Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wolfpack1

2020 Potential Democratic Candidates for President....

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bornontheblue said:

Yeah , but many people who earn minimum wage are teenagers, or college kids. They are not trying to support a family. If you are in your 30s or 40s and haven’t invested in your job skills to be qualified for a higher paying position then that is just what you get for poor life choices. 

There is also no such thing as a "Living Wage".

By the time everyone makes $15/hour, inflation that results makes the 'new' minimum wage insufficient to support a person's life, and another round of increases to wages is required, continuing an endless cycle of wage increases and resulting inflation reducing the buying power of the minimum wage worker.

 

It just doesn't work.

The only times it DOES work is when people can earn the higher wage in one state, and then go a short distance across the state line to do their shopping in the OTHER state, that has a lower wage, and doesn't have the inflation effect that they do to cost of living. So- other than border towns, no effect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

I’m against setting an artificial price floor on the price of unskilled labor, or anything for that matter. The market will decide the going rate for unskilled labor. Sometimes the going market rate for unskilled labor is above the fed minimum wage. When the federal minimum wage sets an artificial price floor, it increases the amount of people willing to work for that price, and decreases the supply of low skilled jobs. 

If you raise the price of something people will seek out alternatives, such as investing in fixed assets to replace labor , or requiring more work from fewer workers. 

Cool.  Well good luck with no artificial floor.  While in theory, much like socialism, it sounds great, it isn't practical.  If i can give you the exact same product and quality by building it 5 miles over the border, then why would you buy it more expensive to subsidize the guy on the factory floor in the midwest?  You wouldn't.  It's the same concept.  If you let the market set the price floor for unskilled labor, it would be a disaster.  Sometimes, we have to have laws to protect us from ourselves.  Ditto with health care.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alum93 said:

Cool.  Well good luck with no artificial floor.  While in theory, much like socialism, it sounds great, it isn't practical.  If i can give you the exact same product and quality by building it 5 miles over the border, then why would you buy it more expensive to subsidize the guy on the factory floor in the midwest?  You wouldn't.  It's the same concept.  If you let the market set the price floor for unskilled labor, it would be a disaster.  Sometimes, we have to have laws to protect us from ourselves.  Ditto with health care.  

To protect us from ourselves.  You've found the enemy

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pokebball said:

To protect us from ourselves.  You've found the enemy

This notion isn't that much difference than the notion of protecting us from the government.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Thomas said:

Anything that happened a Century ago in US Politics is irrelevant to a sample.

Things have changed that much.

I was answering the question about Vice President's running for President. However I disagree that what happened a century ago is irreleveant today. History repeats itself, for winning an election things are always changing. Hell what it took to win an election two years ago might not be relevant today now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

During the 2016 general, some of us here predicted whomever won would not be reelected in 2020. It seemed like a fairly safe bet at the time.

The mere fact that 2 time loser, Joe Biden, is a front runner makes a two term Trump a very real possibility.

The dims have no excuse. Instead of revamping a fractured party suffering from an unexpected loss, they spent nearly two years wallowing in denial and playing the blame game. Now they lack quality candidates and have a party chairperson who lacks vision, leadership skills, is an ineffective communicator, and is left of anyone who is not a socialist. 

Imagine the meltdown when they lose to Donald Trump twice.  It's gonna be fun to watch.

 

 

I don't see Biden being a front runner. People know his name but polls released showing he is a front runner is based on that. Right now I don't know if there is a true front runner for the Democrats. It is also a little early to see. I would say wait until September when those running should start getting their campaigns really going since the first primaries are in January and February.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really is no such thing as a living wage but doesn't top people from tossing it around. The reason for that is there is no actual way to judge that because everyone will have a different outlook on what a living wage is.

Now personally, I also think there has to be some rethinking about minium wage. To me I don't think you should get paid $15-$20 an hour flipping burgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alum93 said:

Cool.  Well good luck with no artificial floor.  While in theory, much like socialism, it sounds great, it isn't practical.  If i can give you the exact same product and quality by building it 5 miles over the border, then why would you buy it more expensive to subsidize the guy on the factory floor in the midwest?  You wouldn't.  It's the same concept.  If you let the market set the price floor for unskilled labor, it would be a disaster.  Sometimes, we have to have laws to protect us from ourselves.  Ditto with health care.  

Have you ever taken a basic Macro Economics course in College. This isn't some wild fringe theory. It is basic economic principles. Google a supply demand curve for unskilled labor.  Wages for unskilled labor are a price and just like any other price when they have an artificial floor it encourages oversupply (unskilled labor) , and decreased demand  (employers). Employers also seek substitutes to unskilled labor, ie automation. 

If you let the free market run it's course an equilibrium price will be set, I'd bet in most cases it would be above the minimum wage. If employers were to greedily pay $3 an hour no one would be willing to provide their labor for that price and they would be forced to pay a higher wage. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

There really is no such thing as a living wage but doesn't top people from tossing it around. The reason for that is there is no actual way to judge that because everyone will have a different outlook on what a living wage is.

Now personally, I also think there has to be some rethinking about minium wage. To me I don't think you should get paid $15-$20 an hour flipping burgers.

The fast food cost model can't afford to pay $15+$20.  You raise the wage it will increase the cost of living and we're back to where we started.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

There really is no such thing as a living wage but doesn't top people from tossing it around. The reason for that is there is no actual way to judge that because everyone will have a different outlook on what a living wage is.

