Skip to comments.Obama's remarks on minimum wage and wealth imbalance strike voters' nerves, stir hopes
Posted on 01/29/2014 5:14:08 AM PST by gooblah
Listening to the State of the Union, I can't help but feel invigorated, Jason W. Schaver, a Fulton, Ill., resident said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
It’s a pain to go to the yahoo link, but the author poo-poos Obama’s claims that the Federal government can just ‘give America a raise’.
Pretty good article.
People who spend every cent they get their hands on on bling and Escalades have no "wealth."
No more complicated than that.
Jason Schaver writes articles for Yahoo.
They have wealth! YT’s just holding it for them until Obama goes and gets it.
From what I gathered from the comments section, it seems like more people are seeing what a charlatan and economic dope Oblamer is.
Yeah—everyone gets a $10 raise, that will make them feel better. Except when the cost of everything goes up $11.
Have these idiots ever taken an economics course?
The constant pressure to raise the minimum wage is actually pressure to kickstart the inflation required to diminish the debt.
Obamacare inflation is a good leftist effort but will fail absent across the board wage inflation. Higher premiums don’t matter if there are higher wages.
Once wages begin to cascade upward, prices will immediately follow. The stalled inflation will begin to move.
The concept of higher wages, free money, is popular. It is happening in several states and will become irresistible. There must be inflation to get the economy out of the plateaued stagnation.
Is it good? Janet Yellen will let us know.
“give America a raise”
The operative word here of course is the word “GIVE”, not earn, but GIVE! Marxists are never talk about EARNING money, but always about GIVING money - giving SOMEONE else’s money!
But suppose Obama does succeed with his fascist tactics to extort certain companies into GIVING certain employees more money, wouldn’t there be consequences? Why yes; yes, there WOULD be consequences!
1. The cost of goods and services would increase, and the GIVING businesses would be forced to raise their prices or go bankrupt. The rest of us not so lucky to be GIVEN a raise would have to pay those higher prices, so GIVING some more money to some means less for the rest of us, i.e., earnings redistribution, i.e., Marxism.
2. But worse, GIVING certain employees more money would simply be another incentive to offshore even MORE manufacturing jobs to countries where employees EARN their money rather than have it GIVEN to them. This mean even more job losses in the U.S., so not only would those losing their jobs not be GIVEN more money, they wouldn’t even be EARNING any money at all either!
Now I know the above is exceedingly complicated for the Marxists running our economy right now to understand, and I don’t even expect them to ever understand such complicated economics. But it would be nice if enough voters figured this out and quit electing Marxists, because if they don’t the Marxist will soon run out of other peoples’ money (even with printing an infinite supply of it) and the whole thing is going to come crashing down around our ears.
No. Most Americans are economically illiterate.
He "feeks" not he "thinks". I've often said that conservatives think and liberals emote. I'm goint to add, progressives lie and scheme.
I am having a hard time getting my head around the thought that anyone and I do mean anyone can take anything this clown says seriously.
Obama can’t create jobs with his simplistic socialist utopian fantasies, but he wants to force private companies to pay employees more than the value of their contribution.
Yahoo writers quoting each other as man-on-the-street ... How pathetic
I got a bridge to sell to the
Moron from IL.
Just wonderin’, but maybe someone could suggest we give the military a “living wage”? Oh, I forgot. The military gets “free” clothes, “free” lodging, “free” food, “free” medical. Do they “earn” it? Uh, yeah. On call 365/24/7. I’m sure there’s more than one out there that served in the military and remembers struggling. Too much month at the end of the money. Thanks vets and active duty folks. A lot!
P.S. We all know there are cush jobs in the mil but there are a lot of jobs in the mil that suck. A lot.
There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Maybe poor people will start “self help” in regards to balancing wealth (notice how the issue is morphing from income inequality to wealth inequality).
It’s pretty depressing to read comments from people who want democrats and republicans to work together. This is like asking doctors to work together with cholera
Oh goody! More hope. Personally, I’m hoping for a bug change come this November.
Progressives lie and scheme because they believe their goals are so noble that they can do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Listening to the State of the Union, I can't help but feel
invigorated, Jason W. Schaver, a Fulton, Ill
Ah... this is the first I’ve heard that he said that.
It’s a homosexual reference.
Project 10 was an effort by the left to “jam” the idea that 10% of the population was homosexual.
I even had a lib relative try to jam that into a conversation as a complete non-sequitur to the topic at hand.
Yes, mosquitoes will be gone. The replacements will be no-seeums.
Except they worship at the feet of government to execute their “noble” goals and clear their own guilty consciences.
