T Nation

Higher Wages Will End Recession

Oh no could it be?

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9774#.UTPmg7870qE

Why does the government need to force companies to succeed? That seems like it is an inefficient way of taking care of things. Why can’t the government just cut out the middleman and own and run businesses itself?

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why does the government need to force companies to succeed? That seems like it is an inefficient way of taking care of things. Why can’t the government just cut out the middleman and own and run businesses itself?[/quote]

Why can’t you see that companies which take advantage of low wages tend to be corporations, and not small businesses? Why do you stick up for corporations?

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why does the government need to force companies to succeed? That seems like it is an inefficient way of taking care of things. Why can’t the government just cut out the middleman and own and run businesses itself?[/quote]

Why can’t you see that companies which take advantage of low wages tend to be corporations, and not small businesses? Why do you stick up for corporations? [/quote]

Cause they give me cheap shit that I want.

In an interesting turn of events, the organization you would turn to makes me buy expensive stuff I do not want.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why does the government need to force companies to succeed? That seems like it is an inefficient way of taking care of things. Why can’t the government just cut out the middleman and own and run businesses itself?[/quote]

Why can’t you see that companies which take advantage of low wages tend to be corporations, and not small businesses? Why do you stick up for corporations? [/quote]

Cause they give me cheap shit that I want.

In an interesting turn of events, the organization you would turn to makes me buy expensive stuff I do not want.

[/quote]

Depends on what you want. You can eat cheaply and get most of your household goods at a place called Costco, which is the opposite of Walmart as far as employee happiness and pay goes.

You want something special, good places to purchase from tend to be places which treat their employees well. Otherwise, you deserve higher taxes. You let those corps get away with paying people poverty wages, then wonder why you have to pay for their housing, footstamps etc. while the stock holders and CEO’s are laughing in your face on the way to the bank.

:frowning: Just saying… Things aren’t the way they have been telling you they are.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why does the government need to force companies to succeed? That seems like it is an inefficient way of taking care of things. Why can’t the government just cut out the middleman and own and run businesses itself?[/quote]

Why can’t you see that companies which take advantage of low wages tend to be corporations, and not small businesses? Why do you stick up for corporations? [/quote]

Cause they give me cheap shit that I want.

In an interesting turn of events, the organization you would turn to makes me buy expensive stuff I do not want.

[/quote]

0_0

Since Costco is so much better than Wal-Mart, we shouldn’t have to worry about Wal-Mart much longer. Costco’s driving Wal-Mart out of business and taking Wal-Mart’s employees as we speak.

Business is most certainly to blame for the American people deciding to elect representatives who forcibly redistribute wealth. No doubt about it.

I must be crazy to stick up for companies owned by many people instead of just one or a few. After all, once corporations are done away with, nobody will be jealous of small business owners and want to go after them next.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Business is most certainly to blame for the American people deciding to elect representatives who forcibly redistribute wealth.
[/quote]
I am assuming you are talking about the tax code that makes Mitt Romney’s dollar worth $.86 and mine worth $.80. Giving Romney $.06 on every dollar that passes through his fingers

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[/quote]
I am assuming you are talking about the tax code that makes Mitt Romney’s dollar worth $.86 and mine worth $.80. Giving Romney $.06 on every dollar that passes through his fingers [/quote]

I was actually talking about the lack of morality of many voters which makes them feel it’s acceptable to take from one and give to another by force, but since you brought it up, please explain the tax code to me. I’m sure it’s very complex and ridiculous. In fact, taxing income is ridiculous, period.

I am not sure how, if your numbers are correct, you think that Romney is being given $.06 on every dollar when you said that his dollar is only worth $.86. It seems he actually loses $.14 on every dollar.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[/quote]
I am assuming you are talking about the tax code that makes Mitt Romney’s dollar worth $.86 and mine worth $.80. Giving Romney $.06 on every dollar that passes through his fingers [/quote]

I was actually talking about the lack of morality of many voters which makes them feel it’s acceptable to take from one and give to another by force, but since you brought it up, please explain the tax code to me. I’m sure it’s very complex and ridiculous. In fact, taxing income is ridiculous, period.

I am not sure how, if your numbers are correct, you think that Romney is being given $.06 on every dollar when you said that his dollar is only worth $.86. It seems he actually loses $.14 on every dollar.[/quote]

Why are you completely regurgitating corporation talking points? This is the exact stuff that was being discussed in the; ‘Whats wrong with our country’ thread.

