Boeing, Microsoft, Alaska Airlines, Costco, Amazon, Starbucks, Tmobile, Seattle Seahawks, all economic powerhouses, I don't see them packing up and leaving, they are thriving I know I lived there, I don't see jack **** in comparison in the Red states..
The ones that ARE NOT GETTING IT are the retarded red states that own the most poverty in the USA, where welfare is rampant you don't believe me google it simpleton..
You wanna play the numbers game with me FINE, TexASS, still tops the census list of highest uninsured rates in the country, with nearly 30% of the folks there without help when they get sick, which is only a matter of time, the reason I bring up TexASS is because it's a right wingers wet dream..
Oh and BTW THE LAST TIME Washington had a Repuke Governor was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy back in 1979!!!!!
What the **** good does it do to have a job if you have no way to help yourself if you get sick??
Last edited by ARTHUR 1976; 05-19-15 at 07:27 PM.
You'll never have to. You are honest and forthright, even if I disagree with you on some stuff. I'll take an honest stance I disagree with all day over a lie I DO agree with. If that makes sense.cpwill;1064638639] thanks bro. I look forward to calling you on that.
I don't know, man. Programming has gotten downright scary in how eloquent it can be. Maybe 90% is a bit high...but even as low as, say, 70% of the work force is absolutely catastrophic, regardless if you're supply side OR demand side. I mean, it now takes, what, 20 people to churn out about 50 corvettes PER DAY. And that's a practical SUPER CAR. We are ever evolving out machines. Now, AI? I don't know about that. But does it take an AI to be able to do any sort of repetitive task? Nope. Just increasingly complex algorithms. I agree that SOME workers will find work else where, ESPECIALLY those with specialties currently NOT in demand...CREATIVES. All these kids with liberal arts degrees? They are, IMO, the future wage earners. Because crfeativity can not be automated. Yeah, a program can write an amalgamation of cords stolen from other symphonies, but it's not going to create anything new. It's not gonna go from realism, to minimalism, to cubism, etc, in terms of visual arts. That takes the spark that only we have on this planet, IMO. But a consumer economy can't survive on a bunch of artists.1. I reject the idea that robots are going to replace all workers. That claim has been being made for centuries now, with as-of-yet no results. The combined ingenuity of humanity is incredible at putting un or under-utilized resources (such as labor) to making a profit. Machines change the nature of our workforce, and they change demand for particular kinds of labor. They aren't going to kick 90% of workers out of a job.
What else is there? I balk at the idea of a maximum wage, which would be FAR more effective. To me, that's much more disgusting. How else do we FORCE someone to take LESS pay in order to give out MORE pay to their workers? Because that is what this is about.2. That being said, I agree that - as a political matter, some form of wealth redistribution is necessary in order to increase stability.
[indent]2a. However, a minimum wage isn't a means of wealth redistribution. It's just a price-floor. One that serves to keep our lowest-educated and lowest-skilled potential workers trapped out of the market. There are people whose value-added is not $15 an hour. A $15 an hour MW doesn't redistribute skills to them, or redistribute work experience. It also doesn't redistribute money. All it does is make them structurally unemployable.
We still have black smiths, they just dress different, and are called machinists. And there are far fewer of them. Same with coach builders. Etc. And while we don't have an issue with out of work people in these trades (well, not really), that is because automation wasn't around for this time period. I think you are severely underestimating the functionality of current technology. You are comparing economic movements of yesteryear to today. And that doesn't work, because the conditions are nowhere near the same.Sort of. It's very similar to the automobile in that regard. We had multiple large industries that were built around the assumption that the horse would continue to be the main form of transportation - leather workers, farriers, vets, stables, poop-scoopers, you name it. Put out of work when the automobile came along and took over American society. But are we dominated today by hordes of jobless blacksmiths and horse-trainers? No. Those workers were reallocated to other tasks once their labor became available.
That's what the market does when a resource (such as labor) becomes available - it allocates it to a productive end. So long as some bright fool doesn't come along with a jacked up idea for a price floor on that item that makes it prohibitive to use.
Current demand =/= current supply. That's what this is all about. Manual labor jobs being down by machines, reducing demand for humans for such work.sometimes I do get bored and leave threads. I don't think I've ever conceded in an argument about whether or not there would be a demand for low-income labor were it allowed.
Ahhh, Paul Krugman, poor guy. I wonder if it's a sore subject? Does it come up at dinner parties?Simply because you lack imagination to come up with new ways to use low-income workers does not mean that the aggregate ingenuity of 330 million people will. You are pretty smart, but you aren't that smart - none of us are:
So, I don't doubt that there are people out there that will think of things to make people do for money. And I don't doubt that they will have the money to offer to make those people do those things.
My question is, is that the best way to proceed?
Of course rent will be higher for a condo in New York city, then living in some cesspool toxic trailer park in Redneck Mississippi, because there ain't **** there, and no way to make real money, you get what you pay for in life, you turds on the right should know that..
Newsflash that's why they call it a living wage, you go where the money is, not some piece of **** poverty ridden red state where the median income is too low for even a rat to live on, Mississipp, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, all **** states where poverty is rampant..
I will trust that the numbers work out, in terms of income vs spending trajectories. And it solves the issue of making more and bringing home less at certain pay scales, which I am currently dealing with. I get paid more than I did a year ago, and bring home less. Which has prompted me to simply put more into my 401K, lol.
" If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else ? "