15 bucks an hour

[dogman_1234]

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/seattle_begins_push_for_15_min.html

Let us see how this will turn out.

 

[Beachnative]

The disparity between the haves and have not is growing at an expotential rate. Why is it that CEO's averaged whopping 27% increase pay while the person actually doing the production work received 2.7%?

That's where the arguement leads to from a liberal perspective and conservaties hate it. Small business argues that minimum wage should be left where it is and I tend to agree but there is one thing left out.

Large corporations do lousy things, have huge advantages over small business in many ways including tax discounts, low cost credit, subsidies, etc.

My question is what aren't small business owners complaining about the unlevel playing field they experience everday by large corporations?

Did you know of the fortune 100 companies, 20 are currently without a CEO because no one will take the job? The stress is too much, the risk too high.. and only way to entice someone to take the helm is to pay them.

What corporations cannot find a CEO? No one will take the job because the pay will be based on performance and limiting the golden parachute of yesteryear. I say F%^& 'em. Greed is the enemy, not the money but what you are willing to do to get it.

One of the money magazines had a article about 20 of the top Fortune 100 or 500 companies had interim CEOs while they seek a new one. Recycling CEOs is a big thing now because not enough people have the skillset to do the job.

In fact, I'd argue most people don't even know what a CEO really does, yet they're pissed off at how much they make. Everyone company is 1 bad move away from bankruptcy.

North Korea is about communist as the pope is black.

Im really fascinated by North Korea Vice has some really good documentaries about the craziness that goes on up there.

I know, it's silly isn't it?

Everyone knows North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic. Wiki even says so. Sheesh, get a clue people.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gropouce]

IMO the word "capitalism" has not been created (or inspired or whatever) by a communist.
In revenge, the economic theorists of the left gave a negative connotation to THEIR definition of "capitalism" in their works. which differs from that approved by the French Academy ...

(... and when I see that you have made the word "socialism", I think there was probably a misunderstanding of a linguistic nature ...)

 

[MU_Engineer]

Are they starving in North Korea because of communism or because of international embargo? (notice: i'm not saying we should take the same way as North Korea; just trying to "un-demonize" (sorry, i can't find a good word for this...) a current of thought, albeit utopian, but too much exploited during the Cold War and the witch hunt, to the point that propaganda still works today.)

I am strongly leaning towards communism. People starved in the USSR and in Red China during the Mao reign and they certainly had the ability to produce enough food to feed themselves, rendering any international embargo meaningless WRT feeding their citizens. Shoot, today the Russian Federation is a large grain exporter under a nominally capitalist government.

This is partly true, but not to generalize.
If people were motivated only by the dough, there would be major malfunctions in our societies.
For example, I could very well leave the hospital where I work to start working for myself and earn 10x more money thant today.
It may be difficult to understand, but there are people for whom money is secondary.

The beauty of a free market system is that you are free to choose what you want to do. (You are also free to choose to do nothing at all, but you just don't get paid anything to do so.) You are not forced to do a particular job under threat of a bullet to the back of the head by Glorious Leader like in a communist system. I also work in a hospital and I could have easily done a job where I got paid much more. I chose to not do some far more lucrative jobs as they have ridiculous hours and a ton of call. I did the 100+ hour weeks with no sleep earlier on and it was absolutely miserable. I am glad I get to choose to not do so rather than be forced into doing so by the government.

It is precisely this kind of connection I blame.
You talk of communism as a disease or a pest problem. This is the most insulting terminology from someone who has never approached in any way something just because he was afraid.
The problem is that I speak to you a way of thinking. Thou tell me about countries and history (history written by the winners, I want to remind).

We know very well what communism is/was. The COMINTERN was certainly a force that needed fought as it was simply the USSR's plan for world domination. Communism was really only the vehicle to get the USSR's foot in the door and then the Soviet bloc dictators would run the show once they got in power. We knew it well enough that we realized that it was unsustainable and all we had to do was wait it out, which we did, and the major communist countries went away (USSR, DDR.) China is currently not so much communist as it is a corrupt dictatorship and we are waiting them out too. That's why we are not fighting them like we fought the USSR in proxy wars (such as Vietnam, which your country started.) Continuing to trade with them forces The Party to continue to loose its grip on the populace, lest they lose power. They will either fade to the background or the people will throw them out as the country continues to move to a more capitalist system as they are currently doing.

