think the word you are looking for is imbecile.

ReplyVote up (338)down (317)
Original comment

actually the uncertainty principle states nothing of the sort, oh and I think the word you are looking for is imbecile.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest God (1251 days ago)

No it is embecil which means imbecil who has nothing else to say but attack to the language. It is called uncertinaty for a reson flag carrier of embecils.

ReplyVote up (341)down (328)
Original comment

No it is embecil which means imbecil who has nothing else to say but attack to the language. It is called uncertinaty for a reson flag carrier of embecils.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1251 days ago)

From your perspective whichI guess is a pretty delusional world. Try studying quantum mechanics, and you might find out what Werner Heisenberg was going on about.. ps Its "reason" not "reson"

ReplyVote up (348)down (330)
Original comment

From your perspective whichI guess is a pretty delusional world. Try studying quantum mechanics, and you might find out what Werner Heisenberg was going on about.. ps Its "reason" not "reson"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest God (1249 days ago)

Try not studying QM embecil. appearently it does not help.

ReplyVote up (331)down (329)
Original comment

Try not studying QM embecil. appearently it does not help.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1249 days ago)

oh dear, lame insult syndrome. ps appearently is actually spelt apparently

ReplyVote up (323)down (337)
Original comment

oh dear, lame insult syndrome. ps appearently is actually spelt apparently

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest God (1248 days ago)
Latest comment:

No it is not an insult and I like it. Also it is lame as it describes you. I thnk you have "My brain is used as fertiliser so my ass speaks for me" syndrome. I wonder why would I create such a perfect ambesil in my dilusional world.

ReplyVote up (348)down (340)
Original comment
Latest comment:

No it is not an insult and I like it. Also it is lame as it describes you. I thnk you have "My brain is used as fertiliser so my ass speaks for me" syndrome. I wonder why would I create such a perfect ambesil in my dilusional world.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
BoreMeEditor BoreMeEditor (1255 days ago)

Good idea. Poll added.

ReplyVote up (330)down (408)
Original comment

Good idea. Poll added.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1255 days ago)

I think I just had an epiphany. Scrap the minimum/living wage - that'll keep people like cengland0 happy - and stop welfare if you work and earn less than what welfare pays (rather than welfare topping up low wages).

That way, there's no incentive for anyone to work for $3 an hour, because they will lose their benefits. What welfare pays in effect becomes the minimum/living wage.

It's such a simple idea I think it could just work. What do you think?

ReplyVote up (453)down (511)
Original comment

I think I just had an epiphany. Scrap the minimum/living wage - that'll keep people like cengland0 happy - and stop welfare if you work and earn less than what welfare pays (rather than welfare topping up low wages).

That way, there's no incentive for anyone to work for $3 an hour, because they will lose their benefits. What welfare pays in effect becomes the minimum/living wage.

It's such a simple idea I think it could just work. What do you think?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1255 days ago)

you mean like a universal basic income?

ReplyVote up (435)down (541)
Original comment

you mean like a universal basic income?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1255 days ago)

It's similar to UBI without the U. UBI is for everyone regardless of income. What I'm proposing is that everyone has a choice - they can either make their own income (get a job, start a business etc.) or the state will provide a minimum living standard - but not some mix - ie. the state will NOT top up low earnings. So if McDonald's offers $3 an hour, they will have a problem filling their vacancies. In effect, companies are 'competing' with welfare to staff their businesses.

I think it's an easier idea to sell than UBI because it is about cutting welfare and shrinking government, which would help to get neocons on board.

The concept is very simple - help everyone who is out of work with a 'basic income', but don't help anyone who is in work, whatever their income. The market will do the rest.

ReplyVote up (460)down (516)
Original comment

It's similar to UBI without the U. UBI is for everyone regardless of income. What I'm proposing is that everyone has a choice - they can either make their own income (get a job, start a business etc.) or the state will provide a minimum living standard - but not some mix - ie. the state will NOT top up low earnings. So if McDonald's offers $3 an hour, they will have a problem filling their vacancies. In effect, companies are 'competing' with welfare to staff their businesses.

I think it's an easier idea to sell than UBI because it is about cutting welfare and shrinking government, which would help to get neocons on board.

The concept is very simple - help everyone who is out of work with a 'basic income', but don't help anyone who is in work, whatever their income. The market will do the rest.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1255 days ago)

i don't see a good ending to this.

you are aware of gypsies (i don't care if i sound racist).

there are people all over the world with the same mentality and similar culture.

the government who's going to implement UBI without the U is going to have a bad time.

ReplyVote up (455)down (421)
Original comment

i don't see a good ending to this.

you are aware of gypsies (i don't care if i sound racist).

there are people all over the world with the same mentality and similar culture.

the government who's going to implement UBI without the U is going to have a bad time.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1255 days ago)

I don't understand your point about Gypsies. What's the connection?

ReplyVote up (424)down (519)
Original comment

I don't understand your point about Gypsies. What's the connection?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1255 days ago)

LINK and another one LINK

Just google it or look it up on youtube.

