Previous 11 - 20 Next
I knew people who got those jobs. You have a different perspective on things when you know actual blue collar Americans.
If I had no reasonable responses to well made arguments about the topoc of the article, I guess I'd make a rambling rant, too. Here are my two points again. Number one: Weather causes road damage, not just how many cars are on the road. Number 2: fixing infrastructure creates jobs. Done
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the dumbest argument ever made by a Townhall writer: "Also, if people are driving less, why are the roads in need of so many repairs?" People driving less does not cause less weather. You can deny climate change, but you can't deny the fact that rain, ice, snow and sun damage roads, no matter how many cars drive on them. In the Midwest, we had a 60 degree temperature swing in the past week, now it's pothole city. Heres something impossible to refute: Robots don't fix roads, putting money in infrastructure repair gets people off of unemployment.
Doesn't relate to my point, but I'll engage. First, if millions of Americans get a raise, I'll likely benefit from increased sales. That's what people do when they make more money, they spend more. My employees will buy more Mcdonalds, Mcdonalds employees will buy more of what I sell. I doubt I'd lay people off, who is going to service all my new customers? But to get me through while this process plays out over time and my bills and payroll come due, I'll raise prices, that's economics. But no one is arguing that an increase in wages won't make prices go up, it's just that they won't double.
Actually, the first sentence makes the argument for higher wages being healthy for the economy. Relatively, the rich consume little more than the poor. So once they have consumed, their leftover income is saved. Now, it is invested, which drives the economy in a major way, but not in the way that a service driven, consumer economy needs to function healthily. To put it more simply, 20 people earning and spending $50,000 a year will do more to fuel the economy than one person earning a million, but only spending $800,000. The $200,000 saved is not buying, not supporting consumption, not cycling cash. It's sitting there. It is invested, it does promote growth in some ways, but not the same way it would if it were being directly spent.
$15 an hour will put people into a taxable income bracket and make them less reliant on entitlements. This removes them from the 47% that conservatives complain about so much. This will increase the money the government brings in while reducing what it has to pay out. This is how you pay down $17 trillion in debt. They would spend more locally, increasing what cities and states take in from sales tax. Again, a debt reduction strategy. Why are you all against this?
When don't prices increase? They go up every year. I'd just rather see them go up because more people are earning more money, not just a few people at the top.
I said a couple making $15 could buy a house. Collectively, 30 an hour is more than $50,000 a year. Not great, but you can buy a house making that much.
If you eliminated food stamps, Walmart would go out of business. So would many other grocery chains and small businesses. 20% of Walmart's income comes from food stamp receipts, what would that do to unemployment. You want to get rid of food stamps, pay people enough money so they don't need them.
Using the threat of increased prices should not deter the call for higher wages. Retail and fast food prices have gone up anyway while the wages of their employees have stayed stagnant. Why? Dow 16000. The companies are making more money than ever. I don't bemoan investment or profit, but that is where your price increases come from. They raise prices anyway and we make up their employees salaries with entitlements while they take our money to the bank. Pay workers more, they depend on taxpayers less. They become taxpayers themselves. Walmart is the real welfare queen, they would go out of business if it weren't for food stamps. So they pay their employees unlivable wages, the employees get SNAP and spend it where? Walmart. How about Walmart pays more so their employees don't need SNAP? That's not their business model. Their model is to receive $17 billion from food stamps a year AND pay food stamp wages. But who do you support, a worker who wants to get off welfare or the employer who profits from welfare?
I love that Robertson can preach about homosexuality. I love that A&E can fire him for it. I love that Doug Giles can complain about A&Es decision. Robertson was fired, not arrested. There are no thought police, word police, SS, Gestapo, or foot soldiers that are coming to get him. He has free speech, so does A and E. They responded to public pressure from other people who have free speech. Doug Giles has free speech to complain about them. The Duck family has the free speech to take their show elsewhere and another network has the free speech right to hire them. People angry at that network will have the right to boycott them, that network has the right to tell them to kiss off. Free speech is doing just fine, it's just that people don't like when people who disagree with them use it.
Previous 11 - 20 Next