Re: OT My Prediction Came True

> > > > > Republicans don't want to pay for food stamps, school
> > > > > lunches, medical care, or anything else for poor people.
> > > >
> > > > republicans must be able to read a constitution. democrats can't even
> > > > read voting ballots. show me the "federal government acts as charity
> > > > clause", barbara? can you find it?
>
> Actually it's the first sentence.
>
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defense,
> promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
> and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
> States of America."
>
> It's about promoting the general welfare.

at the time of the revolutionary war, when this document was devised and
written, there was NO federal income tax. you can't even begin to assert
that what the federal government has become was intended by the framers.

> It didn't become nessesary for the feds to take it on until the 1930's. 
During
> the 19th century, cities and counties took on the responsibility of providing
> support for the local needy. 
>
> After the civil war some sothern states started to take over some
> responsibilities for welfare in the southern states.  The cities took on many
> homeless freed slaves.  It became especially a big problem in New Orleans,
and
> Louisisana was one of the first states that took over responsibilties for
> housing the homeless because of that.
>
> By the beginning of the 20th century, aid to single mothers from the states
was
> commonplace and some states had established old age pensions.
>
> But, the depression pretty much put all that to rest.  Only the Feds could
print
> money.  So FDR started up the work programs, but single moms and old folks,
> people who couldn't work, needed help also and the local and state
governments
> were broke.  So we started up fed sponsered aid to dependent children and
social
> security.  It was intended to be temporary, but it worked so well that we're
> still doing it.

that we're still doing it has nothing whatsoever to do with the programs'
success. entitlements create lifelong dependants and motivated voters.
most politicians are whores whose self-interest interferes with their
ability to do what's right in the long run. weening dependants from the
system is good for the nation, but tough for whore politicians to manage.

> But, the constitution certainly allows for it.

the constitution's a lot like the bible; it allows for a lot of silly
things......or are you going to define what's in the "general wellfare"
for all of us?

> > > > the federal government wasn't meant to be a wealth distribution tool.
> > >
> > are you countering my argument with another defense for my argument?
>
> You didn't make an arguement.  You just made a false assertion.  That's not
> arguement.

you're out of your fucking mind, gary. there's ZERO chance the framers
wanted the federal government to redistribute wealth - they couldn't even
support an army when they wrote the damn thing.

> > > Do you think it's the role of the government to maximize total wealth? 
> >
> > raising the min wage doesn't increase total wealth as you'll tell me
> > yourself in a bit. why? because they don't save.
>
> I didn't say it did.  What it does do is redistribute wealth.

if they can't save, gary, they can't attain any wealth. stop you're
talking out your ass.

> But, I was saying that refusal to establish a minimum wage might serve to
> increase total wealth.  And I wondered if you thought that was a good goal
for
> the country.

unfettered/unregulated business is bad. there's always someone willing to
step in to make a buck with no regard for the general well being - not
unlike our political system/politicians' failures.

i'm asking simpletons who assume that raising the minimum wage actually
achieves the goals they assume it does to prove it. so far, nobody's been
able to do it.

> > > Could we increase total wealth by re-instituting slavery? 
>
> WEll, do you think slavery is a good idea?

no. do you?

> > > > ever managed a business - or employees?
> > > > if they cost more, would you hire as many?
> > >
> > > I might.  Especially a the low end of the wage scale, in increase in
wagemight
> > > increase the reliability of my work force, might increase their health,
it might
> > > increase their productivity in many ways.
> >
> > most business run with low wage labor is low margin.
>
> Huh?
>
> Size of margins is a function of barriars to entry, I'm not sure there's a
> relationship between margins and labor wages of any kind.  There might be,
but I
> don't see any reason why anybody would think there would be.   

the majority of low wage earners in our country work retail registers.
ever checked yourself out at home depot or the grocery store? do you
think this automation trend will slow/accelerate/remain unchanged if the
minimum wage is increased, and why?

> > it doesn't take a
> > genius to figure out how an operator will compensate for a bump in
> > expenses.
>
> Economic theory would suggest he's react by eating lower profit margins in
the
> short run, and finding alternative investment opportunity in the long run.
>
> What do you think will happen?

business operators don't eat lower margins for very long, gary, and the
easy answer is to eliminate or mitigate your increased labor costs. i
think they'll compensate by replacing/firing low skilled workers.

