RE: The Conservative Voice
December 20, 2010 at 11:48 pm
(This post was last modified: December 20, 2010 at 11:59 pm by theVOID.)
(December 20, 2010 at 11:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:More people employed earning less OR Less people employed earning more?
Fuck....using that logic we could re-institute slavery and you wouldn't have to pay anybody at all. The rich cocksuckers would probably sign on to that in a heartbeat.
You can't get from paid wages to slavery full stop, they're mutually exclusive.
Rich people are automatically pro-slavery? Bullshit min. Bill gates and warren buffet seems so fucking likely to take slaves.
Any other non-sequiturs you'd like to throw out before I make my point?
Like I said, I'm for a minimum wage, but there is the fact that increasing wages across the board costs jobs. There is always an opportunity cost involved every time you switch the balance in a system, the key is finding an effective and sustainable balance in a system that is prone to taking adjustments poorly.
And before you start saying these corporations could afford it from their profits, what about the millions of small businesses that will have no such luck adjusting? They are the ones who will have to find equilibrium through some other cost cuts. Unless you want different wage laws depending on how much the business earns in profit? Good luck finding an effective implementation for such a thing.
(December 20, 2010 at 11:25 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:(December 20, 2010 at 11:01 pm)theVOID Wrote: What do you think is better? More people employed earning less OR Less people employed earning more?I think both are terrible options and neither solves the underlying problem.
The underline problem can't be solved. Finite resources and an expanding population is the underline problem.
What would be your suggestion to raising minimum wages without losing jobs and/or having a negative impact on small business owners?
Quote:(December 20, 2010 at 11:01 pm)theVOID Wrote: What does maintain a balance and make higher base wages attractive for companies is if business taxes are lowered proportional to rises in a baseline wages (or proportional increase in wages across the board), the only person who has less in this situation ins the Govt - Not good for you welfare fiends but in more centre-right systems it's effective - The business doesn't have to cut costs (which ultimately means fire lots of people) in order to maintain their bottom line.
If this were the case, we (US citizens) should have been swimming in jobs during the bush years thanks to a host of deregulations and tax cuts for individuals and businesses. Both of those things, according to the conservative philosophy, should have freed up money for them to do exactly this.
The result was that the economy jumped off a cliff and unemployment jumped into a rocket and shot off into space over that decade and we're still looking at the results of that and a number of other issues.
I am not a conservative. Pointing out their problems to me is like pointing out the problems with creationism and thinking you are scoring points.
Anyway, They did not make wage increases mandatory nor was the tax cuts on business, it was on the income of the persons - A business tax cut makes sure the adjustment goes through the calculus, taxing less after the fact is nowhere near as effective, so that is simply a false analogy.
Also, cutting taxes does not necessarily lead to more jobs, supply and demand is the driving factor behind that and cutting taxes for the top 2% with the aim of doing so is plainly nonsensical.
The problems in the banking system was part of the same flawed currency system that has seen it collapse multiple times since it's institution pre 1920s and did not arise from the bush tax-cuts, it may have helped, but it was not in any way the driving factor behind the economic collapse. The problem there was the net worth of the nation was (and still is) an imaginary number.
Quote:Clearly, I have every reason to believe that cutting taxes even more than Obama's recent 'tax compromise' (which extended and included more tax cuts) and Obama's stimulus (which included tax cuts) is ultimately going to produce either no results or statistically insignificant results.
Cutting taxes for the population must be done in proportion to a retraction in social services. Doing it for any other reason makes absolutely no sense, you get yourself into the red.
If he was going to increase taxes and increase social services it would make sense. Doing both a tax-cut and increasing social services simultaneously could have extremely negative consequences. Any time the balance is not maintained the peaks between high and low rise as equilibrium diminishes.
.