ReplyVote up (414)down (429)
Original comment

LINK and another one LINK

Just google it or look it up on youtube.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1254 days ago)

I still don't get it. What's the relevance?

ReplyVote up (409)down (439)
Original comment

I still don't get it. What's the relevance?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1254 days ago)

No relevance. Once again he is deploying the strawman fallacy.

ReplyVote up (399)down (423)
Original comment

No relevance. Once again he is deploying the strawman fallacy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1254 days ago)

the relevance is that there are people out there who don't have a work ethic and won't work at all even without a UBI or benefits. It's just how they are.

Governments who will try to implement UBI without the U will get a lot of public backlash (probabbly sponsored by the right).

People will be upset that others get money for doing nothing, especially when race or ethnicity is mixed into the equation, as it's allready happening all over the western world.

And that is the relevance of it.

I think walter watched the docu's but did you watch them ceng land zero?

ReplyVote up (398)down (383)
Original comment

the relevance is that there are people out there who don't have a work ethic and won't work at all even without a UBI or benefits. It's just how they are.

Governments who will try to implement UBI without the U will get a lot of public backlash (probabbly sponsored by the right).

People will be upset that others get money for doing nothing, especially when race or ethnicity is mixed into the equation, as it's allready happening all over the western world.

And that is the relevance of it.

I think walter watched the docu's but did you watch them ceng land zero?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1254 days ago)

I watched the first one. It showed me that the socialism in the UK is not helping the poor children. Maybe a different economic model that encourages them to become contributors to the community would be better.

ReplyVote up (406)down (377)
Original comment

I watched the first one. It showed me that the socialism in the UK is not helping the poor children. Maybe a different economic model that encourages them to become contributors to the community would be better.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1254 days ago)

well i strongly advise you to watch the second one as well, because you didn't get the point.

I am sure the second one is a lot more relevant to the idea that i'm trying to convay.

ReplyVote up (400)down (449)
Original comment

well i strongly advise you to watch the second one as well, because you didn't get the point.

I am sure the second one is a lot more relevant to the idea that i'm trying to convay.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1254 days ago)

No thanks. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice. . .

I used to watch all the videos you linked until I told you I wasn't going to do that any more. I now require you to summarize what you want me to know and then post your link as a backup to your statements. You failed to follow those procedures and I did watch the first video anyway. It was irrelevant to our discussion so I refuse to watch the second one.

ReplyVote up (371)down (374)
Original comment

No thanks. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice. . .

I used to watch all the videos you linked until I told you I wasn't going to do that any more. I now require you to summarize what you want me to know and then post your link as a backup to your statements. You failed to follow those procedures and I did watch the first video anyway. It was irrelevant to our discussion so I refuse to watch the second one.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1254 days ago)

it's a shame really. It's a nice 1 hour long documentary from the BBC about gypsies in europe. Heaven forbit you should get some sort of minimal education on anything.

Typical 'murican mentality.

you know what? don't watch it, i don't even know why i'm talking to you without telling you to go fu*k yourself.

ReplyVote up (392)down (381)
Original comment

it's a shame really. It's a nice 1 hour long documentary from the BBC about gypsies in europe. Heaven forbit you should get some sort of minimal education on anything.

Typical 'murican mentality.

you know what? don't watch it, i don't even know why i'm talking to you without telling you to go fu*k yourself.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1254 days ago)

That's what the first link was about. It also was an hour long. Why should I watch two documentaries about the same thing when the first one was irrelevant to our discussion? I don't have unlimited time. I wasted one hour on the first video because it was interesting. I don't want to waste a second hour pursuing your strawman fallacy. If you notice, WalterEgo didn't watch either of them for the same reasons.

Repost your link when boreme has a video about gypsies in Europe and it will be more appropriate at that time.

ReplyVote up (389)down (450)
Original comment

That's what the first link was about. It also was an hour long. Why should I watch two documentaries about the same thing when the first one was irrelevant to our discussion? I don't have unlimited time. I wasted one hour on the first video because it was interesting. I don't want to waste a second hour pursuing your strawman fallacy. If you notice, WalterEgo didn't watch either of them for the same reasons.

Repost your link when boreme has a video about gypsies in Europe and it will be more appropriate at that time.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1254 days ago)

I haven't watched the videos yet, I haven't had time, but if the point is that there are people with no work ethic, I agree. But you don't need a work ethic to get benefit today.

All I'm proposing is that welfare does not go to anyone working, whatever they earn. I know that sounds counter to the progressive thing to do, but I think the result would be a natural minimum wage at around what welfare pays. It's like the separation of state and company - either the state pays you, or the company does, not a mix.

Then the only people who could get exploited are those who can't get welfare for whatever reason. So if welfare was extended to include anyone not working for whatever reason - i.e. UBI for anyone not working - it prevents those people from being exploited. But it will grate with a lot of people, who'll argue: why pay some lazy *** with no work ethic to do nothing?

