Some weird arguments against raising the minimum wage...
THE DAILY SHOW: Slumdogs vs. Millionaires - Moral Hazard - The
conservative media lauds the end of unemployment insurance fraud, which is
totally different from Wall Street fraud. (04:59):
conservative media lauds the end of unemployment insurance fraud, which is
totally different from Wall Street fraud. (04:59):
Objections from Fox News range from the silly to the ridiculous;
1. 'Do you think someone out of high school deserves a higher wage'
Fox News Anchor - Answer should be: It's irrelevant because inflation
makes modern wages obsolete and outdated.
1. 'Do you think someone out of high school deserves a higher wage'
Fox News Anchor - Answer should be: It's irrelevant because inflation
makes modern wages obsolete and outdated.
2. 'Why stop an 15$ as hour? Why not raise the wages to a hundred thousand
dollars an hour' Fox News Opinion Guest - Answer should be: The wages should
be raised according to the depreciation of the value of currency which means minimum
wage should be at approx $23.
3. Unconscionable: Despite a reasonable economic solution to the problem of having welfare
paying just enough to survive and minimum wage paying just enough to survive (i.e. Solution:
Raise the wage to $21-23, so the money multiplier effect can get to work and provide
a boost to the economy using it's workers... while providing us with the kinda
wages we made in 1913). Fox News anchors only solution seems to be to make the
living conditions of US Citizens worse in every way possible!
wages we made in 1913). Fox News anchors only solution seems to be to make the
living conditions of US Citizens worse in every way possible!
After bailing out the banks we seem to forgot it was our taxes
they were bailed out with...
From The Guardian: When this financial crisis began nearly four years ago the story
seemed simple. The banks were broke and they told our leaders that unless the
taxpayers bailed them out and took their private debts on to the public account,
then the world would end. Our politicians believed them. We took on huge debts
and bailed out the banks. Right or wrong, at least the story seemed straightforward:
they owed us huge sums of money. Then as the crisis continued, a new group
most of us had never heard of appeared – the bond holders. It turned out the
banks owed huge sums to the bond holders too, and so did we. The story of
who owed whom began to change.
Gradually the story became less about the banks owing us money and more
about owing the bond holders.
It seems to me that our governments and their financial advisers from the
banks have a double standard when it comes to debt and its repayment; one
which greatly benefits the financial world and punishes the taxpayer.
On the one hand, the debts of private banks and those who own that debt,
the bond holders, are being protected from any losses by the publicly funded
bailouts. Public debt, on the other hand, at the insistence of the same banks
and bond holders we have bailed out, is being paid down at breakneck
speed, no matter what the cost in unemployment and the destruction of social
services.
As it is when central banks pursue a "Quantitative Easing" policy
they are using supply side economics i.e. it favors the already rich and
is bad for the poor and middle class workers (both salaried and
wage earner). Here is a study on that;
From The Guardian: "Real wages and salaries have fallen by £4bn. Profits
are up by £11bn. The spoils of the recovery have been shared in the most
unequal of ways."
Joshi adds that this also helps to explain why sales of high-end luxury
goods have continued to soar, while many consumers have been forced to
tighten their belts.
"High-income earners are more exposed to profits as owners of businesses
or shareholders. Low-income earners are dependent on wages," he says." - .
are up by £11bn. The spoils of the recovery have been shared in the most
unequal of ways."
Joshi adds that this also helps to explain why sales of high-end luxury
goods have continued to soar, while many consumers have been forced to
tighten their belts.
"High-income earners are more exposed to profits as owners of businesses
or shareholders. Low-income earners are dependent on wages," he says." - .
Such Pro rich & anti wage earner policies have been pursued
since Reagan with his "supply side economics" (also known as
"voodoo economics") and into the 90's and beyond but as the above
image shows, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED AND THINGS
DO GET BETTER! (Except for Greece's mystery default
which can be linked to the video below)...
DOCUMENTARY - FRONTLINE The Warning: Long before the meltdown, one
woman tried to warn about a threat to the financial system.
woman tried to warn about a threat to the financial system.
Note On The GOP Conflict Of Interest Role in this
Advertising creates a natural demand... thus a franchise is a ready
made - perpetual - money making business if you can get the money
to start one.
Here is an example of a franchise owners "thin" profit making
which must be helped by opposing minimum wage laws for your
business despite it's working effectively in other first world countries;...
From Liberal Libertarianism.org
No comments:
Post a Comment