Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: This Recession Wasn’t Bad Enough

Posted 1 year ago on June 1, 2012, 5:49 p.m. EST by AlternativeSynergy (224)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This recession wasn’t bad enough for voters to force government policy changes needed to reduce income inequality. The Great Depression was however, and we put in policies to reduce the cause of the Depression, which was the vast income inequality of that time. Now that inequality is back to the level that it was before the Great Depression, the safety nets cushioned the blow of the financial meltdown and caused voter complacency. Unfortunately this time the government resorted to showering printed money on the banks and that kept us from going into a full blown Depression. We are on borrowed time (and money) however, and until we go back to the tax and spending policies that got us out of the last Depression, we will not be out of the woods.

88 Comments

88 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 1 year ago

Economically, income inequality is a meaningless term and we need to come up with something else. People hear 'income inequality' and think a bunch of losers just want some free cash and we have to deal with that.

I prefer 'ownership society' where everyone has a stake in the means of production. We need to develop a way that everyone can participate in the wealth generation machine that is capitalism. If we could break companies into small units that individuals could own and get income from then we could participate with pride rather than just whine that some bad people have more money than we do. Something to think about.

[-] 1 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

But why does there have to be so few "bad people that have more money than we do" We have to find way's to increase the size of the pie so more people can get wealthy and in my opinion that can be done with technology and proper government policies.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Apparently congress's approval rating hitting 9% wasn't enough to get people to vote out every single incumbent for failing at their jobs.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

.................... or the ELECTIONS are rigged. Maybe we DID vote them out. The point you make suggests that, because logically, many more would have been fired. True?

"It's not the vote that counts. It's who counts the votes." - Josef Stalin

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

that's a viable theory... and a scary one.

I don't understand why people vote for who they vote for. Rigged elections make a lot of sense, but so does ignorance of voters.

[-] 1 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

Yeah, that's my point. Unless people are literally starving or 1 out of 3 are unemployed people are not going to go out and change things with their vote. The safety net we put in place since the Great Depression has mitigated the effects of the financial meltdown. But the fact is we are borrowing the money to keep the net patched together. This obviously cannot go on forever and when we do have to cut services and raise taxes on the poor and middle class the shit's going to hit the fan.

[-] 2 points by tomdavid55 (93) 1 year ago

I so totally agree that I wrote a song about it put it on youtube. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQ1WOC9RgY

see also: Here is a brand new protest song just published 5/26/2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R_jT015UdU&feature=youtu.be

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

this depression is just getting started,. the banksters keep taking more of our future to pay for there casino debts,. the shell game is all but over, the bottom of the pyramid scam they call capitalism is falling away,. they see full on corporate feudalism, as their way forward,. more for them and less for the everyone else. and if we do not stop them that is what we/they will get.

[-] -2 points by tj203later (1) 1 year ago

Word is you were unaware NDAA is annual, jph, and that NDAA 2012 and NDAA 2013 are separate attacks on freedom - One already law (indefinite detention), the other being hatched (indefinite detention restated, domestic propaganda added).

Hope this helps!

[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

whatever are you on about? what does the draconian laws passed by corporate 'representatives' have to do with this post about the depression? How do you come to your conclusion that I am "unaware NDAA is annual" or that I care? The laws passed by thugs in a broken non-democratic system are fraudulent and will not stand. Free people do not bow to the laws of a wealthy few,. the machine invented in France for removing the tops of people is a good way to deal with thugs passing silly laws that do not hold water.

[-] -3 points by tj203later (1) 1 year ago

Might I suggest you research before you pontificate? You'll not only learn something but gain the respect of others in the process!

We need people like you, jph. But we need even more people like you who know what they are talking about...

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

and so,. you complain that I have no idea of what I speak,. do you have any specific complaint or is this just generally about my overall presence?

You brought up the NDAA in a thread about the economic depression, and yet you claim I am confused. odd.

[-] -3 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

It wasn't bad enough. People are still making idiotic choices with spending and are saving far too little. The debt generation is right back at it with car and credit card loans. The national savings rate is up from nothing, but still stands at only about 4%. The kiosks at the mall selling garbage are still in business, Rent-a-Center is doing well, $200 Air Jordan's draw lines of poor stupid people, boat dealers sell almost nothing for cash, after-market wheels sell briskly, and there's hardly a sign of students making better choices with student loans.

