Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-26-2011, 9:59 AM Reply   
I don't know who this guy is, but he nails it! He's articulating stuff I've been saying for years and much more.

"What we're seeing here is the self-esteem movement's chickens coming home to roost."

Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-26-2011, 10:10 AM Reply   
I've seen some of his other videos. Most of it is pretty good IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/661pi6K-8WQ
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2011, 10:29 AM Reply   
Two minutes in and the guy is way off base. The things he's saying are true, but it's only a small part of the story. IOW a red herring. You can't blame the youth for excessive inflation in the cost of essential needs. You can't blame the youth for living in a country 14T in debt.

But what??? You can blame the youth for excessive use of video games and the internet? Are the youth responsible for the divergence of wealth? The lack of employment opportunities? The high cost of a college education? You want to dump a huge debt on the next generation but don't want to pay to educate them?

Seriously the first two minutes was nothing but puppet mastering for the gullible. I stopped there... Is there anything he says later that is meaningful? Does he later lay the blame squarely in the lap of this and previous generations of adults and decision makers? Or does he just continue to lead by the nose with an easy target.... Young people?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-26-2011, 12:13 PM Reply   
At 1:16 he says, "You work hard and quality of your life improves"??? Tell that to the single mother, working three jobs just to put food on the table, who has to turn around and explain to the kids why there won't be much to go around at Christmas time. What a tool.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-26-2011, 12:17 PM Reply   
I laugh because this is posted on WW. The cost of a wakeboat is 80K-100K. I read on the forum of guys that just put in a 20K stereo and want to upgrade.

This guy is shaming young educated America because they own a iphone, yet they have no job, retirement or healthcare. These lazy shameful youth are the same generation (my child's generation) that will receive the bill of glutinous ways handed down from the generation before them.

This guy talks like Exxon and Kraft are heroes because "they do the things lazy Americans don't want to do". I call BS because they are making an absurd amount of money, not creating jobs and paying employees less. It's the struggling oil worker, meat plant worker or farmer that is breaking their backs to make these corporations rich.

The problem with OWS is that the meaning is different depending on who you are.

To me OWS is about leveling the playing field. I admire anyone who has works hard, risked it all and became very wealthy. I'm all for capitalism and a free market...corporations wanted less government control so take the good with the bad. That means no more bailouts and no one is too big to fail. When someone fails, someone else (gasp..maybe not a %1) can fill that nitch.

It's about paying fair share in taxes. If I pay %30 then all I expect is that everyone else pay the same. Cut the government driven loop holes developed for the elite.

It's also about a fair wage. Why is the CEO of a "failing" bank being paid 500 to 1000 times the wage of a branch manager? I always hear about how America can not compete in a global market because we are lazy and expect too much.

I have been to India and Mexico. I read about Foxconn, the brutal China company that employes paid "slaves" cents a day to make your new iPhone. If that's what America needs to become to compete, then I don't want it (even if I'm one of the %1).

I feel strongly about this, not because of my current living conditions or the fear I may not be able to afford a iPhone. I feel this way because middle class America is being destroyed and I fear for my child's future. I want him to benefit from the American dream (hard work pays off) like the generations before him.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-26-2011, 12:53 PM Reply   
He did have some points..."over priced educations". I agree, but believe these are the educations corporations say these "slackers" need to join the club.

These "slackers" could benefit from a stay in a cabin, hunting & fishing...last I checked this is called a vacation.
Old    Randy Paul (wakeskatethis)      Join Date: May 2011       10-26-2011, 6:04 PM Reply   
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       10-27-2011, 7:37 AM Reply   
Old, but perfectly appropriate...

Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-27-2011, 8:27 AM Reply   
Good video Pound and I totally agree. I may be ignorant, but is America still a capitalist country and or are we headed toward socialism? I never heard any OWS denounce capitalism. Greed exist in socialism as much as capitalism.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-27-2011, 8:30 AM Reply   
To paraphrase: "Not all pigs are equal to other pigs" said the pig after they killed the farmer. (Message sent from pigs Iphone)
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-27-2011, 3:02 PM Reply   
Milton stumped that socialist idiot Donahue.

Where do you find these angels that are going to organize society for us? That was great!
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-27-2011, 3:44 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
Old, but perfectly appropriate...

Thanks, that lead to a bunch of other videos that are surprisingly still relevant.

Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-27-2011, 4:43 PM Reply   
That guy is not only freakin' brilliant, but he's amazing at articulating how simply and efficiently capitalism works and how every instance of what people want to call "failed capitalism" is really a failure because it is not true capitalism due to government or some other intervention!
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-27-2011, 8:04 PM Reply   
Capitalism is a firehose that must be aimed in the right direction to be effective. The real problem is with our elected boobs in Washington. They are selling us out for campaign funds because we have not controlled capitalism properly. We have a government that pays the people lip service while the lobyist get the real service.

Last edited by diamonddad; 10-27-2011 at 8:08 PM.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-28-2011, 1:10 AM Reply   
BTW, I agree with Milton but disagree with a policy that has the freemarket running free. We need minimum and maximum controls. All those things that made employers well behaved. So, I am a big fan of a healthy minimum wage even if reduces the entry level employment space.

The bigger problems are...

1) illegals have taken away most of the local unskilled and semi-skilled labor.
2) outsourcing has taken away most routine work that can be done remotely.
3) inexpensive and higher quality external labor has decimated manufacturing.
4) pathetic parenting has delivered an upsurging american underclass.
5) entitlement expenses for our aging population are out of control.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-28-2011, 5:42 AM Reply   
Pathetic parenting has led to a nation under tremendous debt and failure to recognize bad policy. The list of pathetic things parents do isn't limited to their children. We are pathetic to this day.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-28-2011, 11:08 AM Reply   
Although I won't defend against the baby boomers poor parenting, a lot of it stems from the need for a two income family and high rate of divorce. No one is home to raises their kids any more.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-28-2011, 12:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
I am a big fan of a healthy minimum wage even if reduces the entry level employment space.
At the risk of taking this thread off on a tangent. Why are you a fan of a minimum wage, especially since it increases unemployment?
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       10-28-2011, 1:15 PM Reply   
Quote:
At the risk of taking this thread off on a tangent. Why are you a fan of a minimum wage, especially since it increases unemployment?

That's how you bring the jobs back to America. I'm sure Apple and Nike would love it.
Old    Erik (kinger)      Join Date: Jun 2007       10-28-2011, 1:36 PM Reply   
Because minimum wage is part of what helps keep this country from becoming a third world country
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-28-2011, 1:46 PM Reply   
I don't understand how you can have a minimum wage and allow imports without tariffs from countries that don't have the same wage requirements. BTW, that's not a argument against minimum wage. It's an argument against cheap foreign imports. I'm willing to pay the higher price for products as long as it's the law and a level playing field.

Cheap imports from countries that don't meet domestic standards/requirements that American manufacturers must meet is nothing more than a assault on America. It's pathetic (thanks GD for using that word) that we can't see that and are leaving our country in such horrible shape for our kids. Even more pathetic is blaming our youth.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-28-2011, 2:10 PM Reply   
Quote:
Because minimum wage is part of what helps keep this country from becoming a third world country
Can you explain how it does this?

My 15-year-old daughter would like to get a job right now and would be happy to work at $5 or $6 per hour just to get some work experience and some spending money. There are local businesses that could afford to hire her at that rate, but they cannot afford to hire her at minimum wage since she has no skills and can't add enough value to the company to justify such a high rate of pay. Minimum wage is hurting these businesses, my daughter and increasing the unemployment rate. That's a lose-lose-lose. Please explain why it's a good thing that the free market cannot be allowed to work in the situation I just described?

Although I started this thread with a video that points out how "entitled" kids are growing up these days, one of the problems (which isn't the kids' faults) is that they cannot get jobs and learn a skill or at least get some job experience. The teen unemployment rate is in the neighborhood of 25%. That's a major fail. No wonder they have to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26.
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       10-28-2011, 2:14 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I don't understand how you can have a minimum wage and allow imports without tariffs from countries that don't have the same wage requirements. BTW, that's not a argument against minimum wage. It's an argument against cheap foreign imports. I'm willing to pay the higher price for products as long as it's the law and a level playing field.