Don't get me wrong, I actually think the U is better than not. Making the basic income universal has got many benefits including simplicity and a real help for small businesses in unstable areas like the arts - it might even spawn a whole new generation of tiny part-time businesses creating a vibrant economy - but I think it's a difficult sell. It will grate with a lot of people, who'll argue: why pay people who don't need it.

ReplyVote up (445)down (464)
Original comment

I haven't watched the videos yet, I haven't had time, but if the point is that there are people with no work ethic, I agree. But you don't need a work ethic to get benefit today.

All I'm proposing is that welfare does not go to anyone working, whatever they earn. I know that sounds counter to the progressive thing to do, but I think the result would be a natural minimum wage at around what welfare pays. It's like the separation of state and company - either the state pays you, or the company does, not a mix.

Then the only people who could get exploited are those who can't get welfare for whatever reason. So if welfare was extended to include anyone not working for whatever reason - i.e. UBI for anyone not working - it prevents those people from being exploited. But it will grate with a lot of people, who'll argue: why pay some lazy *** with no work ethic to do nothing?

Don't get me wrong, I actually think the U is better than not. Making the basic income universal has got many benefits including simplicity and a real help for small businesses in unstable areas like the arts - it might even spawn a whole new generation of tiny part-time businesses creating a vibrant economy - but I think it's a difficult sell. It will grate with a lot of people, who'll argue: why pay people who don't need it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1254 days ago)

why pay people who don't need it, because there are people with no work ethic that get benefits for not having a work ethic, then thos people will be put forth by the right wing as a negative example for bad governmental policies, society will get polarised (as it is now) the government will be replaced the the UBI without the U will end as soon as it started. if the UBI without the U is only temprarry (like unemployment benefits) people are still going to be pissed but the government won't fall as easilly.

UBI without the U will never work. And i don't think i want it to work.

ReplyVote up (392)down (381)
Original comment

why pay people who don't need it, because there are people with no work ethic that get benefits for not having a work ethic, then thos people will be put forth by the right wing as a negative example for bad governmental policies, society will get polarised (as it is now) the government will be replaced the the UBI without the U will end as soon as it started. if the UBI without the U is only temprarry (like unemployment benefits) people are still going to be pissed but the government won't fall as easilly.

UBI without the U will never work. And i don't think i want it to work.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1253 days ago)

If your argument is that it's only fair we pay rich people a basic income because of the scroungers at the other end, then two wrongs don't make a right. There are much better reasons for having UBI. It's the only civilised way to deal with the oversupply of labour that I have come across.

I now realise that what I'm actually proposing is not UBI without the U, it's UBI only for the unemployed. I think 'full' UBI is the future, but it is a big conceptual change from where we are today. I would argue that a smaller step to semi UBI first, is more likely to achieve full UBI. But we'll see what happens in Switzerland.

ReplyVote up (371)down (374)
Original comment

If your argument is that it's only fair we pay rich people a basic income because of the scroungers at the other end, then two wrongs don't make a right. There are much better reasons for having UBI. It's the only civilised way to deal with the oversupply of labour that I have come across.

I now realise that what I'm actually proposing is not UBI without the U, it's UBI only for the unemployed. I think 'full' UBI is the future, but it is a big conceptual change from where we are today. I would argue that a smaller step to semi UBI first, is more likely to achieve full UBI. But we'll see what happens in Switzerland.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1253 days ago)

I disagree.

ReplyVote up (395)down (392)
Original comment

I disagree.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1255 days ago)

Wouldn't work for many reasons. One is that there are some people like the elderly that are already retired that just want pocket change or something to do so they want to have a part-time job at McDonalds. I have a friend that works at a corporation full-time and works as a cashier at a grocery store on weekends to make a little extra. They offer just a little over minimum wage and she still likes working there.

If you give someone the option to not work and still get benefits, some people will not work just because they are lazy. We do not want this behavior in a capitalist society.

I had a solution to get people off welfare -- for those specific people that can work but choose not to. The state will pay you for a short period of time, a couple of months after you lose your job. After that, if you don't find another job, the state will give you a job that is a menial task so boring and nobody wants to do. For example, cleaning up the trash on the sides of the road. If you don't show up for work, you don't get paid. If the state already has enough people to do all the work it needs, then have those people occupy a room without a TV and do not let them talk on their cell phones for 9 hours (with an hour for lunch). Again, if they don't show up, they don't get their welfare check. At least the state would be getting some services for the money that's paid.

ReplyVote up (381)down (399)
Original comment

Wouldn't work for many reasons. One is that there are some people like the elderly that are already retired that just want pocket change or something to do so they want to have a part-time job at McDonalds. I have a friend that works at a corporation full-time and works as a cashier at a grocery store on weekends to make a little extra. They offer just a little over minimum wage and she still likes working there.

If you give someone the option to not work and still get benefits, some people will not work just because they are lazy. We do not want this behavior in a capitalist society.

