World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[marurun]

We don't weigh black voices more in congress. Why should we weigh rural voices more? That effectively disenfranchises urban citizens. The senate already has an equalizing effect. The electoral college was a compromise originally devised to protect states with large slave populations and low numbers of land-owning men to hold the vote.

[Blu]

The entire nation is all the people, not all the land mass. Don't forget that since the president is whoever captures 50%+1 of whatever system we use means he isn't want a very large portion of the country wanted. If half the country lives in dense urban areas their opinions and concerns are just as valid as the half that lives in spread out rural areas, and visa versa.

So the solution is to make the rural areas have a disproportional effect on the results? That seems like a violation of the fundamental idea behind democracy.

Also, don't forget that you still have the entire legislative branch that's apportioned by state and region and has the senate specifically to ensure small areas aren't left behind. The president doesn't actually create laws, remember?

They're elected by the people of the state. The Senate representing the States and Congress representing the actual people. And I'd be hard pressed to believe that the current body as a whole represents common American interest. Neoliberals and the current GOP are in the pockets of our legislative branch. It doesn't take too much effort to realize that corporate America pulls the strings here. Hell, Obama changed slowly into a corporatist and likely had to make concessions, too.

But, I really don't want to be saying I told you so when our decreased tax revenues spell cuts to basic social services that impact our most vulnerable people in this country. We're talking about livelihoods, not disposable income on vidya games. We'll soon find ourselves in another era of deficit spending. Which is funny, because Trump's Infrastructure campaign isn't all that different from Obama's stimulus. I don't see us paying off our national debt anytime soon. I think it will be okay just as long as the next Democratic president doesn't have to inherit trillions of debt that were put into place by a Republican-held Congress/Presidency...

That stock market boost that happened after Trump was elected? Ballooning from energy companies, who now see a lot of regulation and taxes being cut under his presidency. I worry what that means with the Climate agreement in place and Michigan going from 70 degrees to snow in less than 24 hours. I guess I don't have much faith, considering humans and bacteria are the two lifeforms that kill off their own environments.

And marunun, how dare you come forth with historical truths?

[Blu]

Speaking of pay, here in California the $15.00 minimum wage increase passed. Any job from Sales to Construction to Technician to Burger Flipper all have to be paid at least fifteen bucks an hour. Now the starter part time jobs are pushing towards the pay level of a career job! No more pay raise for the good worker vs the crappy worker since companies now have more overhead. Inflation occurs starting the minimum wage cycle anew.

1: Short Term - The workers are happy - except outstanding workers who will get the same pay.

2: Long Term - The workers will become unemployed due to downsizing, outstanding worker will have to cover.

Something I've noticed is that people don't like to acknowledge the fact that if a financial burden is placed upon a business then that burden will either a. be transferred to the customers in the form of higher prices and/or b. made up by cutting the labor force so the wage budget stays the same. There are limits (if prices are too high you don't move enough product, if your labor force is too small you can't get the necessary throughput) that will force an eating into the profits, but it's only when those limits are hit that the profits start being lessened. You're not going to see businesses say "oh, my workers cost more? I guess I'm just going to have to make less money then."

Yes, but if minimum wage had been adjusted with the growth of our economy, we'd be somewhere around $20 as a minimum. This 2015 article (http://www.epi.org/publication/given-th ... ly-higher/) has it pegged around $18.

Why have we accepted stagnation while economic inequality has skyrocketed? This election was namely about class for a lot of people. I'm not for stifling our own growth, but to be frank, I don't think we've found a balance that benefits the many rather than the few.

Personally, I'm all for FLSA, because maybe it will mean the average retail manager feels like they're a little more valued than they have been. Think about the possibilities at Gamestop now!!

[jp1]

Speaking of pay, here in California the $15.00 minimum wage increase passed. Any job from Sales to Construction to Technician to Burger Flipper all have to be paid at least fifteen bucks an hour. Now the starter part time jobs are pushing towards the pay level of a career job! No more pay raise for the good worker vs the crappy worker since companies now have more overhead. Inflation occurs starting the minimum wage cycle anew.

1: Short Term - The workers are happy - except outstanding workers who will get the same pay.

2: Long Term - The workers will become unemployed due to downsizing, outstanding worker will have to cover.

Something I've noticed is that people don't like to acknowledge the fact that if a financial burden is placed upon a business then that burden will either a. be transferred to the customers in the form of higher prices and/or b. made up by cutting the labor force so the wage budget stays the same. There are limits (if prices are too high you don't move enough product, if your labor force is too small you can't get the necessary throughput) that will force an eating into the profits, but it's only when those limits are hit that the profits start being lessened. You're not going to see businesses say "oh, my workers cost more? I guess I'm just going to have to make less money then."

Yes, but if minimum wage had been adjusted with the growth of our economy, we'd be somewhere around $20 as a minimum. This 2015 article (http://www.epi.org/publication/given-th ... ly-higher/) has it pegged around $18.