It is because of this meritocracy that you try to build around that part of the world hates you. I think a little openness would be beneficial.

The world appears to hate us because we have power and they don't. Europe doesn't like us because we stole their position as "center of the world" following WWI, which they'd had since the Middle Ages. Note that the parts of Europe that seem to hate us the most are the countries that are the most socialist and struggle the most economically, such as the PIGS countries. Ireland, the UK, Germany, and much of Eastern Europe have a better economic outlook and view us in a much better light than Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain as well as France do.

Let the rest of the world fend for themselves if they did'nt call for help. Nobody asked you to choose what is good for others.
But yes, maybe the future will show me your country knew what to do. (I say "in the future" because today it is not shining)

Our involvement across the globe at least until our current leader took power in 2009 was mainly directed at what was good for us. We were in the Middle East in the 2000s as there were whack jobs out there that decided to kill several thousand of our citizens and we decided to try to root them out the best that we knew how to. Hindsight is of course 20/20 but we at least had a plan and an objective and attempted to achieve it.

Also, if you are upset at the U.S. playing role of the world policeman, why doesn't your country step up and do so? We are essentially forced into that role as nobody else wants to pay the costs to do so and knows that being the most powerful country, we'll attract most of the crap from the malcontents in the world. Our idiot-in-chief since last 2009 has had a very ill-advised and unpredictable "what will make me look the best in the history books" foreign policy but before that we largely did what we had to do to try to keep ourselves as safe as we could.

Choosing Margaret Thatcher as an example??? seriously???
Maybe your president has a best knowledge of history than you!
Take a look: All fascist leaders spoke of parasites that have infested the world and pseudo-intellectuals who led the country to ruin.

Yes, leaders like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao continually spoke of the scourges of the bourgeoisie and the capitalists who led their countries to ruin. I doubt that Obama has much knowledge of history as he would clearly act differently if he did. He of course sealed his transcripts so that we can't tell what he actually took for classes in college but I strongly doubt it was much in the way of economics, mathematics, or history. (But his agencies of course have seen mine multiple times as I work in healthcare and I have to pay a bunch for the monopoly testing bodies to furnish them with those transcripts!) I would put my knowledge up against his ANY DAY. But don't worry, he'd "Joe the Plumber" character assassinate me if I ever dared to question him or his flunkies. Either that or they'd lock me up next to that poor guy who made the video which didn't cause the Benghazi attack. He's still in prison!

 

[Saga Lout]

Herein the UK many people believe we cannot afford to be and shouldn't be the world's policeman and furthermore, also believe there shouldn't be one. Countries with internal problems should sort them themselves and warring countries should fight it out without involving others. Could it be the US only wants to get involved when the stability of the all-powerful oil price is threatened? As to Syria, I personally believe we should leave them alone - while they're fighting themselves and each other, they're leaving us alone.

 

[chunkymonster]

IMO the word "capitalism" has not been created (or inspired or whatever) by a communist.

Well, I'm glad that you qualified that statement by stating that it is your opinion. And being free to have that opinion, you are also free to create whatever reality meets your world view because your opinion is divergent from the historical record and facts. The truth is tho, it's okay if the modern usage of "capitalist" was created by a socialist or communist. As they say, it is what it is. I mean, as someone who obviously has socialist/communist leanings, I would think that you would embrace a fellow socialists creation, like the modern use of the word capitalism, and use it to bolster your argument rather than insert an opinion to distance yourself from facts that challenge your world view.

In revenge, the economic theorists of the left gave a negative connotation to THEIR definition of "capitalism" in their works. which differs from that approved by the French Academy ...

(... and when I see that you have made the word "socialism", I think there was probably a misunderstanding of a linguistic nature ...)