I had a solution to get people off welfare -- for those specific people that can work but choose not to. The state will pay you for a short period of time, a couple of months after you lose your job. After that, if you don't find another job, the state will give you a job that is a menial task so boring and nobody wants to do. For example, cleaning up the trash on the sides of the road. If you don't show up for work, you don't get paid. If the state already has enough people to do all the work it needs, then have those people occupy a room without a TV and do not let them talk on their cell phones for 9 hours (with an hour for lunch). Again, if they don't show up, they don't get their welfare check. At least the state would be getting some services for the money that's paid.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1254 days ago)

I don't see why part time work should be a problem. Say the 'basic income' is $10 an hour. If you work 10 hours a week, you will not get 10 hours of basic income. That means that part-time work would be offered at $10+ an hour, otherwise the positions would be difficult to fill.

But the elephant in the room is that there will never be enough jobs. And the oversupply of people is increasing rapidly. The idea of full employment is from the last century. The world has changed forever.

None of your ideas take this impending mathematical fact into account. All of your ideas end up with a lot of people left fending for themselves, which will only result in a society more like Somalia than Sweden.

The reality is (or will be very soon) that every job a work-shy person takes, that's one less job for people who really want to work.

ReplyVote up (462)down (388)
Original comment

I don't see why part time work should be a problem. Say the 'basic income' is $10 an hour. If you work 10 hours a week, you will not get 10 hours of basic income. That means that part-time work would be offered at $10+ an hour, otherwise the positions would be difficult to fill.

But the elephant in the room is that there will never be enough jobs. And the oversupply of people is increasing rapidly. The idea of full employment is from the last century. The world has changed forever.

None of your ideas take this impending mathematical fact into account. All of your ideas end up with a lot of people left fending for themselves, which will only result in a society more like Somalia than Sweden.

The reality is (or will be very soon) that every job a work-shy person takes, that's one less job for people who really want to work.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1254 days ago)

It is policy that is causing people to be underemployed. For example, the Affordable Healthcare Act (a.k.a., Obamacare) requires that employers give their fulltime employees health insurance. So what do you see happening now? Answer: Employers are hiring part time employees only. This is the result of the government meddling with the private sector. Now those people still do not have employer provided healthcare and they have less employment than before.

There is plenty of work to go around. I would hire many more people if the cost of labor was cheaper. Companies would rather hire someone domestically and there are plenty of people out of work but the minimum wage laws make it more affordable to contract out those services to a 3rd world country where the labor is cheaper.

All the rules and regulations necessary to hire someone permanently is ridiculous. It requires you to hire a human resource organization to make sure the tax withholdings and other regulations are adhered to. It is this reason that my business hires contractors only. They are paid a set amount and must account for their own health care and tax burdens. I do not have to pay into their social security or medicare either. It’s like paying a plumber to unclog your sink — they are not technically an employee of yours but is a contractor instead. As a self-employed individual, they must pay those taxes themselves — just like I do for my own businesses. I pay an IRS enrolled agent to do my paperwork for me because it’s very complicated otherwise.

ReplyVote up (373)down (407)
Original comment

It is policy that is causing people to be underemployed. For example, the Affordable Healthcare Act (a.k.a., Obamacare) requires that employers give their fulltime employees health insurance. So what do you see happening now? Answer: Employers are hiring part time employees only. This is the result of the government meddling with the private sector. Now those people still do not have employer provided healthcare and they have less employment than before.

There is plenty of work to go around. I would hire many more people if the cost of labor was cheaper. Companies would rather hire someone domestically and there are plenty of people out of work but the minimum wage laws make it more affordable to contract out those services to a 3rd world country where the labor is cheaper.

All the rules and regulations necessary to hire someone permanently is ridiculous. It requires you to hire a human resource organization to make sure the tax withholdings and other regulations are adhered to. It is this reason that my business hires contractors only. They are paid a set amount and must account for their own health care and tax burdens. I do not have to pay into their social security or medicare either. It’s like paying a plumber to unclog your sink — they are not technically an employee of yours but is a contractor instead. As a self-employed individual, they must pay those taxes themselves — just like I do for my own businesses. I pay an IRS enrolled agent to do my paperwork for me because it’s very complicated otherwise.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1253 days ago)

Of course policy affects the employment rate, but its small compared with the biggest drivers - the incredible advances in technology coupled with the "profit at any cost" ethic of capitalism, and population growth.

Full employment Ukraine style is one option I guess, but not my favourite. Accepting reality (that there will always be an oversupply of labour) is a much better way forward. We can either support the growing unemployed (e.g. UBI), or leave people to fend for themselves (Mad Max in Somalia). All your ideas edge us closer to Somalia.

ReplyVote up (385)down (377)
Original comment

Of course policy affects the employment rate, but its small compared with the biggest drivers - the incredible advances in technology coupled with the "profit at any cost" ethic of capitalism, and population growth.

