|
Maroon
Stranger

Registered: 08/25/15
Posts: 1,897
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
|
Funny everyone complaining about shrinking wages but still trying to pass global trade deals that directly drive down American and western wages
-------------------- UNDENIABLE PROOF A MODERATOR (Enlil) USES FRAUDULENT POSTS TO SUPOORT HIS OPINIONS. https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23596771#23596771 anyone can verify my original post in its unedited format. This proves the length the disinfo whores will go to defend pseudo theories. What quack jobs. Time to get out of moms basement. One must ask why they would be complicit in crimes against humanity? Is debt based money really worth whoring out your credibility for?
|
schwarg



Registered: 07/15/12
Posts: 2,817
Loc: San Diego
|
|
Quote:
6 corporations control 90% of the media. This influences the majority of people who mindlessly watch the news and believe everything they say.

No shit, because Americans in large don't trust the government to provide them with truthful unbiased, nonpartisan information. So as a result, they're not a significant part of that industry.
Do you like Netflix? Do you like watching the Super Bowl? What about big movie blockbusters? Private media corporations made that possible. Dunno about you, but I like big budget entertainment like Game of Thrones and wouldn't want all media I watch to be of indie level production.
Quote:
The TPP would really only positively impact corporations. No president in his right mind would push so hard for something with such big risks at stake.
I don't think you have much experience in the business world. You don't have to be a large corporation to take advantage of free trade opportunities. I personally work for a company of 7 employees and the idea of having a broader market to sell our goods in would be GREAT for us. It also allows for lower manufacturing prices which are impossible here because of ludicrous business taxes. I'm personally not in favor of paying $1000 for my next 'made in USA' iPhone.
Now when it comes to jobs, if these domestic business taxes and import tariffs weren't so bad, it would make more economical and logistical sense for companies to manufacture goods RIGHT HERE. More jobs for Americans. The only thing that needs to take place in unison with this is a significant reduction in government spending across the board.
--------------------
Edited by schwarg (08/03/16 10:54 PM)
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker



Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
|
Quote:
schwarg said:
No shit, because Americans in large don't trust the government to provide them with truthful unbiased, nonpartisan information. So as a result, they're not a significant part of that industry.
But news networks are already biased? Fox leans right and NBC leans left. Fox and NBC have had several instances where they have been untruthful or have delivered partisan information. I think you are mistaking what I am saying. I am not saying to have the government control the news, I am simply stating facts. 6 companies controlling the majority of what we watch, read, and listen to is an issue.
Quote:
schwarg said:
Do you like Netflix? Do you like watching the Super Bowl? What about big movie blockbusters? Private media corporations made that possible. Dunno about you, but I like big budget entertainment like Game of Thrones and wouldn't want all media I watch to be of indie level production.
Oh the good ol' appeal to emotion. Quite frankly, no, I don't like watching Netflix, big movie blockbusters, TV series, or even listening to mainstream artists. I do, however, do like watching the Super Bowl. But, people could still watch and view it back in the '80s when 90% of the media was controlled by 50 corporations rather than 6. It goes the same with movies. For people who do enjoy watching them, there were many good '80s movies despite there being 50 corporations. There is no correlation between less corporations controlling the media=better entertainment.
Quote:
schwarg said:
I don't think you have much experience in the business world. You don't have to be a large corporation to take advantage of free trade opportunities. I personally work for a company of 7 employees and the idea of having a broader market to sell our goods in would be GREAT for us. It also allows for lower manufacturing prices which are impossible here because of ludicrous business taxes. I'm personally not in favor of paying $1000 for my next 'made in USA' iPhone.
Now when it comes to jobs, if these domestic business taxes and import tariffs weren't so bad, it would make more economical and logistical sense for companies to manufacture goods RIGHT HERE. More jobs for Americans. The only thing that needs to take place in unison with this is a significant reduction in government spending across the board.
Once again, I think you are mistaking what I am saying. I believe in a free market that is regulated. I do understand the cost of having American-made vs. outsourced. It is much more cost efficient. However, where the issue lies is in the treatment of workers in those countries, one country easily suing another, and the import:export ratio in the U.S. For treatment of workers,a Vietnamese worker gets less than a dollar on average of work and that is just starters. For the suing, any country that is a part of the TPP can sue the U.S. if the U.S. hurts their business with regulations. For the import:export ratio, importing would go up and exporting would go down. You just said yourself that importing is cheaper than having products made in the U.S. The countries a part of the TPP would not import products as they would be more expensive and the U.S. would import more because of the same reason...which leads to a larger trade deficit on top of U.S. jobs being lost.
--------------------
|
Maroon
Stranger