I have no problem with folks who have noble goals but they can keep their own guilty consciences and gods to themselves.
Absolutely correct, MrB
Right... I have no problem with communists as long as they don’t require me to participate.
Be “communist” over there. Thanks.
Yeah, imagine that. The “media” is just a big joke these days.
Meghan Kelly had an interesting guest in the after-speech commentary. The guest was a GWBush speechwriter, Mike ___.
He said many of the Obama comments sounded familiar, so he went back, dug up a 2007 (IIRC) GWB SOTU, and found numerous chucks almost identical. He implied that Obama’s speechwriter(s) seemed to have plagiarized his GWB SOTU. He even read some portions for comparison.
Plagiarizing GWBush. With Obama we don’t expect much more any more. Some of the after-commentaries, such as Luntz’s group, indicated the speech was only more of the same empty rhetoric. One startling item was the failure of trust — some 60%+ just do not trust Obama any more.
And many of them did it twice.
at least Boehner had the guts to come out and say that it would not affect a single current contract.
If the 'pubs are on the side of constitutional conservatives, they'll support this as long as it's connected to US jobs going to US citizens. If they're with the Chamber of Commerce and the globalist puppet masters, they'll be on the side of immigration "reform" and forever low wages.
I'll bet you felt the same way when you heard that you could keep your healthcare plan and doctor, and that your premium would go down by $2500/year, didn't you? How's that working out?
Idiot. Not even USEFUL idiot -- USELESS idiot!
Far too many of your type in the US, today, pal.
You may deserve the gov't you get, but I don't!
Most Americans are going to be economically destroyed because they are ignorant.
Because only Free Market Capitalism works and whenever the government controls something like wages, the unintended consequences cost the economy and the American people prosperity and freedom. Look at the 18 trillion dollar deficit as proof.
It's catchy and memorable, therefore good propaganda. It fits his third-world anti-American attitude, and resonates with the urban parasite class. It's cut from the same cloth as Jesse Jackson's insistence on speaking in inane rhymes. The low information voters, the left side of the bell curve, the parasite class find such things clever and therefore favor them. You rightly see it as idiocy, but Maximum Leader wasn't talking to you. He was talking to the people who want to take your stuff at gunpoint.
Mark Levin did indeed say that on radio recently. He's hardly the first person to mention that fact. He and others (including us right here on FR) need to keep on mentioning that fact until even the Low Information Voters get it.
To a point. It doesn't work for anyone but the business owners if they don't have to pay a reasonable salary for workers. "Fair trade", border control, and tariffs would protect local economies.
Da comrade. I now have my mind right. You are talking to a 45 year businessman here... I have owned up to 5 successful businesses running at the same time. I am now down to one and I am closing it up this year and retiring. You can work to pay my employees unemployment. Being self employed... none for me.
About ten years ago, an acquaintance decided to do it and start a turtoring business. We did real well, were highly thought of and successful. Two things caused it not to work. One was that as she grew the business, the regualtions on workplace, certifications, and accounting became impossible. The other was that the public schools through federal programs started subsidizing (mostly ineffective) tutoring programs throwing extra money to public school teachers.
Until regulations and the feds picking the winners and losers pulls way back, starting and growing a business is almost impossible.
What's wrong is that reality doesn't work that way. If it did, we could just declare that the minimum wage was $500 per hour and everybody would be rich overnight. And of course, the IRS would receive a huge increase in tax payments as the average part time McDonalds worker filed an income tax return showing a $750,000 income.
But wages in the real world aren't set by somebody's declaration, they are set by what the value of the person's labor is in the marketplace, relative to the other choices an employer has. So if somebody selling hamburgers really cost $500 per hour, than the hamburger they are selling needs to cost something like $70.00. So the new McDonalds dollar menu would be the $70.00 menu. And a gallon of gas would cost something like $250.00.
Of course there would be a period of time during which prices had not adjusted to the new wage rates, and during that interval employers have to not hire people at the new wage rate. Instead of hiring they would either replace the employees with machines, or move the labor to somewhere where the employees cost less per hour. Like China or India.
If you look carefully at who benefits from inflating the wages of workers you only find one party - the Democratic party, because income taxes are not indexed for inflation. Right now the part time McDonalds worker pays very little in taxes. But notice that when their salary is inflated, as in my example, the federal government gets a larger share of their income. Of course the employee loses out, since the prices of goods they buy increases in parallel with the increase in their salary, but they now have to pay more to the IRS.
Artificially increasing wages only reduces employment opportunities for new workers, and masks the real problem which is ever increasing costs from government, and its distortions of the marketplace that burden all workers and businesses.