Full employment Ukraine style is one option I guess, but not my favourite. Accepting reality (that there will always be an oversupply of labour) is a much better way forward. We can either support the growing unemployed (e.g. UBI), or leave people to fend for themselves (Mad Max in Somalia). All your ideas edge us closer to Somalia.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1253 days ago)

Note that the advances in technology is driven by the need to reduce labor costs. When was the last time you called a company to ask about a bill or their service and was able to speak to an associate right away? Instead you are required to go through a voice response unit that is designed to give you your balance and other details without having to speak with an employee. The only reason this is done is so they don't have to hire additional people to answer simple questions that a machine can do for virtually free.

Profit at any cost ethic doesn't really exist except in your imagination. Most large corporations do want to increase profits every year because investors need to see growth in their money or they will sell their shares and go to another company that does show growth. However, those large companies still donate large amounts to charity and their local community. My company, for example, gives every employee a couple hours every week to do charitable work and still get paid by the company while doing that work. The company matches donations made by employees to charity and sponsors community events. If they only cared about profit at any cost, they would not spend that extra money.

The population growth is a myth. I'm pretty sure you watched Hans Rosling's many videos on this subject because they have been posted right here on Boreme. They are very good and explain to have a population growth, you must have more than 2 children per woman. The number of children people have depend on a couple factors such as education, child survivor rate, income, etc. He also explains the gap that, once filled, will cause the population to remain at 10 billion for the planet. If you don't remember this information, I suggest you look him up on Boreme and/or youtube and watch them again. He uses unique ways to visualize the statistics.

It is my belief that our differences of opinion is that you're pro wealth redistribution and I'm all for keeping the majority of what I rightfully earned. It annoys me to see some of the clients Mrs. cengland0 gives state and federal benefits to when it's obvious those people could work if they wanted to. It's easier to live off other people than it is to do actual labor. I would like to stop that abuse and have conflicting feelings about it because of innocent children. The problem is that I care about the children born into poverty and they did not choose their parents so I don't want to see them suffer but those parents keep having more and more children to get more benefits. It's a scam and something needs to be done about it without hurting the innocent children.

ReplyVote up (371)down (390)
Original comment

Note that the advances in technology is driven by the need to reduce labor costs. When was the last time you called a company to ask about a bill or their service and was able to speak to an associate right away? Instead you are required to go through a voice response unit that is designed to give you your balance and other details without having to speak with an employee. The only reason this is done is so they don't have to hire additional people to answer simple questions that a machine can do for virtually free.

Profit at any cost ethic doesn't really exist except in your imagination. Most large corporations do want to increase profits every year because investors need to see growth in their money or they will sell their shares and go to another company that does show growth. However, those large companies still donate large amounts to charity and their local community. My company, for example, gives every employee a couple hours every week to do charitable work and still get paid by the company while doing that work. The company matches donations made by employees to charity and sponsors community events. If they only cared about profit at any cost, they would not spend that extra money.

The population growth is a myth. I'm pretty sure you watched Hans Rosling's many videos on this subject because they have been posted right here on Boreme. They are very good and explain to have a population growth, you must have more than 2 children per woman. The number of children people have depend on a couple factors such as education, child survivor rate, income, etc. He also explains the gap that, once filled, will cause the population to remain at 10 billion for the planet. If you don't remember this information, I suggest you look him up on Boreme and/or youtube and watch them again. He uses unique ways to visualize the statistics.

It is my belief that our differences of opinion is that you're pro wealth redistribution and I'm all for keeping the majority of what I rightfully earned. It annoys me to see some of the clients Mrs. cengland0 gives state and federal benefits to when it's obvious those people could work if they wanted to. It's easier to live off other people than it is to do actual labor. I would like to stop that abuse and have conflicting feelings about it because of innocent children. The problem is that I care about the children born into poverty and they did not choose their parents so I don't want to see them suffer but those parents keep having more and more children to get more benefits. It's a scam and something needs to be done about it without hurting the innocent children.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1253 days ago)

Do you think Toyota would dump their robots if there was no minimum wage? Or maybe people will eat more burgers so that new McDonald's staff have something to do.

The minimum wage is a small factor in employment rate, but which way is debatable. I think the minimum wage increases employment overall - because poor people have more money to spend. Poor people don't save, they spend their money on real products that directly help the businesses that produce them, thereby recycling that money, boosting the economy and creating jobs.

From LINK - Last December, the progressive Economic Policy Institute released a report claiming that Obama's proposal (raising the minimum wage) would create 85,000 jobs. The following month, 600 progressive economists signed a letter calling for the increase to $10.10 in part because it “could have a small stimulative effect on the economy.”

Messing around with wages will not create full employment because wages is a small factor in the unemployment rate. It is a mathematical fact that there is, and will be forever as far as we're concerned, an oversupply of labour. Full employment is an idea from the last century. Get over it, it's not coming back, even if we ever had it.

Population growth is not a myth. The population is growing but the rate of growth is slowing... thankfully. The UN predict it to stabilise at around 11 billion, maybe around 2050. That's 4 billion more than today. I suggest you revisit Hans Rosling.

Our differences are not that I'm pro wealth distribution and you're not. The difference is that I'm looking for solutions that benefit everyone and create a world that is relatively peaceful and harmonius. You are angry that Mrs cengland0 is giving benefit to some scounger.