No, people didn't learn their lesson. The Depression generation learned a lesson about debt. But not this one. This one has figured out all the reasons why it wasn't their fault, but sees no reason to change its behavior.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

So you are attempting to blame the depression on people buying things? Do get a clue about how a capitalist economy works,. or pretends to anyway. The current depression is caused by banksters manipulating the economy for their own gains, not people buying stupid sht! On credit or not, really makes no difference,. the 1% have been pillaging the wealth our from under the people for 40 years,. they use 'elected representatives' and drive up the public debt, for wars and other corporate welfare., it is that debt that is the cause of problems, not so much the tinny personal debts of individuals by comparison., we have no say in this bankster induced debt pile, as the 'democracy' is broken., not responsive to the will of the people.

Your analysis is faulty, but I suppose you know this, and only spout silly nonsense for political/financial gains. sad and more than a little bit pathetic too.

[-] -2 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

Banksters, banksters, banksters... sure.

Free will exists. Debt is a choice. Radical, I know.

The population is in debt to the rafters. That debt from over-consumption before is leading to slack consumption now. Every bit of that debt has a name of a borrower at the bottom of the loan agreement.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

You seriously miss the point! The economy 'broke' in 2008 because of banksters casino (stock-market) habits using other peoples money, ours!,. NOT due to peoples personal debts. The debts are HOW the bankers get to take our money to begin with,. .

I agree that personal debt, for many, is out of hand, but it is hardly what brought down mega-banks and trashed the economy. Some right-wing dipshts like to constantly blame the people for every failing of there own, and their terrible corrupted system. This simply does not make it so.

You keep crying about 'free will' however the national debt is created by bansters working through our, so called, 'representatives', bank's casino-debt write-downs, wars, and corporate welfare are what create the national debt,. not social programs or 'entitlements' as the corporate liars like to call them. We have no control over our 'government' hence the Occupy movement working to change the broken system.

[-] -2 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

The economy "broke" because of pervasive debt. Banks were part of the over-leveraged economy to be sure, but hardly the only part. Part of the downturn was simply moving from a 0% to +4% national savings rate. That was a hit to demand that still hasn't recovered. That's just everyday dopes suddenly waking up to the idea of not spending every dime they get their hands on.

If "occupy", whatever that is, is trying to fix a broken system, a good thing to include is to teach people about free will and the dangers of debt. Depression-era people learned this, but this generation is too busy blaming to learn.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Who is a teacher of free will? Even scientists do not fully understand if free will really exists or if it is only an illusion.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

free will exists

what now?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

That is a premature (what now?). First, we have yet to determine if free will exists. Just because you state it, does not make it fact. What evidence supports such a bold statement?

[-] -2 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

Certainly not liberals. To them, we're all helpless and not even close to being responsible for our mistakes and the things we sign.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

You are probably free to choose how you see things, then again, maybe your mind is not as free as you believe.

[-] -1 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

OWS blaming is missing an opportunity to help people learn a lesson.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

I think the lesson has been learned - don't trust bankers who ignore their fiduciary duty to their clients.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we are share the physical world

that's is how we relate to each other

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You mean financiers for automotive and boat loans are still running zero money down zero percent interest, no credit check ads on TV. When are we going to shut down the banking sharks that destroyed this country's economy?

Until meaningful banking reform happens as in 1934, nothing will change.

[-] -2 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

Seriously, you can't expect to go through life blaming everything on someone else.

Really, this is our societal expectation of people? You're now blameless for what you buy or how you buy it because someone offered it to you? Is that what you tell your kids? You tell them free will doesn't exist? We're talking about grown-ups or at least what are supposed to be grown-ups.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Usury laws were in place for a reason. It's got nothing to do with free will, but ethics, and business has no ethics.... pretty simple.

'Let the buyer beware' is the motto of a con artist.

[-] -3 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

And people have no brains... pretty simple.

Maybe Liz Warren's Bureau of Big Decisions will help. Maybe the incompetents should be listed in a database and they're simply not allowed to undertake certain transactions without a sign-off from their government nanny.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Maybe the incompetents should be listed in a database and they're simply not allowed to undertake certain transactions without a sign-off from their government nanny.

Great idea! We can start with Citigroup, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs for starters. The rest of the list for your plan can be found here:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/

Obviously this group of financial incompetents are unable to make grownup transactions without putting their companies, stockholders, and the entire global economy at risk.

[-] -1 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

It's really neat how people that levered up to the ceiling with credit card loans, car loans, home equity lines, student loans, other consumer debt and that spent themselves to negative savings rates are blameless. Now they're debt zombies that can't drive demand and the economy forward as they lick their self-inflicted wounds.