Cheap imports from countries that don't meet domestic standards/requirements that American manufacturers must meet is nothing more than a assault on America. It's pathetic (thanks GD for using that word) that we can't see that and are leaving our country in such horrible shape for our kids. Even more pathetic is blaming our youth.
We could make it so expensive for companies to import product that they jsut move manufacturing within our borders but then everybody would complain about everything costing too much. Then again if we moved all these manufacturing and customer service jobs within our borders everybody might make enough money to be able to afford those higher priced products. We could get rid of minimum wage and start paying workers 5 dollars a day so our products could be aquired cheaply and companies would quit importing but then people would complain about not making enough and being taken advantage of. Can we lower the minimum wage enough that people can live(I don't mean being able to afford a cell phone, car or new nike's. I mean be able to live in a small place(shelter) while providing food and water for their family) which will lower our price of manufacturing, while increasing the taxes/tariffs/fees of importing product which will keep companies from importing products. I have no idea how you pull it off but it needs to happen in some fashion.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-28-2011, 2:31 PM Reply   
Brett, stuff would cost more because it should cost more. We are living a fantasy right now, where people believe we can ship all the money out of the country and still live in a prosperous 1st world country. The fantasy is that we can continue to do this without the govt going further in debt to replace the money, or creating more money in an economic expansion. The fantasy is also that we can continue to do this and provide job opportunities for people of all skill levels.

The bottom line is people don't think. Because you can live a fantasy without thinking. We already consume more resources per capita than is reasonable. The money we send out of the country raises the standard of living in other countries so that they can use more resources as well. We pollute more than is reasonable on a per capita basis. Now we raise the standard of living in other countries so they can pollute more as well. More people burning more fossils fuels.

It's reasonable to think that the end result of our current economic paradigm is that China and other lower standard countries will rise up to our level while we lower to meet them. Then they will be our economic equal except for one thing.... We will owe them trillions. All thanks to our obsession for lots of cheap crap and sending the blood of our economy (money) overseas.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-28-2011, 4:40 PM Reply   
David, do you live in a dream world? Look at Alabama, where they recently passed the stiff immigration laws. Now that the illegals are starting to flee Alabama, the farmers had to hire legal workers to pick fruit or whatever. These people are leaving the jobs after one day because the work is too hard. And they pay higher than minimum wage. When I go to just about any fast food joint , they are in desperate need of people to fill minimum-wage positions. If they can't keep those jobs that pay 7.25 an hour filled, how in the hell are they going to find someone that is willing to work for less? If you had your way, it be damn near impossible to get a Big Mac or taco supreme.

So the point of my rant, if we can't keep crappy, minimum wage positions filled now, how are you going to get these crappy positions filled that would be able to pay less than minimum wage?

Last edited by wake77; 10-28-2011 at 4:42 PM.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-28-2011, 5:10 PM Reply   
Quote:
if we can't keep crappy, minimum wage positions filled now, how are you going to get these crappy positions filled that would be able to pay less than minimum wage?
Wow, that statement shows that you have very little understanding of how supply and demand works. That being said, I shouldn't type any more, but for the benefit of those that do understand how free markets work...

Am I living in a dream world? How do we have a 9.1% unemployment rate (25% for teens) and yet you claim there are all these jobs available? Don't bother answering the question because it's not relevant anyway because you're arguing against a minimum wage and you don't even know it. You just gave me two situations in which the market wage is above the minimum wage. That's great. Nobody said a particular business has to pay a lower wage. If they can't find qualified employees to work for $5, then they need to pay more, and that might be at or above minimum wage. Free market. Works great.

My question is about the situation (which I'm not sure you read because it was pretty clearly illustrated) where you have an employee and an employer who are both willing to agree to a wage of $5 an hour. What possible right do you have to tell a worker that they are not allowed to work for a certain wage if they are happy to do so. This is just another case of the elites telling people, "Don't worry. We're smarter than you. We won't let you take that job because we know what's best for you." It harms the individuals, businesses and the economy!
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-28-2011, 6:14 PM Reply   
I am a firm believer in a healthy minimum wage -- something that provides incentive to work over being on the dole.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-28-2011, 6:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
I am a firm believer in a healthy minimum wage -- something that provides incentive to work over being on the dole.
I don't understand how removing a job from the market provides incentive to work. If I have no job and I'm "on the dole," and I'm interested in working for somebody for $5 and hour and I can find somebody that will hire me for $5 an hour, wouldn't that get me further from the "dole" than if that job didn't exist at all?