ReplyVote up (395)down (463)
Original comment

Do you think Toyota would dump their robots if there was no minimum wage? Or maybe people will eat more burgers so that new McDonald's staff have something to do.

The minimum wage is a small factor in employment rate, but which way is debatable. I think the minimum wage increases employment overall - because poor people have more money to spend. Poor people don't save, they spend their money on real products that directly help the businesses that produce them, thereby recycling that money, boosting the economy and creating jobs.

From LINK - Last December, the progressive Economic Policy Institute released a report claiming that Obama's proposal (raising the minimum wage) would create 85,000 jobs. The following month, 600 progressive economists signed a letter calling for the increase to $10.10 in part because it “could have a small stimulative effect on the economy.”

Messing around with wages will not create full employment because wages is a small factor in the unemployment rate. It is a mathematical fact that there is, and will be forever as far as we're concerned, an oversupply of labour. Full employment is an idea from the last century. Get over it, it's not coming back, even if we ever had it.

Population growth is not a myth. The population is growing but the rate of growth is slowing... thankfully. The UN predict it to stabilise at around 11 billion, maybe around 2050. That's 4 billion more than today. I suggest you revisit Hans Rosling.

Our differences are not that I'm pro wealth distribution and you're not. The difference is that I'm looking for solutions that benefit everyone and create a world that is relatively peaceful and harmonius. You are angry that Mrs cengland0 is giving benefit to some scounger.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1253 days ago)

"Obama's proposal (raising the minimum wage) would create 85,000 jobs." That article was written by Jason Toon. I know him, he's an former comedy writer for one of my favorite sites called woot. He's not the political expert you would expect to know this kind of information so I would trust the congressional budget committee's report on this matter. They state out of 2 million people in poverty, half of those will lose their jobs and half of them will be minimally out of poverty if the wage is raised to $10.10/hour.

"It is a mathematical fact that there is, and will be forever as far as we're concerned, an oversupply of labour." Not necessarily true either. If we hired within our own country and did not outsource, we would have a massive surplus of jobs and not enough qualified people to fill those jobs. Believe it or not, we have a surplus of jobs right now. There are 3 million "shovel-ready" jobs open but nobody wants them. It is also stated that if you know how to weld and move to Indiana, you can practically write your own paycheck because there is a big need for those workers there. We cannot find enough people to pick our apples and oranges. Last year we let apples spoil because nobody was available to harvest them.

Too many people are going to college and getting a degree in medieval literature or renaissance art. In my opinion, instead of learning something they enjoy, they should be learning a trade that is marketable instead. The top 10 worst college majors according to Forbes are: Anthropology and Archeology; Film, Video, and Photographic Arts; Fine Arts, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Liberal Arts, Music, Physical Fitness and Parks Recreation, Commercial Art and Graphic Design, History, English Language and Literature. So why do people continue to get those useless degrees considering the unemployment rate for those people is higher than the norm. Because people want to do something they enjoy rather than something that is needed in the world. Well, I hate to break it to you but not everyone can make a living playing video games (There are a few game testers but not enough open positions for everyone that wants that job).

“The population is growing but the rate of growth is slowing” I knew that and that’s because the gap is filling up and I mentioned it in my previous message.
“I'm looking for solutions that benefit everyone” You can stop looking then because if you think you can tax the rich and give that to the poor, that is not benefiting the rich.

ReplyVote up (370)down (354)
Original comment

"Obama's proposal (raising the minimum wage) would create 85,000 jobs." That article was written by Jason Toon. I know him, he's an former comedy writer for one of my favorite sites called woot. He's not the political expert you would expect to know this kind of information so I would trust the congressional budget committee's report on this matter. They state out of 2 million people in poverty, half of those will lose their jobs and half of them will be minimally out of poverty if the wage is raised to $10.10/hour.

"It is a mathematical fact that there is, and will be forever as far as we're concerned, an oversupply of labour." Not necessarily true either. If we hired within our own country and did not outsource, we would have a massive surplus of jobs and not enough qualified people to fill those jobs. Believe it or not, we have a surplus of jobs right now. There are 3 million "shovel-ready" jobs open but nobody wants them. It is also stated that if you know how to weld and move to Indiana, you can practically write your own paycheck because there is a big need for those workers there. We cannot find enough people to pick our apples and oranges. Last year we let apples spoil because nobody was available to harvest them.

Too many people are going to college and getting a degree in medieval literature or renaissance art. In my opinion, instead of learning something they enjoy, they should be learning a trade that is marketable instead. The top 10 worst college majors according to Forbes are: Anthropology and Archeology; Film, Video, and Photographic Arts; Fine Arts, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Liberal Arts, Music, Physical Fitness and Parks Recreation, Commercial Art and Graphic Design, History, English Language and Literature. So why do people continue to get those useless degrees considering the unemployment rate for those people is higher than the norm. Because people want to do something they enjoy rather than something that is needed in the world. Well, I hate to break it to you but not everyone can make a living playing video games (There are a few game testers but not enough open positions for everyone that wants that job).