WIth loons like you teaching them it was someone else's fault, a valuable lesson about the downside in being debtor is being lost. At least we got a couple of generations that used their brain before they bought stuff on credit for our troubles in the Depression. This time, we've got no such benefit.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

It was the banks, brokers and traders who sold stock with ridiculously low margins to ordinary street folk that caused the 1929 crash, which is the same generation that lived through the Great Depression. That same generation did learn some very strong lessons, and as a result they cuffed the hands of the financial community, with the Glass-Steagall Act and other legislation like it because of those lessons learned. They locked the banks up with fixed interest rates for over 60 years.

If we had the power we would be doing the same thing today. Reinstate the Usury Laws, reinstate Glass-Steagall, end the too big to fail institutions. End the socialism for the rich. But we will get the power away from the bought and paid for Congress to do just that again.

It's asshats like you that have allowed this great country to go in the shitter with deregulation, Free Trade, and phony free market crony capitalism. The writings on the wall and you still can't read it, your time is over.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Powell Memorandum for $1000. What helped the rise of corporate influence in politics?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Correct! Ding! Ding! Ding!.... we have a Double Jeopardy question..... This was the Constitutional Amendment originally designed to finally achieve equality for people of color, but became the basis for increased corporate power.

'da-da-da-dum....da-da-dum.....da-da-da-dum...DA-da-da-da-da-dum...'

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

What was the 14th Amendment?

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Correct! May we present this weeks Civics Champion..... APRIL!!!

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Awww! Thanks geo. I'm so nervous! There are so many people I'd like to thank for this great honor! First I'd like to thank you geo. I have found many of your posts very informative and smart. And it was your posts here that inspired me. I also thank Ding Dong! Yes Ding Dong! Were it not for Ding Dong, I probably wouldn't be posting here this morning. I wouldn't have seen geo's post, and thus would have missed this great opportunity and honor! So thank you Ding Dong! And last but not least I thank Thrasymaque. He knows why. It's our 'secret'. Ding Dong can tell you all about it.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You might be on to something.... a post based loosely on the Jeopardy format, that gives key information on issues that are important for everybody to know about the movement.... might be fun and educational.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Go for it. Love Jeopardy.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

no idea

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Of the 150 cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment heard by the Supreme Court up to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 that established the legal standing of “separate but equal,” 15 involved blacks and 135 involved business entities. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure the political rights of former slaves was so restricted by the Supreme Court that blacks won only one case.

The 14th Amendment was used to open the doors to corporate personhood.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Bzzzzzzz! Next contestant....

(Hint: It begins with the words, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States.... )

[-] -1 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

Margin is debt. Shocking, huh? Debt was a choice now of greedy people just trying to get into the market and was a choice by greedy people trying to ride the housing bubble.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Debt is what banks sell. It's their best selling product. In its current form its usury. Simple as that.

Banks need to be reigned in as in 1934. The lessons of our forefathers who lived through the Great Depression, brought on by debt mongers, must be reinstated. Simple as that.

[-] -1 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

Really, it's usury? It's a choice. Simple as that. Debt mongers take out home equity lines. They're also known to run up credit card balances for trips to the mall or Caribbean cruises they "deserve".

Funny, but in the '30s, government began to mass facilitate debt for housing with Fannie Mae and FHA. Oops, better not glorify the '30s too much. LOL.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Really? Mass facilitate debt through Fmae and FHA.... exactly how much?

[-] 0 points by RealityTime2 (-25) 1 year ago

Look it up yourself. Don't choose to, that's fine. The programs were designed to facilitate clean water, not borrowing money to toss at housing.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I know what the numbers were... what percent of GDP the debt was, it was real small. Banks had their interest rates capped, there were no subprime massive interest rate loans. Houses were affordable, people grew savings. They could actually afford to pay off their loans and own homes.... This carried over to after the WWII, a middle class formed. Affordable housing and very low interest rate loans were common, savings grew then as well.

Nothing like today or back in the 90's.... conservatives had to screw around with something that worked real well. Worse.... they can't admit they were wrong... like you can't. Just had to deregulate those banks.

[-] 0 points by RealityTime2 (-25) 1 year ago

Weave and dodge and you might smarten up. Hmm, programs designed to grease the skids for being in debt for housing... say, they wouldn't be involved in facilitating leverage now would they? LOL. Of course not. They must have something to do with aviation. LOL.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Back again? Under a new name? Don't go away mad.... just go away.