> > care to produce the historical evidence that an increase in the minimum
> > wage increases this work force's health? lol. if they spend all their
> > wages, gary, how in the hell are they gonna pay for that healthcare?
>
> Are you serious?
>
> An increase in income leads to less stress, better diet, and more
healthcare. 
> They'll still spend all their money, but some of that new money will go to
> higher quality crack, better food, and paying for at least some medical care.

i'm sure that extra $.50/hr. is going to make for much healthier
low-skilled wage earners. get real.

> > > Historically, there's no evidence that past increases in minimum wage
has caused
> > > a reduction in the number employed.
> >
> > because you can't control for general economic growth,
>
> Of course you can.  And people have done so in an attempt to demonstrate that
> increasing minimum wage is bad.  Nobody has been able to demonstrate that
> beleif.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm

"
Artificially raising wages will cut off this difficult but direct path to
greater prosperity for many poor families, and will delay the entry of
other workers, including youth, into paid work by needlessly increasing
the cost of unskilled labor. Employers will not be able to afford to hire
as many unskilled workers, and will respond by cutting back services or
replacing workers with machinery.

Labor economists refer to the ?elasticity? of demand for labor to describe
the ratio of jobs gained or lost when wages change. Estimates of this
?elasticity? vary, but the average estimate by labor economists is that
for a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment among those
affected drops by 5 percent.[5] If the minimum wage is increased from
$5.15 to $6.65 per hour, demand for unskilled labor could drop by as much
as 15 percent in jobs that earn the minimum wage, resulting in the loss of
hundreds of thousands of jobs and making it more difficult for poor
families to take this escape route out of poverty.

"

> > rendering your
> > historical "evidence" totally useless.
>
> Huh?
>
> The way science works is that theory makes predictions and people try to
verify
> those predictions with emperical evidence.  It's the absecne of evidence that
> suggests the theory might be a bad theory.

spare me the sermon. your best effort is an attempted refutation-
meanwhile, you've offered nothing.

> >we're operating in the theoretical
> > - try to keep up, oldtimer.
>
> So, your theories don't need any validation?  Have you been skipping your
> lithium?

see above, old man.

> > if a producer reduces output, is he going to be hiring or firing his
> > employees?
>
> I don't know, and I don't know they'll reduce production.  Our economic
system
> is not static, and people don't behave in ways that you might consider
rational.

you're sounding like wilhelm with his tired trot out gdp growth rates and
compare the years without tax cuts to ones with them to prove that tax
cuts don't spur economic growth. tell wilhelm that the savings rate in
the us is zero, so tax cuts MUST increase consumption, and he'll shake his
little finger at you. but, but, but.......

is your assertion that raising the minimum wage causes no reaction
whatsoever from the employer - that he'll just take his lumps from higher
labor costs? that's insane, and you know it.

> > > But, using minimum wage to transter money from business owners to low
wage
> > > workers tends to decrease savings in the economy.  The low wage workers
will
> > > tend to spend a higher percent of thier income than the wealthier
business
> > > owners.
> >
> > inflationary - by definition. so much for your wealth creation
> > argument.....
>
> What definition?  The one that holds everything else (like velocity of money)
> constant?

your above statement is INFLATION defined - or are you now asserting
(rather than your first statement that producers will reduce supply) that
business will turn on a dime and ramp up production to meet the increase
in demand? not possible, and inflation MUST result.

> Your treating this stuff like it's a real simple one dimentional cause and
> effect result that can actually be predictged. 
>
> This isn't some sophomore econ class, it's the real world.

that's why i'm winning, gary. i'm a proven winner in the real world, how
about you?

> > sometimes generalizations are useful. peel your face off the passenger
> > window for a second and think about what my point was.
>
> If you actually have a point why not just tell us what it is?

barbara's world revolves around assumptions. they're wrong and
inaccurate, but they make her feel better about herself.

> > > Tax cuts for the rich tends to increase levels of invested capital
> >
> > so you fell for the same line of *** that babs did? reread that bill and
> > get back to me. here's a little hint to get you going in the right
> > direction - EVERYBODY got a tax cut.
>
> So?

you gave me a lecture on the economic effects of tax cuts for the rich.
why not tell us your favorite color? it'd be about as meaningful.

> > they've tried this over and over in s.america - how's that experiment
> > working out?
>
> So, if something doesn't work in Chile it won't work in the US?

no, if something doesn't work in chile, it's sure to work here.

> Good thinking.

ty.

> You don't know what you're talking about son.

prove it.

mo_charles

----- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com


.

Loading