Registered: 08/25/15
Posts: 1,897
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
|
We know international trade deals directly hurt the 99% so why are we still allowing them to even suggest passing more of the wage shrinking laws
-------------------- UNDENIABLE PROOF A MODERATOR (Enlil) USES FRAUDULENT POSTS TO SUPOORT HIS OPINIONS. https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23596771#23596771 anyone can verify my original post in its unedited format. This proves the length the disinfo whores will go to defend pseudo theories. What quack jobs. Time to get out of moms basement. One must ask why they would be complicit in crimes against humanity? Is debt based money really worth whoring out your credibility for?
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 32 minutes
|
Re: TPP [Re: Maroon] 1
#23509764 - 08/04/16 02:20 PM (7 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
schwarg said:
Quote:
6 corporations control 90% of the media. This influences the majority of people who mindlessly watch the news and believe everything they say.

No shit, because Americans in large don't trust the government to provide them with truthful unbiased, nonpartisan information. So as a result, they're not a significant part of that industry.
Do you like Netflix? Do you like watching the Super Bowl? What about big movie blockbusters? Private media corporations made that possible. Dunno about you, but I like big budget entertainment like Game of Thrones and wouldn't want all media I watch to be of indie level production.
Quote:
The TPP would really only positively impact corporations. No president in his right mind would push so hard for something with such big risks at stake.
I don't think you have much experience in the business world. You don't have to be a large corporation to take advantage of free trade opportunities. I personally work for a company of 7 employees and the idea of having a broader market to sell our goods in would be GREAT for us. It also allows for lower manufacturing prices which are impossible here because of ludicrous business taxes. I'm personally not in favor of paying $1000 for my next 'made in USA' iPhone.
Now when it comes to jobs, if these domestic business taxes and import tariffs weren't so bad, it would make more economical and logistical sense for companies to manufacture goods RIGHT HERE. More jobs for Americans. The only thing that needs to take place in unison with this is a significant reduction in government spending across the board.
"if these domestic taxes and import taxes weren't so bad, it would make more economical and logistical sense for companies to manufacture good right here"
Total nonsense, many states gave companies the world when it came to tax breaks and they still leave, it only makes sense they would rather pay $1 per hour instead of $18 per hour in the US, that's the reason why they leave, it's NOT taxes.
We don't practice "free trade", when other countries fix their currencies and they are not allowed to trade in the open market, we can't have "free trade". The fix is in and the US is in on it, they want cheap labor.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 32 minutes
|
Re: TPP [Re: Maroon] 1
#23509771 - 08/04/16 02:22 PM (7 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Maroon said: We know international trade deals directly hurt the 99% so why are we still allowing them to even suggest passing more of the wage shrinking laws
Many people don't understand how "free trade" works, it gets complicated for sure, but yes it does hurt 99% of US citizens.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: TPP [Re: qman]
#23509778 - 08/04/16 02:24 PM (7 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: The fix is in and the US is in on it, they want cheap labor.
You're definitely right about that.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 32 minutes
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
qman said: The fix is in and the US is in on it, they want cheap labor.
You're definitely right about that.
I know you don't like Trump, but he's been the only one with the ability to call China and others currency manipulators, R's and D's don't have that luxury, they would be dropped by their sponsors in a matter of hours.
These are NOT "free markets" at work, correcting this manipulation would cost the super rich trillions in profits, they don't want to see Trump even talking about it.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
Re: TPP [Re: qman]
#23509892 - 08/04/16 03:14 PM (7 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: I know you don't like Trump, but he's been the only one with the ability to call China and others currency manipulators, R's and D's don't have that luxury, they would be dropped by their sponsors in a matter of hours.
There's a lot of things I like about Trump. He gets TPP, he gets international relations far better than he's given credit for (the DNC smeared him to cover up their own wrongdoings against Bernie, which has practically disappeared from the radar). He seems to get economics.
What bothers me about Trump is his flip-flopping; I don't know where he truly stands on many issues (Hillary has the same problem). Hillary kills Trump on social issues (Trump is going for the religious vote). And Trump wants tax breaks for the super rich, which means bigger deficits.
At this point, I'm all in for Jill Stein.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker



Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
There's a lot of things I like about Trump. He gets TPP, he gets international relations far better than he's given credit for (the DNC smeared him to cover up their own wrongdoings against Bernie, which has practically disappeared from the radar). He seems to get economics.
What bothers me about Trump is his flip-flopping; I don't know where he truly stands on many issues (Hillary has the same problem). Hillary kills Trump on social issues (Trump is going for the religious vote). And Trump wants tax breaks for the super rich, which means bigger deficits.
At this point, I'm all in for Jill Stein.
I completely agree with you. But, as of now, I am voting for Trump. I think Hillary would be worse. Have you seen the new Wikileaks on one of her donors? She took money from Lafarge who has put money into Isis for profit. That is SCARY.
There is no way Jill Stein will be able to win unless she is allowed to debate. If she is, I will be all in for her as well.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
big_scrappy97 said: There is no way Jill Stein will be able to win unless she is allowed to debate. If she is, I will be all in for her as well.
It's funny how many people now say they would support Jill Stein if she had a chance. Bill Maher is even against her only because he doesn't think she has a chance.
If all the people that supported her just say they'd take her over Hillary, I think she'd be doing really well.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
schwarg



Registered: 07/15/12
Posts: 2,817
Loc: San Diego
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
qman said: The fix is in and the US is in on it, they want cheap labor.
You're definitely right about that.
But are we prepared as consumers to pay for the astronomically higher costs that will come as a result of the American standard of wages? You can't simply compensate for it by raising minimum wages. How would it not cause runaway inflation?
--------------------
Edited by schwarg (08/04/16 09:47 PM)
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker



Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
|
Quote:
schwarg said:
Quote:
Quote:
qman said: The fix is in and the US is in on it, they want cheap labor.
You're definitely right about that.
But are we prepared as consumers to pay for the astronomically higher costs that will come as a result of the American standard of wages? You can't simply compensate for it by raising minimum wages. How would it not cause runaway inflation?
Both are correct. It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Let me ask you this though. How are people supposed to pay for these products if there aren't any jobs?
--------------------
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker



Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
big_scrappy97 said: There is no way Jill Stein will be able to win unless she is allowed to debate. If she is, I will be all in for her as well.
It's funny how many people now say they would support Jill Stein if she had a chance. Bill Maher is even against her only because he doesn't think she has a chance.
If all the people that supported her just say they'd take her over Hillary, I think she'd be doing really well. 
It is because people are thinking realistically. Stein doesn't have a chance if she doesn't debate. No debate equals no media coverage which equals less people knowing about her which equals less votes. It is the same vice versa. If she is allowed to debate, I would happily vote for her rather than sadly putting my vote in for Trump.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
schwarg said: But are we prepared as consumers to pay for the astronomically higher costs that will come as a result of the American standard of wages? You can't simply compensate for it by raising minimum wages. How would it not cause runaway inflation?
Not sure why you think costs would be "astronomically" higher. It's been proven with empirical evidence that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises overall prices by no more than 0.4%.
So it's not a one to one increase. I'd take a 10% increase in wages for a 0.4% increase in prices any day.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker



Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Not sure why you think costs would be "astronomically" higher. It's been proven with empirical evidence that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises overall prices by no more than 0.4%.
So it's not a one to one increase. I'd take a 10% increase in wages for a 0.4% increase in prices any day.
Interesting read. I don't know though. It goes against my core being to raise it that high though. I still feel like people should work for a living wage. That might be messed up for me to say. But I feel like someone that is comfortable working a minimum wage job should struggle. I worked at McD's for 2 years in high school and that is when I first started this thought process. My GM worked there for all of her life (she was in her 50s), 4 out of the 6 managers were in their 30s, and most of the day staff were in their 30s. Even the warehouse job I have now starts at $12/hour and the youngest guy besides myself is 28. Even they are stuck in the mindset of staying in warehouse jobs. If college were tuition-free then it would be inexcusable to have a minimum wage job. At that point, it would be sheer laziness not to have a decent paying job. Minimum wage jobs are designed for high school students who want a little extra spending money or pay a few bills (like a car, car insurance, gas and/or a phone).
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 32 minutes
|
|
Quote:
schwarg said:
Quote:
Quote:
qman said: The fix is in and the US is in on it, they want cheap labor.
You're definitely right about that.
But are we prepared as consumers to pay for the astronomically higher costs that will come as a result of the American standard of wages? You can't simply compensate for it by raising minimum wages. How would it not cause runaway inflation?
You do realize that companies would have to have the ability to pass on the higher costs, they might just have to absorb the higher costs and experience lower profit margins.
Apple has super high profit margins, that's not a god given right, maybe they have to live in a world with less profitability.
What happened decades ago when US workers manufactured their own goods? Did we have "runaway inflation"? No, we had healthy inflation with rising wages, did companies have a super high profit margins like today? NO.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 32 minutes
|
|
Quote:
big_scrappy97 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Not sure why you think costs would be "astronomically" higher. It's been proven with empirical evidence that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises overall prices by no more than 0.4%.
So it's not a one to one increase. I'd take a 10% increase in wages for a 0.4% increase in prices any day.
Interesting read. I don't know though. It goes against my core being to raise it that high though. I still feel like people should work for a living wage. That might be messed up for me to say. But I feel like someone that is comfortable working a minimum wage job should struggle. I worked at McD's for 2 years in high school and that is when I first started this thought process. My GM worked there for all of her life (she was in her 50s), 4 out of the 6 managers were in their 30s, and most of the day staff were in their 30s. Even the warehouse job I have now starts at $12/hour and the youngest guy besides myself is 28. Even they are stuck in the mindset of staying in warehouse jobs. If college were tuition-free then it would be inexcusable to have a minimum wage job. At that point, it would be sheer laziness not to have a decent paying job. Minimum wage jobs are designed for high school students who want a little extra spending money or pay a few bills (like a car, car insurance, gas and/or a phone).
Minimum wage jobs don't have a design, they just are the result of a surplus pool of labor. If an employer needs workers and they can't find any at minimum wage, they will offer a higher wage. If an employer has a huge pile of resumes for 2 positions, they can low ball them with just a minimum wage.
Why do you think wages have remained stagnant for so many years? Employers pay the lowest the can, a naturally tight labor market forces them to pay higher, we don't have that today.
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker



Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
Re: TPP [Re: qman]
#23512120 - 08/05/16 09:22 AM (7 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
big_scrappy97 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Not sure why you think costs would be "astronomically" higher. It's been proven with empirical evidence that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises overall prices by no more than 0.4%.
So it's not a one to one increase. I'd take a 10% increase in wages for a 0.4% increase in prices any day.
Interesting read. I don't know though. It goes against my core being to raise it that high though. I still feel like people should work for a living wage. That might be messed up for me to say. But I feel like someone that is comfortable working a minimum wage job should struggle. I worked at McD's for 2 years in high school and that is when I first started this thought process. My GM worked there for all of her life (she was in her 50s), 4 out of the 6 managers were in their 30s, and most of the day staff were in their 30s. Even the warehouse job I have now starts at $12/hour and the youngest guy besides myself is 28. Even they are stuck in the mindset of staying in warehouse jobs. If college were tuition-free then it would be inexcusable to have a minimum wage job. At that point, it would be sheer laziness not to have a decent paying job. Minimum wage jobs are designed for high school students who want a little extra spending money or pay a few bills (like a car, car insurance, gas and/or a phone).
Minimum wage jobs don't have a design, they just are the result of a surplus pool of labor. If an employer needs workers and they can't find any at minimum wage, they will offer a higher wage. If an employer has a huge pile of resumes for 2 positions, they can low ball them with just a minimum wage.
Why do you think wages have remained stagnant for so many years? Employers pay the lowest the can, a naturally tight labor market forces them to pay higher, we don't have that today.
It definitely isn't the same as it used to be. McD's and the job I am at now don't have piles of resumes coming in. Actually, both places I have worked are understaffed and I have yet to see an increase in wages in both places, obviously for higher profit margins. Fast food isn't a career and shouldn't be paid as so. When the minimum wage went up less than a dollar most menu items went up along with it. Every day I would get a customer that would ask about the menu prices and the rise in prices. Every time I would respond with "blame the minimum wage rise and inflation." Look at it on a broader scale and it would go the same with other businesses. Just about all businesses in the food industry and grocery stores would raise prices since both already have low profit margins.
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 6 hours, 32 minutes
|
|
Quote:
big_scrappy97 said:
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
big_scrappy97 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Not sure why you think costs would be "astronomically" higher. It's been proven with empirical evidence that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises overall prices by no more than 0.4%.
So it's not a one to one increase. I'd take a 10% increase in wages for a 0.4% increase in prices any day.
Interesting read. I don't know though. It goes against my core being to raise it that high though. I still feel like people should work for a living wage. That might be messed up for me to say. But I feel like someone that is comfortable working a minimum wage job should struggle. I worked at McD's for 2 years in high school and that is when I first started this thought process. My GM worked there for all of her life (she was in her 50s), 4 out of the 6 managers were in their 30s, and most of the day staff were in their 30s. Even the warehouse job I have now starts at $12/hour and the youngest guy besides myself is 28. Even they are stuck in the mindset of staying in warehouse jobs. If college were tuition-free then it would be inexcusable to have a minimum wage job. At that point, it would be sheer laziness not to have a decent paying job. Minimum wage jobs are designed for high school students who want a little extra spending money or pay a few bills (like a car, car insurance, gas and/or a phone).
Minimum wage jobs don't have a design, they just are the result of a surplus pool of labor. If an employer needs workers and they can't find any at minimum wage, they will offer a higher wage. If an employer has a huge pile of resumes for 2 positions, they can low ball them with just a minimum wage.
Why do you think wages have remained stagnant for so many years? Employers pay the lowest the can, a naturally tight labor market forces them to pay higher, we don't have that today.
It definitely isn't the same as it used to be. McD's and the job I am at now don't have piles of resumes coming in. Actually, both places I have worked are understaffed and I have yet to see an increase in wages in both places, obviously for higher profit margins. Fast food isn't a career and shouldn't be paid as so. When the minimum wage went up less than a dollar most menu items went up along with it. Every day I would get a customer that would ask about the menu prices and the rise in prices. Every time I would respond with "blame the minimum wage rise and inflation." Look at it on a broader scale and it would go the same with other businesses. Just about all businesses in the food industry and grocery stores would raise prices since both already have low profit margins.
Yes, grocery stores pass on the costs since they are just a retailer. Restaurants can attempt to hike prices, it the consumers can't afford it, that's a sign of a weak economy.
|
|