“The population is growing but the rate of growth is slowing” I knew that and that’s because the gap is filling up and I mentioned it in my previous message.
“I'm looking for solutions that benefit everyone” You can stop looking then because if you think you can tax the rich and give that to the poor, that is not benefiting the rich.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1251 days ago)

Whether raising the minimum wage will create or lose jobs, I said is debatable. But the point is that the effect, whichever way, is small compared to the relentless and unstoppable advances in technology that replaces human labour, at all skill levels.

I'd just like to make a point about Jason Tool. Being a former comedy writer is not a negative talent for writing a political article. Comedy requires the ability to see things from different angles. Great comedy has a knack of revealing the truth - hence people like George Carlin.

Also it was the Economic Policy Institute who said that Obama's proposal would create 85,000 jobs, not Jason Tool. And 600 other economists agreed.

" If we hired within our own country and did not outsource... " You are quite fond of these sorts of 'ifs', points that are only theoretically possible. Another favourite of mine is about freedom of choice - you've said in the past: "if you don't like banks, don't use them", as if that was a realistic choice in the 21st century.

The idea that the minimum wage, or students studying unmarketable subjects, is significant regarding employment in the wake of technology, is actually just you not wanting to see the bigger picture. You are certainly intelligent enough to understand the bigger picture, but you are blind to it. You have the same problem with climate change.

And talking about students studying unmarketable subjects - I think that deserves revisiting some basic questions, like what sort of world do we want to create. We as a species, are smart enough to create an amazing sustainable world for the vast majority of people on the planet, but we all have selfish genes, which will ultimately destroy us unless we regulate. It's our choice.

ReplyVote up (378)down (446)
Original comment

Whether raising the minimum wage will create or lose jobs, I said is debatable. But the point is that the effect, whichever way, is small compared to the relentless and unstoppable advances in technology that replaces human labour, at all skill levels.

I'd just like to make a point about Jason Tool. Being a former comedy writer is not a negative talent for writing a political article. Comedy requires the ability to see things from different angles. Great comedy has a knack of revealing the truth - hence people like George Carlin.

Also it was the Economic Policy Institute who said that Obama's proposal would create 85,000 jobs, not Jason Tool. And 600 other economists agreed.

" If we hired within our own country and did not outsource... " You are quite fond of these sorts of 'ifs', points that are only theoretically possible. Another favourite of mine is about freedom of choice - you've said in the past: "if you don't like banks, don't use them", as if that was a realistic choice in the 21st century.

The idea that the minimum wage, or students studying unmarketable subjects, is significant regarding employment in the wake of technology, is actually just you not wanting to see the bigger picture. You are certainly intelligent enough to understand the bigger picture, but you are blind to it. You have the same problem with climate change.

And talking about students studying unmarketable subjects - I think that deserves revisiting some basic questions, like what sort of world do we want to create. We as a species, are smart enough to create an amazing sustainable world for the vast majority of people on the planet, but we all have selfish genes, which will ultimately destroy us unless we regulate. It's our choice.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1251 days ago)

"But the point is that the effect, whichever way, is small compared to the relentless and unstoppable advances in technology that replaces human labour" If that is true, then that is more reason for the government to keep their nose out of the private sector. That is not what the government's original mission was. They should not be meddling in affairs that have very little impact.

'if you don't like banks, don't use them", as if that was a realistic choice in the 21st century." Why isn't that a realistic choice? I buy things from pawn shops and I see other customers using them too. I don't borrow money from them but I see others doing it. It's a way to borrow without using banks. You can use payday advance services as well. You're just angry because banks offer a good service compared to the other options and you hate the fact that we make money providing those services. Have you seen how much payday advance and pawn shops make on each transaction? Banks are minor in comparison.

Your paragraph about what subjects students are learning doesn't address any of the issues. What does what you said have to do with people getting useless degrees that are not needed in the workforce?

ReplyVote up (365)down (365)
Original comment

"But the point is that the effect, whichever way, is small compared to the relentless and unstoppable advances in technology that replaces human labour" If that is true, then that is more reason for the government to keep their nose out of the private sector. That is not what the government's original mission was. They should not be meddling in affairs that have very little impact.

'if you don't like banks, don't use them", as if that was a realistic choice in the 21st century." Why isn't that a realistic choice? I buy things from pawn shops and I see other customers using them too. I don't borrow money from them but I see others doing it. It's a way to borrow without using banks. You can use payday advance services as well. You're just angry because banks offer a good service compared to the other options and you hate the fact that we make money providing those services. Have you seen how much payday advance and pawn shops make on each transaction? Banks are minor in comparison.

Your paragraph about what subjects students are learning doesn't address any of the issues. What does what you said have to do with people getting useless degrees that are not needed in the workforce?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1250 days ago)

I agree government should keep its nose out of the private sector, unless there's exploitation going on. Think about it. Almost all laws and regulations are about preventing one group of people from exploiting or doing harm to another group in some way.

