I didn't say free either. You could have "purchased" it any time. From your posts, you make a good living,,thus my comment on you didn't want to pay (the price) for it.
I don't know where you would get the idea i want to subsidize ANYTHING.
Job creation from a 1%er
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
I don't know where you would get the idea i want to subsidize ANYTHING.
what? The purpose of having money is to buy whatever you want too,,,,NOT what other people say you have to buy. Now you will tell me WHO I have to buy it from?
What if I end up with all the money? I bet you would want me to buy stuff from you and your kids then....
No one needs money? Isn't this a thread about wages?
IF you have any pre-existing condition no matter how small you can be denied insurance (before) for any price. WHat i was doing was self pay. pay as you go. Only problem with that some catastrophic illness and its right to bankruptcy court. It is NOT always possible to buy insurance just cuz you make decent living.I didn't say free either. You could have "purchased" it any time. From your posts, you make a good living,,thus my comment on you didn't want to pay (the price) for it.
I don't know where you would get the idea i want to subsidize ANYTHING.
I already am paying, before the ACA. Everyone gets a subsidy somewhere- they only complain when someone else gets one that they don't.
WIth ACA im paying more for health care than i paid while doing self-pay. That means im contributing into the system more than im taking out. At some point as i age that may change ,but isnt that the definition of insurance and i dont see where im asking anyone else to subsidize my HC. If i use more HC down the road than my premiums,co-pays,deductibles cover its just my money i paid in excess beforehand.
I agree that needs fixed.
If you have a bad driving record, you pay higher insurance,,and I think (don't know) that there is a price increase in ACA for pre-existing ( i heard)
I do not have a solution for that problem to offer.
Last edited:
The majority of minimum wage earners ARE working for profitable companies: http://nelp.3cdn.net/24befb45b36b626a7a_v2m6iirxb.pdf
And where is that additional money coming from that those better skilled workers are earning? When you have one pie and someone wants a larger piece who gets the smaller one?
I totally agree that the trade deficit is a problem but that can also be captured as a monetary problem. Add a foreign sector in my HH and B model and then assume they are the ones who save 10 per period not the domestic households. You get the same trajectory as I outlined earlier, only that the interest income does not flow into the domestic sector but into the foreign country from which it has to be re-borrowed to not lead to a decline in overall income. The problem is that the foreigners are saving too much as they consume less of our goods as we do from theirs.
I venture the guess that the Dakotas are doing so well because they run a trade surplus towards the rest of the US due to that gas and oil boom. The questions is: Could not just everyone run a trade surplus?
If you must add baking too it,,,,,,the newly trained "better skilled workers" workers can bake more pies!
Don't you think "better skilled workers" can earn more money?
well,,, i don't know if i should show my paranoid side here,,sshhhh,,,,but I think it is a set-up for later, when the gov't decides who lives and dies,,who gets treatment, ect. They will refuse treatment to those with the worst or longest health history. This will happen as soon as it is a single payer system.
Ok- now that Death Panels are out there, I will take my leave and go invest in aluminum hats
what wages will you pay employees for making them?
I think it must be alum foil,,,or there is no protection.
Money only has value because you can exchange it for something else. Minimum wage earners don't need "money". They need housing, clothes, food, healthcare etc. Give them those and you don't need to raise the minimum wage. Money is only a convenient tool to allocate the output of goods and services among the population. But that requires someone who actually produces that output like our children's generation. Since you seem to value your money more than the goods and services you want to buy with it, I gave you that suggestion. If you really care about what you can buy with it when you retire then think about how it can be spend to ensure future productivity will be high. Saving money alone will not ensure that. Btw. My kids will not need your money, there will still be enough around. In fact, yours will just add to inflation.
Sure they cold bake more pies but where is that additional money coming from those pies are supposedly sold for? Or do some of those new skills include money-printing?
Yep just like it has with every country that has single payer.
Soylent Green anyone? 