How the French Academy defines capitalism is largely a moot point because the use of capitalism in the negative is within context of this discussion, and the simple fact is, today's popular usage of capitalism (as a political economic system) is a direct result of the writings of Blanc, Marx, and Engels. I doubt there is linguistic difference in how you and I understand what socialism is. However, there may very well be a vast difference in what you and I believe the application of socialism is, how it gets implemented, and the end results and effects on society.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Herein the UK many people believe we cannot afford to be and shouldn't be the world's policeman and furthermore, also believe there shouldn't be one. Countries with internal problems should sort them themselves and warring countries should fight it out without involving others.

Most people in the U.S. think so as well. There are two other issues going on though. The first is that being the only superpower in the world we are a huge target. Witness what happened on 9/11/01. What exactly do you do about THAT one? Sit back and do nothing? The idiots will just ramp up their attacks as they see you as weak. That was a big lose-lose situation as we are fighting a group of non-state whack jobs who occupy multiple countries. However I don't feel we really had much of a choice with the actions in the early 2000s.

What has happened since 2009 when the current president took office really IS a case of wanting to be the world's policeman. Obama has this intense desire to see himself writ large in the history books so he gets involved in anything he thinks will make him look good, such as the Libyan civil war and now in Syria. The percentage of people in the U.S. who view Obama's foreign policy positively here is not that much less than who view his other signature accomplishment (Obamacare) positively. It's no more than about a fourth of the country.

Could it be the US only wants to get involved when the stability of the all-powerful oil price is threatened?

Absolutely not. That is a very oft-repeated but very incorrect and easily disprovable assertion.

1. We're sitting on a BOATLOAD of the oil ourselves. We can affect the price of oil much more by allowing domestic producers to explore, extract, and refine it right here than any other action.

2. The events that caused the largest increases in the prices of refined petroleum goods in the U.S. in the last 10 years were hurricanes and a refinery fire. We are far, far more refinery capacity limited rather than we are crude oil vendor supply limited, so anything that affects refinery capacity will affect the price a whole lot more than the price of crude fluctuating.

3. We have spent a boatload of money in going into the Middle East for military actions. The government could have simply used that money to subsidize consumption like a lot of other countries do if the main goal was reducing the cost of petroleum products.

4. We did not seize oil from the countries we are involved in. That would have been the #1 overarching obvious thing to do if we went into those countries for oil but we did not do it. The only effect that our actions MIGHT have had WRT oil production and price is that us stepping in and sort of controlling civil wars kept production from completely stopping, which very modestly increased global supply.

5. Also the last and probably most important thing is that our current president HATES oil. He passed the ridiculous update to the CAFE standards that attempts to try to save some fuel by massively increasing vehicle prices. He has prohibited as much oil production and exploration as he could, such as shutting down offshore drilling shortly after he came in office and failing to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. He would much rather see us get shuttled around in local government-run buses and choo-choos and if that doesn't work, battery and solar powered cars. He had a trillion dollar boondoggle with the "green jobs" push which ended up in many billions of dollars being wasted with solar panel and electric car battery companies going belly up. Solyndra, Beacon Power, A123, Ener1, Fisker Automotive, etc. etc.

So in short, we are very demonstrably NOT in the Middle East for the oil.

As to Syria, I personally believe we should leave them alone - while they're fighting themselves and each other, they're leaving us alone.

Me too, and the vast majority of my country agrees as well. So many of us think so that we actually managed to get the president to step back from his plan to launch rockets into Syria to save face from his "red line" comments. Getting Obama to change anything he does is a massive undertaking as he is an extremely arrogant elitist ideologue who honestly thinks he is far smarter than pretty well everybody else in the country.

 

[Saga Lout]

My quote on Syria tells you enough about what I think about nine eleven and also about the July 7th 2005 attacks which killed many on the London transport network. Those are just two of many reason I'm happy to see Islamists wage a war of attrition on their own younger generation. Sadly,I don't have the arithmetical skills to figure out how long it will take them to achieve total extinction but I'd like it to be some time early next year.

I should add my view does not extend to all Muslims - only those sworn to take over entire countries and their legal systems and convert the populations to their branch of the religion.