The laws changed in 1970 when the GSE's became privatized... thats when the problems started. From 1930 - 1960's there were no problems with the GSE's there were no mortgage crisis's, housing was stable, people had savings as opposed to today, where we have been turned into a society of consumerism and debt.

You know what else happened in the 1970's? Credit cards. The beginnings of the attacks on Usury, consumer protection state laws, the start of banking deregulation. Nixons trip to China (our new communist trading partners who own our manufacturing), and the closing of the gold window..... think it was all by accident? Think we got where we are today, our current situation, without major planning and thought by industry and government? Follow the money... who has this all been benefiting?

Nah, just go away. You really don't belong here. See ya in the streets.

[-] -2 points by RealityTime2 (-25) 1 year ago

I guess the point of government programs that arrange trillions in debt for housing, up to 100% financing, will have to remain a mystery. Dumbass.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You are using todays numbers dumbass. You still haven't backed up your statement about the FHA and Fmae during the 1930's. In the 1970's the programs changed drastically.

Keep weaving and dodging, maybe you will find those figures.

[-] -2 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

Look it up for yourself you lazy fuck.

FHA exists to make low or no down payment loans. Hmm, let's make your 5th grade math teacher proud. If all or almost all of the money paid for a house is borrowed and government has a specific program just to make sure you can pull that off, walk me through how government isn't facilitating indebtedness you wouldn't otherwise be able to pile on.

You can find countless stories about how FHA housing with debt pimping turned out. It's father: FDR

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/05/30/fha-subprime-defaults-hit-9-california-climbing-elsewhere

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/fhahistory

Spend at least a minute or two to learn something about Fannie Mae and its clone Freddie Mac. The entire point of them is to make being in debt to buy a house easier. They grease the skids for being in debt. THAT'S THE POINT, DUMBASS! Father of Fannie Mae: FDR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I see.... can't find the data to back your assertion up, so now you resort to profanity.

Just goes to show who the dumbass really is. Your the one making baseless claims.

See ya when you want to have a civil conversation.

[-] -2 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

Government began pimping housing and the debt that comes with it in the '30s. It intensified dramatically during the 00's. It became government policy to help everyone that wanted to "just get it" to get in. Debt was seen as a good thing and anyone without access to debt was just missing out. FHA still makes loans at near 100% of value. Where have you been?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You didn't answer the question. You asserted that in the 1930's Fmae and the FHA Mass facilitated debt. So again, what are those numbers to back up that claim?

Not numbers from the 1970's, 80's, 90's or '00's.

[-] -3 points by RealityTime2 (-25) 1 year ago

No, I don't belong here. But that's what makes it fun. You need it.

Sure, just like everything government does is fine until it isn't fine, but then not government's fault. LOL.

Government should've never started meddling in housing. FDR's "save us" program ended up fucking us all in the end (pun intended).

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

FDR's "save us" program ended up fucking us all in the end (pun intended).

So is this the closest you have to .... 'Gee I was wrong'? This is all you are going to give for not having the data to back up your original statement?

You know that the housing programs in the 1930's really didn't facilitate mass debt like you said? It took until the 1970's and the conservatives pushing to privatize the GSE's for the fucking to take place.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I highly recommend this short informative article:

America’s Most Egalitarian Banker By Sam Pizzigati

With our titans of high-finance now creating chaos and rewarding themselves with billions, we might do well to remember a time when someone with good sense — and a conscience — could actually lead America’s top financial institution.

http://toomuchonline.org/americas-most-egalitarian-banker/

(I know the title sounds boring, but it really is a good read)

                                        Cheers
[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Tricky but no go. A valid point is made, then tainted with a talking point in opposition to the would be goal of the post. The post appears to point out income inequality and also appears to empathize with those most effected, then the poster injects the "tax & spend" policy that in fact has never been a policy by republicans or democrats, but rather a republican talking point.

[-] 1 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

My post was about that tax and spending polices were the solution to the great depression, but over time those policies reverted back to where they were before the depression. This time we had a great recession, and because the masses felt no pain (mostly due to the safety net put in place over the last 75 years) there was no popular uprising to restore the tax and spending policies that got us out of the great depression.

[-] 0 points by 2percent (0) 1 year ago

Note to yourself:

When voting for a U.S. President, please evaluate the person campaigning on their executive leadership skills from previous work experience. Do not vote as you would American Idol and Dancing With Stars, for someone who is cool looking or has neat slogans like "Hope & Change". This is a bad method of choosing successful Presidents.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Problem is - the Recession is not over yet. Nothing has been done as yet to prevent it from continuing a downward spiral or even from taking a quick plunge to the bottom. Ideas have been forwarded and some legislation has been passed but nothing has been done to date to enact and enforce the legislation and none of the criminals have been charged and prosecuted yet.