Maybe find out why there was a minimum wage established in the first place, good place to start. From here you may discover how factoring in inflation, your father or grandfather would have been receiving todays equivalent of $10 an hour given the 1.60 wage in 1968.

Yet, companies have never been more profitable, and we are immoral? Pleeease.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Business is most certainly to blame for the American people deciding to elect representatives who forcibly redistribute wealth.
[/quote]
I am assuming you are talking about the tax code that makes Mitt Romney’s dollar worth $.86 and mine worth $.80. Giving Romney $.06 on every dollar that passes through his fingers [/quote]

This statement ignores so many facts and circumstances it is laughable in its foolish nature. But it sure sounds good and gets everyone hating someone else’s success.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TAXES_WHO_PAYS_WHAT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-03-09-01-14

Pitt, how can your dollar have less value than a 1%? AP seems to think they are going to pay the most taxes this year, as usual.

"Bottom 20 percent

Average income: $10,552.

Average tax bill: -$284.

Average tax rate: -2.7 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: -0.4 percent.


Middle 20 percent

Average income: $46,562.

Average tax bill: $6,436.

Average tax rate: 13.8 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: 8.6 percent.


Top 20 percent

Average income: $204,490.

Average tax bill: $55,533.

Average tax rate: 27.2 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: 71.8 percent.


Top 1 percent

Average income: $1.4 million.

Average tax bill: $514,144.

Average tax rate: 35.5 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: 30.2 percent."

A minimum wage was established because one of the worst presidents in American history used it to gain votes. That president admired Mussolini and Stalin.

Also, yes, taking another’s belongings at the point of a gun is immoral in my opinion. I am morally against both theft and robbery.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Also, yes, taking another’s belongings at the point of a gun is immoral in my opinion. I am morally against both theft and robbery. [/quote]

Are you talking about taxes? If so what do you think a fair tax structure is?

[quote]NickViar wrote:
A minimum wage was established because one of the worst presidents in American history used it to gain votes. That president admired Mussolini and Stalin. [/quote]

Look up Ad Hominem. Henry Ford was an antisemite, does that diminish the utility of the assembly line or the role of Ford M.C. as a cornerstone of American manufacturing?

If you hadn’t cut and run in the other thread, I would have explained to you that pre-1880 industrial England boasted one of the freest domestic markets in modern history. Protectionist Corn Laws and mercantilism aside, life “on the island” was more or less a study in laissez-faire. Find for me, if you will, the wisdom that guided the invisible hand when it built a system whereby families couldn’t survive without the extra two shillings per week that a child of eleven brought home in wages.

[quote]
Also, yes, taking another’s belongings at the point of a gun is immoral in my opinion. I am morally against both theft and robbery. [/quote]

So all taxation is immoral, no?

San Francisco has the highest Federal minimum wage in the country, and let’s just say, shit ain’t so pretty there.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
San Francisco has the highest Federal minimum wage in the country, and let’s just say, shit ain’t so pretty there.[/quote]

Federal government set a special minimum wage just for San Francisco?

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why does the government need to force companies to succeed? That seems like it is an inefficient way of taking care of things. Why can’t the government just cut out the middleman and own and run businesses itself?[/quote]

Was Goldman Sachs efficient?

Why do people not want to see the inefficiency of these corporate entities?

[quote]NickViar wrote:
A minimum wage was established because one of the worst presidents in American history used it to gain votes. That president admired Mussolini and Stalin.

Also, yes, taking another’s belongings at the point of a gun is immoral in my opinion. I am morally against both theft and robbery. [/quote]

Then I guess you agree at the very least with those 99% who were against Goldman Sachs?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Also, yes, taking another’s belongings at the point of a gun is immoral in my opinion. I am morally against both theft and robbery. [/quote]

Are you talking about taxes? If so what do you think a fair tax structure is? [/quote]

Yes, I was talking about income taxes. I think any of the voluntary taxes are fair. If you can’t decide not to pay a tax, then it’s not fair. An example of a fair tax is a sales tax. If you decide not to pay the tax, then you don’t purchase the item.

I am against using force to compel anyone to do anything as long as they are not harming anyone else.