 

[gropouce]

Well, I'm glad that you qualified that statement by stating that it is your opinion. And being free to have that opinion, you are also free to create whatever reality meets your world view because your opinion is divergent from the historical record and facts. The truth is tho, it's okay if the modern usage of "capitalist" was created by a socialist or communist. As they say, it is what it is. I mean, as someone who obviously has socialist/communist leanings, I would think that you would embrace a fellow socialists creation, like the modern use of the word capitalism, and use it to bolster your argument rather than insert an opinion to distance yourself from facts that challenge your world view.

How the French Academy defines capitalism is largely a moot point because the use of capitalism in the negative is within context of this discussion, and the simple fact is, today's popular usage of capitalism (as a political economic system) is a direct result of the writings of Blanc, Marx, and Engels. I doubt there is linguistic difference in how you and I understand what socialism is. However, there may very well be a vast difference in what you and I believe the application of socialism is, how it gets implemented, and the end results and effects on society.

sorry, i don't understand your whole message... but i'll try to answer anyway.

What I mean is that it is obvious that I express my own point of view.
And that's what everyone does. it only requires to accept the event that i don't hold any absolute truth about each of the topics we discusses.
I gladly will admit my faults.

In this case, you mention historical facts that support your argument ...
If you made references to works of economists, these "facts" are themselves determined by the political connections of those who wrote them.
Capitalism described by Marx is different from that described by Braudel.
Marx himself talked about the influence of predominant religions on capitalism.

What I'm getting at is that the historical contexts were different when our respective country have been associated to the capitalism. Whence differences connotations of certain terms.

If Marx is to be believed, the mere fact that the Protestant ethic dominates the Anglo-Saxon countries gives me reason.

So yes, there is a difference between your idea of socialism and mine.

The proof is, is that you're talking about

socialism / communism

while these are two things that have nothing to do with each other.
Regarding my political views, I have nothing to do with communism. 😀
And I do not demonize either capitalism, I think there are good things to take.
Besides, I do not find myself in the French political landscape. (I vote by default)

 

[riser]

Herein the UK many people believe we cannot afford to be and shouldn't be the world's policeman and furthermore, also believe there shouldn't be one. Countries with internal problems should sort them themselves and warring countries should fight it out without involving others. Could it be the US only wants to get involved when the stability of the all-powerful oil price is threatened? As to Syria, I personally believe we should leave them alone - while they're fighting themselves and each other, they're leaving us alone.

Interestingly enough, as the US continues the QE saga, it causes Oil prices to increase. If the US stopped QE, oil prices would go down.
A bit ironic that the US is concerned about oil prices when the US is the lead culprit behind the price increase!

 

[dogman_1234]

If we end QE, the speculators will freak and casue a market crash. The thing QE is trying to prevent.

 

[chunkymonster]

I understand the gist of what your saying.

I understand that socialism and communism are two differing ideologies and unintentionally use them interchangeably. Sorry if I misled or contributed to miscommunication.

So, do you think that all political or social philosophies are relative? That culture and nation are the foundations from which each of us draw our respective definitions of "capitalism", "socialism", and/or "communism"? Are there ideological commonalities that cross national and cultural boundaries?

 

[riser]

The QE is artificially holding the market up. It can't last forever. The point of QE is to hold the market up until the economy recovers and can hold itself up. Think about it. That really defeats the purpose of having a free market. It should go up and down. Now we've inflated it from what? 7000 points up to over 15,000 all under QE? Back to where it was prior to the crash where it was artificially increased from bad debt? Wait, bad debt? Isn't that was QE is, taking on debt to pump the money into the economy/market?

Big players are going to wait for this next crash before they pump their money into it. They all know when QE ends, it will crash. That's where the money will be made.. either short selling or buying in when it's low.

This is why 2.7 trillion dollars was burned through in under 2 years. This is why we need to raise the debt ceiling yet again. To be able to borrow more money to pay current debts and continue QE.

 

[Saga Lout]

I'm on the fence over QE. i can see the sense of putting money in the hands of the people who are most likely to spend it rather than put it in a bank or some shares but no country has tried that so-called "helicopter drop" approach. Further, I really can't see it working in the States where no-one knows how many dollars there are actually in circulation. As far as I know, there hasn't been a redesign in two centuries so it's easily forged.

