SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
I meant currently as in this current pandemic, hospitals dealing with coronavirus are willing to pay just about anything right now. They aren't paying nurses $100/hr to work at a clinic.
Economics
- Thread starter Sodbuster
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
That was the worry and threat when Seattle decided to raise the minimum wage to $15 a few years back. None of it came true. Actually, the restaurant industry grew, until recent events.
vinny11950
Minister of Fire
Let me just say that unregulated capitalism and stock markets have been once again rescued by the Federal Government.... For about $8 trillion dollars so far. By a Republican administration none the less. And the Federal Budget deficit this year is going to be between $3 and $4 trillion. I don't ever want to hear how we can't afford to spend money of green energy initiatives, education, infrastructure, or healthcare. 
kennyp2339
Minister of Fire
Funny that you said that, I recently (month ago) watched a documentary on Seattle's minimum wage increase, I walked away feeling more negative about it then anything.
The restaurant industry is actually hurting, along with the low wage earners (even at $15.00) people are worse off. The issue was the average consumer isn't going to pay $23.00 for a side salad, because of the populated growth in Seattle (amazon) rents for apartments, and commercial shot up, restaurants profit margins went down, then the wage increase created a microcosm of sorts, long time dependable workers even at $15 an hour could not afford to live within viable commuting distance, public transportation went up or just isn't available to where they moved to, there hours were cut due to wage increase, so they left, the ones that were able to figure out something and stay are now under employed due to the same issues stated above with rents, hours cut, then there's the younger worker which makes a small egg from the higher wage, has no rent to cover (student, still lives at home, lives with multiple roommates..ect…) wont cover any shifts if someone else calls out, so the full circle is the restaurant suffers some more.
vinny11950
Minister of Fire
CORRECTION: This is What Minimum Wage Would Be If It Kept Pace with Productivity
Until 1968, the minimum wage not only kept pace with inflation, it rose in step with productivity growth. The logic is straightforward; we expect that wages in general will rise in step with productivity growth. For workers at the bottom to share in the overall improvement in society’s living...
cepr.net
While the national minimum wage did rise roughly in step with productivity growth from its inception in 1938 until 1968, in the more than five decades since then, it has not even kept pace with inflation. However, if the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968 it would be over $24 an hour today, as shown in the Figure below.
It is worth considering what the world would look like if this were the case. A minimum wage of $24 an hour would mean that a full-time full year minimum wage worker would be earning $48,000 a year. A two minimum wage earning couple would have a family income of $96,000 a year, enough to put them in the top quintile of the current income distribution.
It is worth noting the standard counter to the argument that the minimum wage should keep pace with productivity growth. It would be claimed that the productivity of minimum wage workers has not kept pace with average productivity growth, so that it would not be feasible for minimum wage workers to earn pay that rises in step with average productivity growth.
There is some truth to this claim, but only at a superficial level. The productivity of any individual worker is determined not just by their skills and technology, but also by the institutional structure we put in place. In a world without patent and copyright monopolies, the skills of bio-technicians and software designers would likely be much less valuable than they are today.
Similarly, the skills of experts in stock trading and designing complex financial instruments would have much less value if we had a financial transactions tax in place and allowed large banks to fail when their mistakes made them insolvent. And, the skills of doctors and other highly paid professionals would have much less value if our trade policy was as committed to subjecting them to international competition, as has been the case with auto and textile workers.
Lower pay for those at the top increases the real pay for those at the bottom and middle. A $15 an hour wage goes much further when all drugs are selling as low costs generics, the financial sector is not sucking 2 percent of GDP ($230 billion a year) out of the economy, and doctors get paid the same as their West European counterparts.
#1. Our system of capitalism is regulated - one side says not enough, the other says too much...Let me just say that unregulated capitalism and stock markets have been once again rescued by the Federal Government.... For about $8 trillion dollars so far. By a Republican administration none the less. And the Federal Budget deficit this year is going to be between $3 and $4 trillion. I don't ever want to hear how we can't afford to spend money of green energy initiatives, education, infrastructure, or healthcare.
#2. Political party doesn't matter, the "rescue" would have been necessary regardless. The federal government is the only entity able to do this. Should the collapse have been allowed to happen?
#3. There is only so much $ to go around. All of these things are funded - again, one side says not enough, the other says too much.
In this great experiment of being human, there are many theories as to the "right" way. Utopia is not realistically attainable. No matter the system, there will always be those who take advantage. It is what it means to be human. Have you read Orville? That is why socialism is difficult- "some are more equal than others".
I have stated before and continue to believe our current system is correct, but flawed. Too many loopholes, backdoors and special interest influences; but it allows those with the wherewithal, ambition and initiative to thrive. Some definitely have a harder path due to where they start from, but just about anyone can make something of themselves if they are willing to work for it and apply themselves. Too many are not willing to do this.
High tech growth and the Amazon/Google takeover of S. Lake Union is a separate phenomenon that happened in parallel. I can assure you that the average restaurant price for a salad is not $23, more like $7-9 depending on size. I have never paid even half that amount and then the salad was huge and we split it.