I think many people have the false belief that there are a set number of jobs out there that will be available no matter what the wages are. If that were the case, then a minimum wage would work a lot better. However, that is not reality. The more I have to pay for unskilled labor, the fewer of those laborers I can hire. It's as simple as that.

Any why won't anybody address my daughter's situation described above? How is that fair to anyone and how does it help the economy? Can we at least agree that minimum wage is absolutely screwing over our youth??
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-29-2011, 3:31 AM Reply   
We don't need a McDonalds at every corner. The reason their is so much fast food is the fake labor force that is suppled by illegals. With all the McDonalds of the world out their, regular food items at the grocery store have become expensive to the regular folks due to the artificial demand of McDonalds and their fake cheap labor.

At the end of the day regardless of the wage the market will eventually compensate for price. Raise the minimum wage and the prices will eventually go up on everything to keep up. The raise is only short lived anyway. Only thing that ends up happening is it becomes cheaper to move jobs to a lower wage part of the world. You have seen that happen in our life time but no one seems to get the concept yet.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-29-2011, 5:25 AM Reply   
"Wow, that statement shows that you have very little understanding of how supply and demand works. That being said, I shouldn't type any more, but for the benefit of those that do understand how free markets work...
Am I living in a dream world? How do we have a 9.1% unemployment rate (25% for teens) and yet you claim there are all these jobs available? Don't bother answering the question because it's not relevant anyway because you're arguing against a minimum wage and you don't even know it."

I know how supply and demand works. Just because I don't agree with you statement about there shouldn't be a minimum wage, does not mean you should insult my intelligence.

That being said, David, I challenge you to visit your local Taco Bell, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Target, etc. and inquire if they are hiring. I guarantee you that just about all of those businesses are hiring multiple minimum wage positions. Just because there is a 9.1% unemployment rate does not mean that there are not jobs available. That does very little to support your argument.

Someone, how is there an "artificial demand" for McDonald's? I mean does this imply that they are not selling millions of hamburgers?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-29-2011, 8:28 AM Reply   
The reason why there is so much fast food is because it cheap and uses food sources created in the cheapest possible way. It capitalizes on unhealthy food engineered to maximize the addiction. I have a hard time fathoming why illegals have anything to do with it except they are probably a large segment of the market because the food is affordable to the poor even though the long term health affects are expensive.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-29-2011, 8:48 AM Reply   
"Any why won't anybody address my daughter's situation described above? How is that fair to anyone and how does it help the economy? Can we at least agree that minimum wage is absolutely screwing over our youth??"

No problem. I found this directly on the Dept of Labor website:

"A minimum wage of $4.25 per hour applies to young workers under the age of 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009."

So no, we can't agree that minimum wage is screwing over our youth.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       10-29-2011, 10:33 AM Reply   
"We should be thanking the big oil companies" This guy is full of BS, the only reason big oil exists is because of the 99% of the people buying the oil, I'm not thanking any big business, I will thank all the grunts who are paid very well and work very hard to actually get the oil out of the earth.
"Free market. Works great." The free market system by itself does not "work great" and would not work at all without government intervention.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-29-2011, 11:07 AM Reply   
Not so funny thing is.... China is playing capitalism better than the USA now.

Maybe our entangled loby oriented democracy is the problem. It's about the money. Capitalism.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-29-2011, 11:21 AM Reply   
Quote:
The reason why there is so much fast food is because it cheap and uses food sources created in the cheapest possible way. It capitalizes on unhealthy food engineered to maximize the addiction. I have a hard time fathoming why illegals have anything to do with it except they are probably a large segment of the market because the food is affordable to the poor even though the long term health affects are expensive.
Agreed. I would say that the number of illegals working for McDonald's has got to be very close to zero.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-29-2011, 11:38 AM Reply   
How about illegals working construction? With false SS numbers? Making $15 to $20 per hour?

Last edited by diamonddad; 10-29-2011 at 11:41 AM.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-29-2011, 12:17 PM Reply   
Quote:
I know how supply and demand works. Just because I don't agree with you statement about there shouldn't be a minimum wage, does not mean you should insult my intelligence.
I apologize if I was insulting. It just gets frustrating to see so many rail against the free-market system when they really don't have a grasp of what they're railing against. Take the Occupy protesters, for example. Right now ignorance is driving that movement more than any Wall Street or Government policies.

Your main point doesn't agree with the laws of supply and demand and your other points are irrelevant to the discussion of a minimum wage for the following reasons...

