Persuader please READ THE SENTENCE. I said this DOESN"T MEAN all single moms etc.
You argued that single mothers shouldn’t get more money because they are drug addicted and crazy. Sure you qualify the statement by saying that it doesn’t concern everyone, but you do think it concerns a big portion, or you wouldn’t mention it. So, no, I was right in calling you out on it, and I find your backpedaling amusing.
Uh I think it’s obvious. The solution to much of our poverty and social ills is to make better decisions—get married before you get pregnant, get through high school, avoid drugs and get a job.
Are you having a laugh? So your solution is to tell people to make better decisions. I have to ask, do you think people are told that it’s a good idea to drop out of high school and do drugs? Do you think people are told that unplanned pregnancy is a good idea? People don’t do this because they think it’s a great idea. These problems are societal, and to get people to make better decisions will require several different measures.
I have no problem with higher wages for workers.
So, are you against unions or not?
Not sure what education reforms you speak of.
Free tuition for college students to make college more meritocratic (notice that this proposal was made in a moral context. Economically, it might not be feasible today).
National debt currently 15 TRILLION and change…
That was not the question. You gave reasons for the deficit. I wanted a source to confirm that the reasons you gave are the actual reasons.
Great in theory but who will PAY these wages?
Companies will pay, but I see that you are worried about the Price/wage spiral. Now, this is not as big a worry as you seem to think. Firstly, competition is meant to discourage business owners from raising prices. Secondly, rising labor productivity compensate the employer for higher labor costs (and labor productivity has risen considerably in the US in recent decades. Unfortunately, unions have been butchered in the meantime, ensuring that workers didn’t take advantage of that).
I truly don’t see how your theory works.
There are many ways to do it. One of the ways (which is implemented in all western countries today) is tariffs. Another way is higher productivity, although this is under pressure for certain sectors. A third way is by increasing funding for education, innovation and alternative energy. I have already talked about education, but there needs to be more money given to research and development. If you have the new ideas, and only you know how to do it, China cannot do it. Also, one could well afford to take a leaf out of the German book, so one can have the best qualified workers (which means openings for those more suited to manual labor) to make that innovation a reality (essentially increasing worker productivity by superior training).
My understanding is our tax RATES are higher than any other developed country. That they might be low with respect to the GDP doesn’t matter to Apple or GE.
How does discouraging businesses with high taxes, high wages and lots of regulations translate into a booming economy and high employment? It doesn’t make any sense.
The corporate taxes in the US are admittedly a mess, but they don’t pay very much at the end of the day (due to creative bookkeeping). The effective corporate tax rate is well below the OECD average (you can check this on the OECD website). It’s also interesting to notice how Australia has one of the highest effective corporate tax rates, yet appears to be considered one of the best performers on the IoEF presented by the Heritage Foundation (of which you seem to give a lot of weight). Unfortunately, the current system has the consequence of shifting the burden from big corporations (with money and competence to take full advantage of loopholes) to smaller business. At the same time, tax rates in general are very low (I have provided data for this ITT).
High wages and regulation is a different animal all together. We know that other western countries pay workers better, yet they still compete. It should also be noted that many of the low-paying jobs are not jobs that compete with foreign countries. Low-paying jobs in the service-sector, like cashier at Walmart (and the like) cannot be moved to China. With these kinds of jobs, there is a lot of room for improvement.
And again, there is evidence that moderate increases in minimum wage doesn’t have employment effects, nor is it the case that right-to-work states (with a lower average wage) have better employment numbers. However, we do see strong wage effects, which also functions as stimulus for the economy (spending increases demand and thus profits from satisfying that demand). So it does make sense.
THere are programs that DO work and instead of continuing to throw money at wasteful and ineffective programs, why doesn’t the government search out SUCCESSFUL programs and learn from those models?
Right. So where is the initiative for this kind of proposal? I’ve never heard a word of it. And again, for it to make any real difference, it would have to be extensive. Who is going to pay for it?
I don’t think your theory will work and the last thing we need in this economy is more burden on employers.
Employers are generally not burdened. The widening income inequality is evidence that employers are only getting richer and richer. There needs to be a demand for their supply as well, and this is where higher wages come in.
They don’t care about households that are run by single woman. They don’t care about bridges that collapse into the river. They don’t care about droughts and tremendous wildfires that scar the landscape. They care about their wealth. That people defend them, still baffles me.