Seriously? 
you are arguing for welfare over raising the min wage now?
ahhh,,, I think I see now. You are of the opinion that all wealth is already created and there will be no more added,,,,so there is none for anyone to get without taking it from someone else. I have heard some of this theory from younger kids who are bitter because there is no wealth left for them to accumulate. It is an odd theory, but not true.
Example:
10 people are born unknown to anyone else on the earth. Those people could raise food and make things, weapons, huts, cloths, ect, trading among themselves,, not getting anything from the other people on the earth. They will gain wealth without tapping into the "pie" that the rest of the world owns. They will invent something to use as money, or just trade goods. Sooner or later,,,some of them will have more wealth then the others. This wealth was created from thin air. Skill? Work ethics? Smarter barter?
Yep just like it has with every country that has single payer.
i was wondering where you were,,,do you live in canada? Do you use canada's health system? We listen to news reports of huge delays in getting care thru the health system there. What have you experienced?
We are pretty far off track of this thread.....
We don't watch Fox news for more than 6 seconds, about the time it takes for my wife to threaten to throw something through the flat screen if the channel does not change.
Our experience, likely the exact opposite of what Fox tells you.
Keep the four horsemen of the apocalypse stuff coming. I just love the comedy.
I don't know what fox news has to do with it,,, I should have known better then to ask you for facts,,,sorry for wasting bandwidth!
No, I am arguing for paying a liveable wage which is not welfare in my book. If Walmart wants to pay their employees in merchandise and free housing and they agree to it that's fine with me. The combined value should just be more than $7.50 the hour.
You mix up money and real goods and services. You can actually grow both but you need to know how in order to understand our economy and why paying higher wages is not bad for it. I already did a long thread about that but it is an "ash can heaven" by now and I am too tired to rehash everything here. Your picture of everyone just trying to accumulate monetary wealth and with that making us all better off does not work. In fact, it makes us all worse off. To make it really easy:
Assume in 30 years the total economic output will be 100 apples. The total money savings will be $100. Hence, on average: 1 apple = $1.
Now let's assume we were all great savers and put aside $200. But now there are still only 100 apples. What will happen? 1 apple = $2.
Do we have more apples to eat? Nope.
Now let's go to the present. People start to save more money to "prepare for the future". That means instead of 100 apples we now consume only 80 apples. What will the apple growers do? Plant less new apple trees. What will happen 30 years from now? We will have $200 saved but there will be only 80 apples. We saved money but we have actually less to eat than without saving!
Insert for apples all the economic output we produce (houses, cars, food, clothes etc.) and you still get to the essentially same conclusion: What determines our standard of living now and in the future is the amount of goods and services we can produce, not how much money we saved. Money savings simply determine the price level but not how many products our society as a whole can consume.
Last edited:
ask some old coal miners how that worked out. Owned by the company. I have family who came out of Harlen county.
nope,,,not true. I can make all the stuff I want,,,but as I retire,,,,i better have saved some money, which will determine my standard of living. There is no doubt about that statement as i watch people who did not save money try to live.
Most of what we "produce" is consumable, and will not last into the future as something we need for a standard of living. That's why they call us "consumers". Consumables,,,,are here and gone. That word "consumables" is what kills your above theory.
Ashful
Minister of Fire
C'mon guys, this ain't rocket science. Supply and demand. If you have a skill for which there's demand, and supply is limited, then you pay. Farm workers aren't all without skill, but there's an infinite supply of guys who will take the job of the current lot, should they protest for higher wages. Likewise for landscapers, trash haulers, and just about any job that can be worked at some minimum level right off the street. I suspect most people want it that way... or are you the rare person hoping your emergency neurosurgeon is making farm laborer wages?
There you have it. Folks seem to be unhappy with the bed they've made.
Gimme a break, Adios. Bringing politicians into this mess of a thread? You're smarter than that.
I think you might have missed the point that Boener (a rich white guy by all accounts) voted himself a raise, while denying the entire working poor the same.
Ashful
Minister of Fire
I didn't miss it, but didn't see the point of bringing that into an already wildly tangential debate.
Good for Boener. I wish I could put myself in his position. I'm not one to disparage the winning team...
- Status
Similar threads