1.
Quote:
When I go to just about any fast food joint , they are in desperate need of people to fill minimum-wage positions.
You say that there is a glut of jobs available at minimum wage, yet our unemployment rate is ridiculously high. That must mean that the unemployment rate for those that are willing to work for the minimum wage is extremely low or zero. However, we know that is not true (25% unemployment for teenagers, etc.). So, according to you, there are lots of jobs available and lots of people to fill them. Something doesn't jibe with the laws of supply and demand.

2. Ignoring point #1 and assuming there is, in fact, a glut of jobs available at minimum wage. Then I assume you are saying that there are lots of people looking for work at more than minimum wage because people are choosing to stay unemployed while they wait for a higher than minimum wage job to come along. In this case your statement is not relevant to an argument for or against minimum wage because the affected workers are at a wage level above minimum wage. So a minimum wage is not helping nor hurting them. It's irrelevant for their situation.

3. Again ignoring point #1 and assuming that the unemployment rate for those that are willing to work for the minimum wage is extremely low or zero, that would mean that all those businesses that want workers will have to start offering more than minimum wage to get those positions filled or go out of business if they cannot afford those higher wages. Again, this situation is not relevant to an argument for or against minimum wage because the affected workers are at a wage level above minimum wage. So a minimum wage is not helping nor hurting them. It's irrelevant for their situation.

4.
Quote:
Now that the illegals are starting to flee Alabama, the farmers had to hire legal workers to pick fruit or whatever. These people are leaving the jobs after one day because the work is too hard. And they pay higher than minimum wage.
You say that workers on Alabama farms will not work for whatever wage the farms are offering (which you say is above minimum wage). If those farms want to stay in business, they'd better start paying more for workers. If they can't afford to pay more and that drives them out of business, tough cookies. That's one of the risks of basing your business model on illegal workers. But, again, this situation is not relevant to an argument for or against minimum wage because the affected workers are at a wage level above minimum wage. So a minimum wage is not helping nor hurting them. It's irrelevant for their situation.

5.
Quote:
if we can't keep crappy, minimum wage positions filled now, how are you going to get these crappy positions filled that would be able to pay less than minimum wage?
I'm not suggesting you fill positions that demand a pay rate of minimum wage and higher with employees that make less than minimum wage. That would be silly and go against the laws of supply and demand. I don't know why you're assuming that I'm forcing that lower wage on anyone. It's completely voluntary and ruled by the market. I know for a fact there there are people that would hire at and work for a wage less than minimum wage, but they can't because there is a law against it. How is that helping anyone?

It all boils down to the fact that you believe in price controls on the labor market, but I still haven't gotten an explanation for why you think they are a good idea. Most of your arguments seem to lean towards the assumption that we don't need a minimum wage because there is nobody willing to work for less than minimum wage. Not only do we both know that's not true, but even if we assumed it is, then your argument is that the minimum wage is below all prevailing wages and is, therefore, irrelevant. Great. Let's get rid of it.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-29-2011, 12:31 PM Reply   
Quote:
No problem. I found this directly on the Dept of Labor website:

"A minimum wage of $4.25 per hour applies to young workers under the age of 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009."

So no, we can't agree that minimum wage is screwing over our youth.
Did you work as a teenager? Were all your jobs less than three months long? This little caveat might have helped with my job at the Christmas tree lot, but I'm going to guess it does very little in the big scheme of things. I don't know a lot of businesses that are excited about getting an employee up to speed and then letting them go. Even worse is that many states have overriding minimum wage rates that make the Dept of Labor minimum wage irrelevant. I know that in California the minimum wage is $8 ($9.92 in San Franscisco) and the only break for "students" is that they can get paid as low at $6.80 for their first 160 hours (20 full-time days). Great for temp work, but useless for a decent job.