We're also told that hundreds of millions had gone into Iraq and disappeared from the face of the earth.

Can someone explain how adding to that situation by printing more can possibly do any good.

 

[riser]

The US is a fiat system. We no longer maintain equivalent gold in Fort Knox. We print money based on our ability to repay it. If we can't raise our borrowing limit, we can't print more money to continue paying our debts. The value of our dollar is based on how scarce it is, the more in circulation, the more the dollar drops. The more the dollar drops, the higher the stock market, oil prices, etc. go.

We're maxed out on our credit line. We can no longer issue more debt, or more treasury bonds for other countries to purchase, to provide us the money. Our debt borrowing limit isn't how much debt we create, it's how much money we can borrow at a time to repay existing debt.

How a fiat system comes into play:

In most cases, a fiat monetary system comes into existence as a result of excessive public debt. When the government is unable to repay all its debt in gold or silver, the temptation to remove physical backing rather than to default becomes irresistible.

To measure the value of the dollar, one starts by simply looking at Debt to GDP ratio. This lets us know how much we can borrow. QE artificially inflates GDP, creating a bubble which allows us to borrow more. A common issue with the availability of credit is that their is always a contraction because of how quickly credit becomes available. This is why I'm pointing to the massive increase in the stock market over the last few years, along with the increasing price of oil as layman's indicators.

If you look over our Debt to GDP, you see a grim picture:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp

The last 4 years our debt to GDP has skyrocketed 165%! I guess in layman's terms, if you made $50,000, you're $50,000 in debt. Rule of thumb for purchasing a house is 2.5 times your salary, so when debt to GDP hits 250% we're completely bankrupted. In 1945 or 1946 Debt to GDP hit 141% fighting the wars and had recently switched to the fiat system to fund the war(s). After WWII, we did suffer another depression, nothing to the scale of the great depression, but it was present. Because of how quickly the credit expanded, it must have an equal contraction.

We'll see this likely before the next presidential election. I'm doubting QE will continue for another 3 years. Worst case, they'll hold it off and blame the next president for the issues that were built over these last few years and coming few years.

 

[riser]

Greece went to hell when they started hitting 150-170%. Based on current QE and spending, we could potentially be at 150-160% by 2016/2017 based on current rates.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Poland just seized 1/2 of all privately saved wealth because it can no longer issue more debt to finance themselves. Riser is correct in that the USA is headed in the same direction. However, they will need to seize our weapons before they will be able to seize 1/2 of our pensions.

What happened in Poland is that half of all pensions were confiscated. That won't happen in the U.S. simply because nobody has pensions any more! The only ones who do are the government, unions, and CxOs of huge heavily-lobbying companies and they will NEVER have their pensions seized. Everybody else at best has a 401(k) that very few put much of anything into. Plus the government already taxes what comes out of those 401(k)s at ~50% anyway so there's no real point in confiscating them. The government would have a very hard time in confiscating wealth in the U.S. as most of the wealth held by individuals is in real estate (primarily their house) and not in the form of any sort of security or cash. How exactly is the government going to turn that into cash? A national property tax? Yeah, that would go over like a fart in church given how local property taxes are nearly always voted down.

 

[musical marv]

Surely putting money into the well-being of the workforce in the manner of higher pay is investing in the business. Besides that, I was commenting on a global principle - I know nothing of Obamacare here in England although, strangely, I sem to get a lot of Spam mails telling me how wonderful it is and how it will enrich what remains of my life. 😀

You have to give it a chance. People are to dam hasty with their responses all the time.What kind of health care do you have in your country?

 

[MU_Engineer]

You have to give it a chance. People are to dam hasty with their responses all the time.What kind of health care do you have in your country?

He has the NHS death panels 😀

 

[Saga Lout]

What kind of health care do you have in your country?

Our National Health Service is partly funded by our National Insurance contributions which we make through out our working lives on a sliding scale tat tracks our incomes. Its hardly surprising therefore, that it's struggling for cash because so many folks are not contributing - some out of work and huge numbers have just hit retirement age, having been born just after the Second World War.