I can't believe your answer about banks and choice.

I think you have very black and white views in a world chock full of colours. It's a trait you share with religious people. It seems you think the sole point of human existence is to make money. I'm not surprised you're not happy.

ReplyVote up (338)down (367)
Original comment

I agree government should keep its nose out of the private sector, unless there's exploitation going on. Think about it. Almost all laws and regulations are about preventing one group of people from exploiting or doing harm to another group in some way.

I can't believe your answer about banks and choice.

I think you have very black and white views in a world chock full of colours. It's a trait you share with religious people. It seems you think the sole point of human existence is to make money. I'm not surprised you're not happy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1250 days ago)

"It seems you think the sole point of human existence is to make money. I'm not surprised you're not happy." My opinion is that each human should be a contributing member of society. That's our purpose in life. There are deadbeats that live off the system without contributing anything. That is where the problem is.

Have you considered that I'm not happy because I don't have anything that I enjoy doing? I've accomplished all my life-long goals so there's nothing left to do. Money does not make people happy -- it gives them financial security.

ReplyVote up (371)down (388)
Original comment

"It seems you think the sole point of human existence is to make money. I'm not surprised you're not happy." My opinion is that each human should be a contributing member of society. That's our purpose in life. There are deadbeats that live off the system without contributing anything. That is where the problem is.

Have you considered that I'm not happy because I don't have anything that I enjoy doing? I've accomplished all my life-long goals so there's nothing left to do. Money does not make people happy -- it gives them financial security.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1249 days ago)

dumb twat

ReplyVote up (312)down (297)
Original comment

dumb twat

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1248 days ago)

It's not deadbeats in society who cause climate change. Or money launder on a huge scale. Or avoid paying their fair share towards society's basic infrastructure. Or lobby to change laws and regulations in their personal favour at the expense of society.

So when you talk about contributing to society, try looking at the bigger picture and getting less angry about those who have no power to affect anything.

It is true that money does not make you happy, but it is difficult to be happy without financial security. Humans tend to worry about the future if it doesn't look rosy.

I'm pleased you've achieved all your goals in life and there's nothing else to do. Maybe you just have a stunning lack of imagination. You could take up painting and follow in George's footsteps. He specialised in dogs, you could try ducks.

ReplyVote up (325)down (431)
Original comment

It's not deadbeats in society who cause climate change. Or money launder on a huge scale. Or avoid paying their fair share towards society's basic infrastructure. Or lobby to change laws and regulations in their personal favour at the expense of society.

So when you talk about contributing to society, try looking at the bigger picture and getting less angry about those who have no power to affect anything.

It is true that money does not make you happy, but it is difficult to be happy without financial security. Humans tend to worry about the future if it doesn't look rosy.

I'm pleased you've achieved all your goals in life and there's nothing else to do. Maybe you just have a stunning lack of imagination. You could take up painting and follow in George's footsteps. He specialised in dogs, you could try ducks.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1248 days ago)

It is people like you that drive to work every day that is causing climate change (according to you and others). I work from home so my CO2 emissions is probably less than yours. The money laundering was specific people in HSBC (A UK based bank) in Mexico that broke laws. You will find law breakers in every industry. You just focus on banking because that's the sector I'm in. I've asked what you do for a living and you answer self employed and then I asked for more specifics but you refused. You are afraid that I'll find a mass murderer in the same line of business that you're in.

"scroungers who have no power to affect anything" Each person has an equal vote when electing their representatives. Regardless if you're a multi-billionairre or living off welfare, your votes are weighted the same.

"He specialised in dogs, you could try ducks." You already know that I have pet ducks. I suppose there's some sort of joke in your comment but I fail to see the humor in it.

ReplyVote up (286)down (306)
Original comment

It is people like you that drive to work every day that is causing climate change (according to you and others). I work from home so my CO2 emissions is probably less than yours. The money laundering was specific people in HSBC (A UK based bank) in Mexico that broke laws. You will find law breakers in every industry. You just focus on banking because that's the sector I'm in. I've asked what you do for a living and you answer self employed and then I asked for more specifics but you refused. You are afraid that I'll find a mass murderer in the same line of business that you're in.

"scroungers who have no power to affect anything" Each person has an equal vote when electing their representatives. Regardless if you're a multi-billionairre or living off welfare, your votes are weighted the same.

"He specialised in dogs, you could try ducks." You already know that I have pet ducks. I suppose there's some sort of joke in your comment but I fail to see the humor in it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1248 days ago)

you stupid CC UU NN TT!!!!

ReplyVote up (157)down (168)
Original comment

you stupid CC UU NN TT!!!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
Burger King anti-bullying ad
Burger King anti-bullying ad
Virgin gets involved with Hyperloop
Virgin gets involved with Hyperloop
Questions about SpaceX's BFR concept
Questions about SpaceX's BFR concept
Can Tesla compete in the trucking industry?
Can Tesla compete in the trucking industry?