I'm still waiting for a reason why it's ok that somebody can tell me how many dollars I should be willing to accept for my labor. I wonder how many more thriving businesses we'd have if we could base the business on the prevailing free market wage rather than the wage forced upon us by government. More businesses, more people employed and nobody doing anything against their will. Sounds like perfection to me!
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-29-2011, 12:35 PM Reply   
Quote:
How about illegals working construction? With false SS numbers? Making $15 to $20 per hour?
By how your post was worded I wasn't sure of the point you were trying to make. Obviously, illegals taking jobs that Americans can and will do certainly hurts our employment numbers, but it's absolutely irrelevant to the minimum wage discussion since these workers are well above that level.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       10-29-2011, 2:59 PM Reply   
I think the minimum wage law discussion should be for a different thread, when we talk about unemployment we are not talking about filling the jobs at local fast food restaurants but jobs that can support a family, which doesn't seem to be a problem in an expanding economy. Buying houses and construction use to be a larger part of the economy, now not so much, why buy a house if the value is going to drop? There really isn't anything to drive the economy forward, so I believe we are going to have high unemployment for a very long time and neither party is going to "fix" the problem, just like the debt, we are just going to learn to live with it, so once this demonstration is over don't be surprised when other demonstrations pop up.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-29-2011, 9:18 PM Reply   
The minimum wage of $7.50 brings home $15K if worked full time for a year. That's not enough for anyone to live on. So, minimum wage work is for teens and people needing a little extra in a moonlighting job. Geeze, even the illegals at home depot won't work for that! So, why are we wasting time talking about minimum wage. It's not a problem and it's the furthest thing from a solution.
Old    Will Rice (willrice)      Join Date: Feb 2010       10-31-2011, 12:45 PM Reply   
How can you say that the minimum wage is not a problem after reading all of David's well thought out and articulated posts? Like David said, you must believe that every single person in America's time and labor is worth more than $7.50 an hour, if NOT EVEN ILLEGALS AT HD will work for that much. If this is the case, then why have a minimum wage? If you think it is because employees will be forced to work for less because employers will only hire people for $3 or $4 or whatever, you are wrong. You think everyone is already worth at least $7.50. So if they are, they wouldn't take the job offered at $4, they'd find one for more than $7.50, if that's what they are actually worth. And then all of the employers only offering jobs at $4 an hour will go out of business because they won't be able to find anyone to work for them. I don't understand how this doesn't make sense to everyone.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-31-2011, 3:21 PM Reply   
^Okay, explain why you advocate not having minimum wage without contradicting what you have posted.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       10-31-2011, 3:36 PM Reply   
Never fear Will Rice, since this is America(Greatest Country in the World), in which the boy who really wants to work, but is being held back by the darn Liberals, can become an entrepreneur in which he might even make more than 7.50 an hour by mowing grass. The girls can even work for less money babysitting, what are they getting now? $4?
Now for the real problem, how to jump start the economy, most everyone would agree to a flat tax, 5% for everyone under $50,000 10% for any amount from over 50k to 200k, any amount over 200k would be taxed at 20% most everyone earning under 200k spend most of the money they make which goes back into the economy,so the only stipulation is that those that make over 200k must "buy stuff" in America with most of their income. If they can not buy things in America then they must pay a 40% tax rate, either way they are contributing the majority of their income to the economy.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       10-31-2011, 3:49 PM Reply   
You do realize that his entire post was not what he thinks, rather a restatement of what it appears GD thinks, right? It seems pretty clear to me that he was making the point that even if you made the assumption that nobody in the country is willing to work for minimum wage or less (which most agree is not the case), then the removal of minimum wage would not effect anybody. Therefore, those folks shouldn't have a problem with repeal of the law.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-31-2011, 5:09 PM Reply   
Jo. That is not a flat tax. That is still a progressive tax system. Btw, girls make about $10 an hour per kid for baby sitting with a discount for the more kids.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       10-31-2011, 8:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Btw, girls make about $10 an hour per kid for baby sitting with a discount for the more kids.

WOW!!! What part of Beverly Hills do you live in.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-31-2011, 9:35 PM Reply   
On your TODO list for the USA to fix this economic woes, is "eliminate the minimum wage" like your 1st, 10th, 100th or 1000th thing to do?

IMO, it's so far off the relevant radar.
Old    Will Rice (willrice)      Join Date: Feb 2010       11-01-2011, 7:41 AM Reply   
Exactly David. Clearly I didn't explain it as eloquently as you. But I was simply saying that if you believe that no one is willing to work for less than $7.50 an hour, then it doesn't matter if there is a minimum wage of $7.50 an hour, since everyone is apparently worth more than that anyways.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       11-01-2011, 8:49 AM Reply   
Quote:
On your TODO list for the USA to fix this economic woes, is "eliminate the minimum wage" like your 1st, 10th, 100th or 1000th thing to do?