This can only get worse as more people transfer from contributing to retrieving. Successive Governments have ignored this looming crisis for sixty years.

Quick point - I was born before the NHS got started and my mother's ten day confinement in Hospital cost a little over £10 British. That was quite a lot - sixteen years later I would earn half that in my first working week. Two years after I was born, everyone had free Hospital treatment if they wanted it at a a time the country was still impoverished by the war. That health service was a dream of a left wing Government who pressed on with their dream on borrowed money regardless of interest costs.

Some Governments just never learn.

 

[riser]

I'm not against basic national healthcare - your standard checkups, vaccines, preventative stuff. That's all reasonable things. I think that should cover everyone and I think the cost would be reasonable. When you get into the prescriptions, treating diseases, etc. that is when it becomes unrealistic to support.
You can have your very basis healthcare. ER visits require you to shell out money, or even make it a copay for select issues. True emergencies if you will, broken brokes, bleeding, etc.

If you want better health insurance, sorry, you have to work and become productive to society. If you aren't productive by choice, sorry. If you're truly disabled, then I can understand. But too often they're handing out disability to people who are perfectly able but choose not to work.

 

[gropouce]

If you want better health insurance, sorry, you have to work and become productive to society. If you aren't productive by choice, sorry. If you're truly disabled, then I can understand. But too often they're handing out disability to people who are perfectly able but choose not to work.

That's why we are better in medicine...
Because we don't look at private life of patients to know if they deserve to be save or not while they are dying.

You care too much about money.
Money costs nothing beside life.
And if you want to tell me i'm wrong, just tell me when we should let you die (even if we can save you).

 

[Saga Lout]

We have provision here for folks who cannot afford to pay and, sadly, that often includes people who come here for the benefit of the free at point of need health service. People who've lived here all their lives without working and contributing also get those benefits. That is becoming quite a large bone of contention round these parts.

 

[riser]

If you want better health insurance, sorry, you have to work and become productive to society. If you aren't productive by choice, sorry. If you're truly disabled, then I can understand. But too often they're handing out disability to people who are perfectly able but choose not to work.

That's why we are better in medicine...
Because we don't look at private life of patients to know if they deserve to be save or not while they are dying.

You care too much about money.
Money costs nothing beside life.
And if you want to tell me i'm wrong, just tell me when we should let you die (even if we can save you).

In a way I agree with you. The concern is a death panel in the US in which they decide who lives/dies based on the cost.. and of course the inside connections someone has into the system.

It is much easier to expect people to work to receive the service of health care.

This is where the divide is in the US. Is healthcare a Right, or a Service?

I will argue that anything you can do on your own without requiring someone else to perform it could be argued as a Right.
Anything that requires someone else to use their expertise for your benefit would be a Service.

I take my dog to the vet. I pay the vet to perform necessary services on my pet. This is not my right. I cannot for someone else to do something that benefits me, even if I compensate them.

That's where I draw the line between a service and a right.

Healthcare is a service. If we somehow screw that concept up, we will ruin our system.

 

[Beachnative]

Healthcare is a service not a right. I do however like the idea of it being available for all. The only issue I see is the blatant fraud on Medicare, $70Billion every year...and fraud will expand expotentially with Obamacare...That is why I cannot support it. Standardize record keeping is one huge way to reduce it ...

 

[riser]

The HITECH act is supposed to standardize it. When I was in healthcare and we implemented electronic health records, our billing was something like 300% more effective. It actually allowed us to bill more because we had better records of what we were doing along with using the standard pricing. Often, things would be overlooked. If it said a process took 30 minutes, the staff would often do 2 things in that 30 minutes and only bill for one resulting in a loss of revenue. By making the electronic transition, we were able to bill everything easily and made more money.

I'm not against basic services being available. Standard physicals, health checks, etc. Some degree of copays for other things like stitches and broken bones. Other things were people will get over it but medical aid will help it quicker, you gotta pay for it. Common cold for example, the average person will get over it in time. You don't need to go to the ER or anything for treatment on the people's dime.