- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why so much talk of raising minimum wage? Why no discussion on cost of living?
Posted on 5/9/14 at 9:03 pm to oklahogjr
Posted on 5/9/14 at 9:03 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Anyway besides letting coal companies run amuck environmentally? that doesn't seem like it would be good for anyone in the area the coal companies are in.
I was mostly just referring to the new things Obama is trying to do.
0
Posted on 5/10/14 at 11:07 am to Tiguar
If the Democrat party would end their war against domestic drilling on public land, then you would see a boon that would be unprecedented in this country.
What studies the Feds have allowed have shown is that ANWR may have more oil than the whole of Saudi Arabia. Imagine that. No longer would billions and billions of dollars flow to the Kingdom of the Saudis; a culture so steeped in racism, misogyny; and antithetical to Christianity, Judaism, and democracy.
This would usher in prosperity that the working class, middle classes have not seen since the industrial age was born.
However, the Democrat party knows that an empowered working and middle class will not support them.
The reason that there is such a push for minimum wage is due to the ACA Tax. There are different dates for different mandates. What will happen to about half of the labor force, which is employed by small businesses when the full time mandate arrives, is those employers will either drop employee health coverage, or switch to hiring part time workers, keeping those already employed but drop them to part time. The forty hour full time work week will end for millions of workers, or they will be forced onto govt. exchanges, or most likely a combination of both. This will happen.
The half of the workforce that is employed by large corporations will also see either their coverage dropped or reductions where companies can to less than full time.
At any rate the majority of employees will see their premiums rise substantially as they will be responsible for getting, and paying for their own insurance while many of them will be making less money. By the way the vast majority of workers that are employed full time presently will NOT meet the standard for subsidies.
So when that happens as Dems want to keep these voters, they will blame the businesses, blame the Republicans, for the only reasonable response to their own mandates in the ACA Tax.
What studies the Feds have allowed have shown is that ANWR may have more oil than the whole of Saudi Arabia. Imagine that. No longer would billions and billions of dollars flow to the Kingdom of the Saudis; a culture so steeped in racism, misogyny; and antithetical to Christianity, Judaism, and democracy.
This would usher in prosperity that the working class, middle classes have not seen since the industrial age was born.
However, the Democrat party knows that an empowered working and middle class will not support them.
The reason that there is such a push for minimum wage is due to the ACA Tax. There are different dates for different mandates. What will happen to about half of the labor force, which is employed by small businesses when the full time mandate arrives, is those employers will either drop employee health coverage, or switch to hiring part time workers, keeping those already employed but drop them to part time. The forty hour full time work week will end for millions of workers, or they will be forced onto govt. exchanges, or most likely a combination of both. This will happen.
The half of the workforce that is employed by large corporations will also see either their coverage dropped or reductions where companies can to less than full time.
At any rate the majority of employees will see their premiums rise substantially as they will be responsible for getting, and paying for their own insurance while many of them will be making less money. By the way the vast majority of workers that are employed full time presently will NOT meet the standard for subsidies.
So when that happens as Dems want to keep these voters, they will blame the businesses, blame the Republicans, for the only reasonable response to their own mandates in the ACA Tax.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 11:45 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Maybe i'm just dumb. What exactly do you do to reduce the cost of living? Doesn't seem like that's such an easy task.
First you have to have a government that wants to do so. This Admin does not want to make the cost of living lower because they believe like the UN that the reason there are poor people in the world is directly the result of industrialized nation's consumption of what they say are finite resources per U.N. Article 21; Changing Consumption Patterns; Cause for action.
Now when the UN says Industrialized Nations, they are really speaking of one main one, the U.S., not China because just as with the Kyoto agreement China is exempt.
If you look around, what goods are relatively inexpensive and what is not?
Goods that the Federal Government allows competition is relatively inexpensive, goods that competition is NOT ALLOWED, or is regulated by the Federal Govt, either by law, by regulation, and by investments by the Feds are NOT.
Health Insurance; the federal government does not allow competition at even a regional level, Federal Law does NOT allow Insurance companies to write policies beyond their domicile, so this makes their costs high, and that makes your cost high. And this is before the "train wreck" of the ACA Tax.
Housing: the Federal government created the housing bubble by operating Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac in a fiscally irresponsible, unsound manner since Carter was Prez. This bad investment is responsible for almost collapsing the finance industry.
Energy: Instead of modernizing the coal industry the Federal Government is intent on bankrupting this industry. ANWR and most; now all drilling for oil on Public land is denied by the Democrat party as well, since Clinton was in office.
Auto: The alliance between the Democrat party and Unions have turned this once prong of the manufacturing industry into a money pit needing to be baled out by taxpayers ad infinitum.
Manufacturing into The Bubble Economy: Clinton gave China most favored nation trade Permanent Status, so through this and by the direct intent to reduce the carbon output of industry by regulation, per Kyoto agreement by this Admin.