Now personally, I also think there has to be some rethinking about minium wage. To me I don't think you should get paid $15-$20 an hour flipping burgers.

No , the market is unwilling to pay someone $15 an hour to hand out french fries. If the federal minimum wage were set to $15 an hour the fast food worker would become a thing of the past. There would be Kiosks and automated systems to take their place. They might have 1 or 2 people to oversee and monitor the whole thing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

No , the market is unwilling to pay someone $15 an hour to hand out french fries. If the federal minimum wage were set to $15 an hour the fast food worker would become a thing of the past. There would be Kiosks and automated systems to take their place. They might have 1 or 2 people to oversee and monitor the whole thing. 

 

People shouldn't laugh at this.

Pizza parlors used to employ 10-12 cooks, but now with chain-broilers, they turn-out high volume pizzas in no time, with only 2 cooks, and the other employees are usually delivery drivers and one cashier, who is also the manager. This all changed over a 10 year transition or less.

The exact same thing is likely to happen in fast food restaurants.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Have you ever taken a basic Macro Economics course in College. This isn't some wild fringe theory. It is basic economic principles. Google a supply demand curve for unskilled labor.  Wages for unskilled labor are a price and just like any other price when they have an artificial floor it encourages oversupply (unskilled labor) , and decreased demand  (employers). Employers also seek substitutes to unskilled labor, ie automation. 

If you let the free market run it's course an equilibrium price will be set, I'd bet in most cases it would be above the minimum wage. If employers were to greedily pay $3 an hour no one would be willing to provide their labor for that price and they would be forced to pay a higher wage. 

 

You are talking theory.  I am talking practicality.  It's the same argument about socialism.  In theory we should all care about each other and share for the good of society, and we all benefit.  In practicality, that isn't human nature.

I have a better story to counter your $3.  I am not going to name the company or state.  I worked in the midwest in my younger day many moons ago.  It was my foot in the door with a global company.  The union workers there fought with management tooth and nail over everything.  For someone not from the area or culture, it was an eye opener.  Company X, let's call it, had been shedding market share for years and years.  I was told by the older guys that no way would people in that are ever work for less.  Mind you, these union guys were banking coin.  With benefits, they had the life.  Yet even as a kid, i could tell it was unsustainable.  Fast forward decades, and i watched it play out in slow motion, those older worker were eventually replaced with non union and a younger work force.  And people lined up around the block to make half the wages with a fraction of the benefits. If you don't think people would be willing to work for less than current minimum wage, by the millions,  then i have some ocean front property in Arizona for you.  It's the same exact fricken argument i heard before.  And they were just as wrong, and ultimately those plants are now nothing like they were decades ago, nor do the the downtowns scattered around those midwest states that relied on said market.  And oh, by the way,  if you really want to know the truth, just over the border workers put together those same parts with the same quality, if not better, for a fraction of what we call minimum wage.  People would be stunned at what companies will pay when they can get away with it.  People here throw out the term slave labor, but in reality most have never seen what true poverty looks like in a third world country, and that's for people with jobs on assembly lines.  But don't feel bad, you reap the low prices of those people working for slave wages.  

And yes i took those same classes and yes i know the curve you reference by heart.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Thomas said:

People shouldn't laugh at this.

Pizza parlors used to employ 10-12 cooks, but now with chain-broilers, they turn-out high volume pizzas in no time, with only 2 cooks, and the other employees are usually delivery drivers and one cashier, who is also the manager. This all changed over a 10 year transition or less.

The exact same thing is likely to happen in fast food restaurants.

 

 

It is already happening in fast foot.  Self ordering kiosks are going in all over.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

No , the market is unwilling to pay someone $15 an hour to hand out french fries. If the federal minimum wage were set to $15 an hour the fast food worker would become a thing of the past. There would be Kiosks and automated systems to take their place. They might have 1 or 2 people to oversee and monitor the whole thing. 

 

And this is what is happening in many areas where the state minimum wage is $15 or more an hour for fast food restaurants. Same way casinos are going to more automated systems to a point where they have robots bringing orders to people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2018 at 8:08 AM, mugtang said:

I didn't realize he was 75.  I thought he was younger than that.  I find it unlikely that he will run in 2020 as he'll be 77 then.  But you never know, Trump will be 74 in 2020 so there's that. 

Thomas agrees with you that if Trump's age is any indication, the last person who should run in 2020 (besides Mr. No Collusion) is Biden.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Thomas agrees with you that if Trump's age is any indication, the last person who should run in 2020 (besides Mr. No Collusion) is Biden.

I have ulterior motives, though.

I want to see the baton passed to a younger Candidate, because the younger ones are inherently more Progressive, and I believe them to be so far Left that they'll never court enough of the middle ground to win a POTUS election, which is easier for an Establishment or especially a Blue Dog, to swing to his/her side.

Blue Dogs appear to be basically extinct at any age under 55 at this point, so... moving hard-Left with the younger candidate seems relatively inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pokebball said:

The fast food cost model can't afford to pay $15+$20.  You raise the wage it will increase the cost of living and we're back to where we started.

This is false. If you raise the pay for ONLY those at the bottom by 2 or 3 dollars it doesn't have the effect you claim here. What you claim is only true if EVERYONE got that 2 to 3 dollar bump.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2018 at 12:48 PM, wolfpack1 said:

I was watching an old election video on You Tube when Bush ran for president and during it I believe they said a sitting VP, which is why I said that. 

Just like Trump misspoke on Monday, they did then. Rather than sitting, they meant to say "sHitting" VP.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...