We are still very much in danger of a total collapse.

[-] 1 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

Yes I believe that a double dip is definitely possible. Back when the stimulus was passed, most economists thought that would be enough to get us down to 6 percent unemployment. Unfortunately for political purposes it was weakened and filled with tax cuts, which are a not the best way to stimulate the economy. It was not nearly big enough, didn’t have enough infrastructure spending, and now with the rise of the Tea Party and their amateur ideas on the economy ( If a family needs to balance the budget, the government has to too) there is no political will left for another badly needed round.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

What is also scary is - that it is believed that there is over a trillion dollars of toxic derivatives still out in the market.

No we are still in big trouble. Even if we bring back Galss-Stegall and break up the too big to fail banks.

And then WallStreet does not even get into the employment problems - living wage out sourced jobs unfair free trade agreements. The large number of people who are homeless.

Businesses that do not pay taxes. Unregulated fossil futures speculation.

And on

And on

And on

And on

There is a shitload of work to be done and nothing really has been started. I have no idea what they are gonna do about the toxic derivatives.

[-] 1 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

Actually I think that number of derivatives worldwide is over 700 trillion, kind of mind boggling since the entire world gdp is only around 60 trillion. Since derivatives are unregulated and are private contracts we have no idea which banks are in bed together, but I think it is safe to say that if one major bank goes down, the rest of the banks in the world will fall like dominos.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

People transfer what accounts you can to your local bank or credit union. When the TBTF fail you don't want to be there.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 1 year ago

We were never this progressive under Clinton (47% of households paying no income tax), and yet income inequality wasn't there either.

'Splain it.

[-] 1 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

Inequality was rising steadily for the past 30 or so years right through the Clinton years. There are 47% not paying income taxes because they don't make enough money, or they are on social security and benefits aren't taxed (though there are a multitude of taxes the poor do pay, just not income tax). You should look at successfully keeping the working class wages down as a victory for your side.

[-] 0 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 1 year ago

No, the tax payer base has been going down because of all the loopholes created. First time homebuyer credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, student credit, this credit, that credit.

99 weeks of unemployment for f--k sakes?!! 99 weeks of $$ for NOT working?!!

My neighbor just bought a second home for summer using the first time homebuyer credit. WTF? I know plenty of people making over 100K who bought cars through the cash for clunkers credit. Hell, every Chevy Volt is subsidized by the gubment to the tune of $8,000.

We were NEVER this progressive. We've got so many people not paying ANYTHING and so many people that have been on intergenerational welfare that we're going broke.

[-] 4 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

Those are valid points, but why were these credits put there in the first place? To counterbalance the fact that real wages have not gone up at all for the past thirty years even though productivity has gone up. I say give back all these credit's back in exchange for a living wage law indexed to inflation. Then everybody can afford to pay taxes.

[-] -2 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 1 year ago

Uh, no. Those loopholes were created to garner votes. Forget any living wage law. Just makes the tax code flat. One percentage for everyone. It's the most fair thing to do.

[-] 3 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

OK, forget any living wage law, forget any minimum wage law, increase taxes on the lower class by making the tax code flat because it is fair. These are all libertarian ideas which sound good if you on the mountaintop alone with your ideals, but in the real world what will happen? Less money in the average consumer's hands and more in the 1 percent (management's) hands. I have just one question. Where is management going to get it's customers for continued growth so capitalism can survive?

[-] -1 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

Living wage laws are just a useless attempt at price fixing the labor market. If you want low-end wages to increase, dry up the over-supply of unskilled labor and watch wages rise. But liberals don't think like that. About every big-city mayor running sanctuary cities also wants "living wage" laws. They support a major source of the over-supply causing low wages, but then are upset about low wages.

[-] 2 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

Those are excellent points, and as a society we certainly do not want to pay too much for unskilled labor or there will be little incentive for workers to get the skills needed for an educated work force that can compete in the world economy. That’s why I think there should be a minimum wage for low skilled workers, but also a living wage law for trained workers. Not everybody has the option or capacity to go to four year universities and many people live happy lives working in jobs where, though they might not be considered professionals or paid like them, they still deserve to be fairly compensated so they can raise a healthy family and perhaps buy a house someday.

[-] 0 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

Our last thing to worry about is too FEW unskilled people in our economy. We're awash in them.