Why have we accepted stagnation while economic inequality has skyrocketed? This election was namely about class for a lot of people. I'm not for stifling our own growth, but to be frank, I don't think we've found a balance that benefits the many rather than the few.

Raising the minimum wage won't work. The price of goods will simply raise accordingly, it always does. Leaving those in the lower bracket with the same amount of disposable income which is roughly $0.

[Blu]

So we just accept what the overlords give us, without complaint? I'm all for other solutions, but I'm not seeing any other being proposed. I don't think the tax breaks, for all the reasons that they're so glorified, do anything other than make the rich, richer.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Actually, in a competitive market, the business can't raise prices to offset higher labor costs. The higher labor costs make replacing labor with capital (e.g., automation) more feasible, but barring that, the increased costs have to come out of profits or cash reserves. (That isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially when, as now, too many companies are hoarding too much cash.)

Also, it will be interesting to see what the Trump administration and Republican Congress does with the new FLSA rules. If they take action to reverse or mitigate their effects, it will reveal their true allegiances...

[jp1]

So we just accept what the overlords give us, without complaint? I'm all for other solutions, but I'm not seeing any other being proposed. I don't think the tax breaks, for all the reasons that they're so glorified, do anything other than make the rich, richer.

Nope, I'm just saying raising minimum wage won't accomplish anything on it's own. I've worked retail in my youth, every time there was a wage hike we systematically went around the store and raised the prices with new tags to cover the cost.

I've worked in restaurants, the same thing happened. Every item on the menu went up in cost.

As long as it is a free market, the heads of these corporations will never accept a lower profit margin than last year. It simply isn't how they operate. Capitalism is a flawed system, the problem being that I don't have a suggestion for a better system that doesn't at least in some way have similarities to communism.

The middle class may see a boost that is noticeable with a wage hike, especially the upper middle class as they less frequently visit the establishments that tend to pay their employees minimum wage. The poor, living on minimum wage will quickly be diminished just as they have with every other wage hike. Inflation will always outpace increased wages. Why do you think so many millions of dollars are dropped into lobbying in the first place. There will never be a less than favorable outcome for the extremely wealthy, because wealth generates wealth.

I don't believe the system can be fixed to lift the truly poor working class into an actual living wage. At least not the way it is built right now. I'd love to see it happen, but I'll remain skeptical until I see some proof otherwise.

[jp1]

Actually, in a competitive market, the business can't raise prices to offset higher labor costs. The higher labor costs make replacing labor with capital (e.g., automation) more feasible, but barring that, the increased costs have to come out of profits or cash reserves. (That isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially when, as now, too many companies are hoarding too much cash.)

Also, it will be interesting to see what the Trump administration and Republican Congress does with the new FLSA rules. If they take action to reverse or mitigate their effects, it will reveal their true allegiances...

The problem being that all the competitors have to absorb the costs equally, thus they can all raise their prices accordingly while still remaining competitive. Not to mention that the influx of cash to poor people will change their spending habits and the gradual hikes are not initially evident. It is an artificial boost to the economy for a very short time.

People who have been doing without things will undoubtedly purchase them when they earn more money. If you live paycheck to paycheck or worse you live in debt, money management is a different prospect. You might want to start eating something other than Ramen noodles for lunch.

[Blu]

Actually, in a competitive market, the business can't raise prices to offset higher labor costs. The higher labor costs make replacing labor with capital (e.g., automation) more feasible, but barring that, the increased costs have to come out of profits or cash reserves. (That isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially when, as now, too many companies are hoarding too much cash.)

Also, it will be interesting to see what the Trump administration and Republican Congress does with the new FLSA rules. If they take action to reverse or mitigate their effects, it will reveal their true allegiances...

The problem being that all the competitors have to absorb the costs equally, thus they can all raise their prices accordingly while still remaining competitive. Not to mention that the influx of cash to poor people will change their spending habits and the gradual hikes are not initially evident. It is an artificial boost to the economy for a very short time.

People who have been doing without things will undoubtedly purchase them when they earn more money. If you live paycheck to paycheck or worse you live in debt, money management is a different prospect. You might want to start eating something other than Ramen noodles for lunch.

I'm not trying to burst your bubble, but I think the notion of competitiveness is pretty diminished today. Cable Companies, Airlines, Consumer Goods, have pretty much all agreed on a price ceiling with one another. Any new competitor in the market is bought up nowadays. You can look at any industry, and the strategy usually is fairly similar. I think your notion of how small businesses adversely bear the burden is spot on when a minimum wage hike happens. Small businesses truly have a hard time competing with the funds and institutional power that a corporation has.

I mean, look at the Beer Industry in the US: It's owned by one merged company now.
Big food, captures a lot of the market. There's really no jostling for rank nowadays, at least in a United States standpoint. I am willing to be proved wrong though.

[marurun]

Actually, some would argue there's a small/craft beer renaissance in progress and that the beer companies all merged due to that threat. The answer is almost always a strong, independent regulatory regime.