Last edited:
Meanwhile
www.reuters.com
New York Fed pledges to offer $1 trillion a day in overnight repo loans
The New York Federal Reserve said it will make up to $1 trillion a day available for loans in the repo market for the remainder of this week.
www.reuters.com
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
After not watching news all day we were wondering why the market was up. I've been saying for years that the federal government can absolutely do a tricare style health insurance system for the whole countryMeanwhile
View attachment 259184
New York Fed pledges to offer $1 trillion a day in overnight repo loans
The New York Federal Reserve said it will make up to $1 trillion a day available for loans in the repo market for the remainder of this week.
Point taken. It's still wealth taking care of its own. And not accounting for the health savings to the nation, not to mention the working class.
The delicate balance that everything hinges on can be fragile. If the bailout doesn't happen, not only do these companies fail but also all of our 401k's and other investments along with them. Other businesses that supply those company's fold, the economy collapses, the government can't support all of us... The bailout will help everyone who has a portfolio as was pointed out by someone else (I believe before this thread was moved).
Social Security is already in trouble, Medicare is money going out but not back in from it's users and there are fewer people paying taxes as the birthrate continues downward (except those already living off the government, they keep adding to the number living off the government...comfortably). It's all a big sh*to show. Too many trying to live off of too little, too many placing "wants" in the "need" category. Medicare & S.S. supporting people who never put a dime in. Let those programs support the retirees who busted their butts their whole lives, not expand it to support the leeches.
Social Security is already in trouble, Medicare is money going out but not back in from it's users and there are fewer people paying taxes as the birthrate continues downward (except those already living off the government, they keep adding to the number living off the government...comfortably). It's all a big sh*to show. Too many trying to live off of too little, too many placing "wants" in the "need" category. Medicare & S.S. supporting people who never put a dime in. Let those programs support the retirees who busted their butts their whole lives, not expand it to support the leeches.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
That's pretty off base. Social Security is not in trouble except from politicians that refuse to simply raise the income cutoff from $128K to $200K. And no, you don't get any Social Security if you paid nothing into the system.
www.forbes.com
Unless you are disabled you don't qualify for Medicare unless:
Those Who Didn't Pay Taxes In Their Day Will Now Have To Pay For Medicare
Back in the early days of my career, a friend, in his early 30s, had a government job. Tom heckled me a bit because he was not paying Social Security taxes and, on top of that, he had a great retirement package, the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).
www.forbes.com
Unless you are disabled you don't qualify for Medicare unless:
- You are receiving retirement benefits from Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board.
- You are eligible to receive Social Security or Railroad benefits but you have not yet filed for them.
- You or your spouse had Medicare-covered government employment.
Trillion a day question. The debt is now at $24 Trillion and counting.
Apologies, Medicare comment withdrawen. Sentiment remains the same. Money making life comfortable for leech's could go to Medicare then...That's pretty off base. Social Security is not in trouble except from politicians that refuse to simply raise the income cutoff from $128K to $200K. And no, you don't get any Social Security if you paid nothing into the system.
Those Who Didn't Pay Taxes In Their Day Will Now Have To Pay For Medicare
Back in the early days of my career, a friend, in his early 30s, had a government job. Tom heckled me a bit because he was not paying Social Security taxes and, on top of that, he had a great retirement package, the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).
Unless you are disabled you don't qualify for Medicare unless:
and that is just for Medicare part A. I still pay for the other parts.
- You are receiving retirement benefits from Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board.
- You are eligible to receive Social Security or Railroad benefits but you have not yet filed for them.
- You or your spouse had Medicare-covered government employment.
I don't expect Social Security to be there when I become eligible...
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
I do expect social security to be there when I’m eligible, but I’m not depending on it. The payout may be reduced but it will be there. Look at how easily trillions of dollars have been cut loose to help the temporarily unemployed pay their cell phone bills during this temporary bad time. Don’t you think that the same will happen to keep granny from starving in good times?
I hope there will still be something there, but I certainly don't expect it. Unfortunately, many from my generation and the next one are not saving enough on their own and will be relying on S.S., which is not a good plan...
Seasoned Oak
Minister of Fire
Of the 6 in 10 (60%) who do not have any plan or savings beyond SS the majority of those also claimed they are not worried about it. Since in most parts of the country its very hard to live on $1300 a month (Avg amount of SS checks.) And many get quite a bit less. Id be interested in knowing why that is. This is a very large group of people.
Seasoned Oak
Minister of Fire
With an avg of 10000 people turning 65 every day, possibly 6000 of those with NO plan and NO money.Well obviously, the government will/should take care of them!
Last edited:
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
Sounds like semantics. Since I’m not relying on social security I’m not worried about it.
There is long term conservative strategy called "starve the beast", it was formulated back in the late sixties as method of rolling back the great society expansion (Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education ACT ). The problem is that once major expansion of social benefits are passed in congress it almost impossible to get rid of them. The concept of "starve the beast" is pretty simple, bankrupt the government so that current programs are so severely compromised that future entitlements are cut back to support current programs. The Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts all put the government in deepening deficits. Pre CV-19 various conservatives and even Trump claimed that job 1 after reelection was to cut future entitlements. It comes down to either the US scales way back on the military budget and stops being the police for the world, entitlements get cut or the tax system is scrapped and more equitable means of taxing both the rich, poor and corporations and raise revenue.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that entitlements keep increasing like you said, but the number of workers to support those entitlements as a ratio is getting smaller. Not to mention, we just spent more on a stimulus package than we do for three years of the military budget. I agree we need to bring our boys and girls home, but every time we leave an area a power vacuum is created. It's not a simple problem with a simple answer.
Similar threads