If you want wages to rise, legislating the price of labor won't do it. The only way to do it AND to have full employment is to have a balanced market of supply and demand at a higher wage level. We need to drain the swamp. The most direct way we can do it is to control the border. Sanctuary mayors support flooding the market with cheap labor, but then bitch about the resulting price of labor. It may be good politics, but it's bad economics and it doesn't solve the problem.

Take an example. If you tripled the wages in restaurants, the price of going out would move up a lot, agreed? Pretty simple. If prices went up, I'd go out less and probably you would too. So, do the "living wage" people that fixed the price of labor plan on legislating demand too? Will they make me or you still have the same number of dinners out? If not, they'll have a lot of better bad, but not working, dishwashers on their hands. But that's what liberals do. They raise the cost of employment, but then have higher unemployment and those unemployed do nothing living off the state. Using supply and demand is a better idea because it works.

[-] 1 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

I don't think you need to triple the wages in restaurants. Maybe just keep the minimum wage for the lowest skilled entry level, then a living wage for the positions requiring more training. I doubt it would triple the prices to go out to eat, but it might go up 50 percent. But with the increased purchasing power available to more people with the living wage law I think it would be a wash. I would also index those wages to inflation as well. That will cause inflation but that is OK because wages would be going up at the same time and people would buy more stuff, thinking the price will go up even more the longer they wait. And that should lower the unemployment rate.

[-] 1 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

It's the same idea. It isn't about inflation, it's about demand destruction at the higher price and the resultant lack of jobs to then absorb the supply. You can't make people both pay more and consume the same. You can't. But we can control our borders and less the supply pressure on no-skill people. That works, pricing fixing doesn't work.

So, we increase restaurant wages and while current customers show up less, restaurant workers themselves on their higher wages will fill the void? Hardly. Discretionary service items are pretty far down the list of things they seek to consume.

[-] 2 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

No, restaurant workers themselves with their higher wages will not be able to take up the slack in consumption in the restaurant business. But if the minimum and living wage laws were place across all industries in the economy, that would be more than enough take up the slack in consumption and maintain a healthy restaurant business, as well as in all other categories of businesses.

[-] 0 points by RealityTime (-224) 1 year ago

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. What you're talking about is something about the marginal propensity to consume, as best as I can tell. The national savings rate is already only about 4%. There's simply not much to gain by putting money into hotter spending hands simply because they'll spend it. They might try to save too (they should).

Raising the cost of goods and services for low-skill produced things just reduces demand for those things. While you legislate the pay side, you can't legislate the demand side. You can't make me get my lawn cut the same number of times if the price doubles. It fails.

But even enforcing our existing immigration laws could make a dent. That directly goes away the swell of over-supply. Mayors want sanctuary and over-supply, but then wring their hands about the obvious consequences.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

You're quite confused peapup. Or totally misinformed. Income and wealth inequality began in 1980. Middle class wages began stagnating in 1980. So, yeah, under Clinton, income inequality was there. Even the Dems and Clinton were partially buying into neo-liberal economics at that time. And perpetuating it.

50% of the population is at or near poverty level. So yeah, they don't pay taxes. Can you say blood from a rock, peapup. Jeesh. Get a little clue peapup.

[-] 0 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 1 year ago

April, income and wealth inequality started soon after Adam and Eve made some babies

[-] 2 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 1 year ago

Nobody is asking for exact equality of wages, that would be communism. Just a little more fairness is all we ask. We are becoming slaves to the plutocrats. We used to have something called unions to fight for us, but they were successfully killed off.

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 1 year ago

No, not like this. It was much worse during many periods of mankind. Dickens may have written fiction, but the settings were true. You think things were better in Feudal Europe and Asia? Post war America was more the exception than the rule. Just sayin

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Yes. Poverty. Really.

I'm not playing your little game with poverty thresholds. Who has how many tv's, coffee maker or no coffee maker. The absolutes are not as important as the relative trend line. The poverty rate is going up. It's climbing. Based on a constant calculation over time provided by the Census Bureau.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm

So we don't concern ourselves with poverty, or income and wealth inequality, until all of the poverty stricken are without a roof over their head and living in the streets? Is that your threshold? Isn't it a little late then? Or is people living in the streets ok with you?

[-] -3 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 1 year ago

You concern yourself with whatever necessary to take from those who work and give to those who don't. The poverty rates are going up because of your leftist policies. You've failed.

It's clear, you're a bleeding heart liberal and I frankly don't GAS about your views on poverty.