In other words we have a bubble economy not based on manufacturing so prices WILL rise because our goods aren't made here, other countries will set prices on goods consumed here.
This post was edited on 5/10/14 at 11:49 am
Posted on 5/10/14 at 12:06 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Anyway besides letting coal companies run amuck environmentally? that doesn't seem like it would be good for anyone in the area the coal companies are in.
The intent by this Admin is to bankrupt the coal industry. What they have done is set regulations that no company can afford to meet instead of investing in that industry to modernize it. This Admin. has chosen to sink billions and billions into wind and solar companies, that as you know much of that money went to now bankrupt companies, that were headed by Dem donors.
By the way, look at the manufacturing that produces lead. This Admin. shut down the last company that produces lead, so lead that is still used in products will be imported mostly from China.
Mind you this is a global environment, instead of lead being produced here under environmental regulations, it is now produced in China who is exempt from all international standards, and itself has NO domestic environmental regulations.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 12:24 pm to constant cough
quote:
Dems don't want to talk about how Obama's debt, wasteful stimulus and QE spending has devalued the dollar.
This and shhhhhhhh, there's no inflation under the Obama admin.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 12:50 pm to constant cough
quote:
Dems don't want to talk about how Obama's debt, wasteful stimulus and QE spending has devalued the dollar.
Since the Obama economic policies have taken root, the Fed has gone from pumping over 30 Billion monthly to about 80 Billion monthly into his economy, trillions of money based on nothing.
That devalues the dollar, at a rate that I don't think we have ever seen in this country's history.
And inflation always follows; this time hyper inflation.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 12:59 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Is inflation like entropy, in that it can never be reversed?
Do you even Federal Reserve?
Seriously, the answer to your question is no. For example during the 2008 financial crisis we had lots of deflation.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 1:02 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
There are already plenty of programs in place to reduce the poors' cost of living. Food stamps, subsidized housing, the EITC, etc. Not that they are all adequately funded - but to suggest this hasn't been thought of before is a bit off the mark.
Government welfare programs raise the cost of living.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 1:03 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Maybe i'm just dumb. What exactly do you do to reduce the cost of living? Doesn't seem like that's such an easy task.
Reverse intentional inflationary monetary policy.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 2:10 pm to GumboPot
That's interesting, because I seemed to still have to spend a similar amount of money to live.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 3:22 pm to Tiguar
quote:
That's interesting, because I seemed to still have to spend a similar amount of money to live.
You don't remember gas was ~1.90 a gallon. I bought a Yukon Denali for $15,000 off MSRP during this time too. Anyway that's all anecdotal.
Here is the official metric, consumer price index (CPI), to measure inflation as reported by he St. Louis Fed over time:
You can see the obvious deflationary "blip" in 2008.
With that said I'm suspect of the CPI metric simply because congress has changed the CPI formula over the years for various reasons. For example there is a bill sitting in congress to tweak the CPI formula to a chained CPI. Republicans like the bill because it reduces increases to SS payments to retirees (because SS increases are based on CPI) and it helps to control baseline budgeting. Democrats hate it for the opposite reasons.
With that said the measure of inflation that I like to use because I believe it really does a better job of reflecting the inflation the consumer actually feels and is not politically skewed is MIT's Billion Prices Index created in 2008. Here's the current index relative to CPI: LINK
This post was edited on 5/10/14 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 5/10/14 at 5:34 pm to GumboPot
So if I am understanding you correctly, inflation actually can be reversed, and at will, by the Fed. Is the only negative repercussion of this making debt intrinsicly worse, or are there others?
Posted on 5/10/14 at 8:38 pm to Tiguar
quote:
So if I am understanding you correctly, inflation actually can be reversed, and at will, by the Fed.
Absolutely.
Let's play hypothetical.
Say the Federal Reserve raises the Fed's Fund Rate to 10% tomorrow. What do you think would happen to the market? Borrowing and liquidity would come to a screeching halt (actually significantly slow down). (And for this hypothetical lets go with home prices.)
That means for a $100,000 mortgage today at 5% would run you ~$540/month and tomorrow after the Fed raise the rate to 10% a $100,000 mortgage tomorrow at 15% (likely rate at 10% Fed's Fund Rate) would run you ~1,264/month. You could get A LOT more house today than you could tomorrow.
That kind of move would put major pressure on real estate to LOWER prices to meet demand (or lack of). Lower prices = deflation.
Okay that was an extreme example but the purpose was to demonstrate how the Fed could cause deflation.
But let's get back to real life. For the first time I believe, since 1913 the Federal Reserve does not have the ability to lower rates. We are essentially at zero. Despite being at zero the economy has failed to respond like previous rate lowerings. These are new times. I don't know where the Fed goes from here in an attempt to stimulate the economy. The only way I see out is for the economy to produce enough value to clear out the malinvestment from previous years.
This post was edited on 5/10/14 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 5/10/14 at 8:44 pm to GumboPot
They can't. The printing press is all they have. The jig will be up soon.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News