IMO, it's so far off the relevant radar.
Now we're on to a discussion that makes sense. It certainly wouldn't be first on the list, but it's definitely low-hanging fruit that would be easy to implement. Minimum wage = Welfare=A Tax. It's as simple as that. When you're paying somebody more than they are worth, that money has to come from somewhere else in the economy and that just means we're all paying for somebody else to get overpaid. Not good.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-01-2011, 9:14 AM Reply   
I would have to wonder why you would pay someone more than they were worth. That has nothing to do with minimum wage. What I think you really mean is.... "you are paying someone more than you would have to if there wasn't a minimum wage". If minimum wage is more than they are worth then you shouldn't be hiring them.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       11-01-2011, 9:21 AM Reply   
Yes, the minimum wage is a subsidy for people working for nearly nothing. We all pay a bit more for our hamburgers/fries so people working at the bottom get a half decent wage. A wage that is hopefully attractive compared to welfare, food stamps and begging on the street. It's the best kind of handout because people don't see it as a handout since they worked for it. It's also good for the economy as all of these wages will be spent again. Now, if you argued that this causes people to lose incentives to improve themselves beyond the minimum, then I would be concerned but this is not the case as the minimum is so low. IMO, it’s very important for capitalism to be regulated so people are not working in sweatshops, the sierras are not paved over and banks don't make bad loans.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       11-01-2011, 9:42 AM Reply   
^^^ Damn, it sure took a lot of posts to get the first rational argument for the minimum wage! Thanks GD. I'm still not a fan overall, but when you paint minimum wage as a substitute for welfare, it looks a lot prettier! At least we're all on the same page that it is, in fact, welfare.

Quote:
it’s very important for capitalism to be regulated so...banks don't make bad loans.
Actually, regulation is exactly what made banks make bad loans. If the government hadn't gotten involved in trying to put every Tom, Dick and Harry in a home of their own, we never would have had a housing bubble. Sometimes the best intentions blow up in our face. When in doubt, trust the free market over government.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       11-01-2011, 9:56 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
Actually, regulation is exactly what made banks make bad loans. If the government hadn't gotten involved in trying to put every Tom, Dick and Harry in a home of their own, we never would have had a housing bubble. Sometimes the best intentions blow up in our face. When in doubt, trust the free market over government.
Whoa, do you have a cite for that bit of revisionist history?

The commercial real estate market is also experiencing a (popped) bubble. Was that also due to overregulation?

A better argument is that the free market is rational in the long term, but completely irrational in the short term, hence the cycle of boom and bust. Booms and busts certainly pre-date meaningful economic regulation of any kind.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       11-01-2011, 10:01 AM Reply   
Quote:
regulation is exactly what made banks make bad loans
Well, I agree that it was a bad manipulation. But, IMO, the primary problem was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. If the banks were not allowed to sell of their bad loans they would have been much more responsible with their risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       11-01-2011, 10:09 AM Reply   
Quote:
Well, I agree that it was a bad manipulation. But, IMO, the primary problem was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. If the banks were not allowed to sell of their bad loans they would have been much more responsible with their risk.
So the banks would have had to eat the problem that the government forced them into (and the banks "creatively" weaseled their way out of). We can argue all day about the percentage of blame the banks and government should share, but the repeal of Glass-Steagal (part 2 of the problem) wouldn't have mattered if the government hadn't forced bad loans on the banks in the first place (part 1 of the problem) with their "regulation."
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       11-01-2011, 10:17 AM Reply   
Quote:
Whoa, do you have a cite for that bit of revisionist history?
Considering your "stunned" response to my generally well-know fact, I'm guessing that I'm never going to convince you, but it starts with the Community Reinvestment Act and goes on from their. You might look up the fine work of Chris Dodd and Barnie Frank along the way.

Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       11-01-2011, 10:24 AM Reply   
Barnie Frank -- yes, democratic cancer.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-01-2011, 10:34 AM Reply   
Forcing the banks to make bad loans is over the top when characterizing the issue. I think you would have a hard time showing the community investment act was responsible for the entire housing bubble. The problem is that as you as you allow people to make money making bad loans that they can pass on to someone else then you have a real problem. It's not so much regulation as it is interference. The govt provided the fuel and the banks burned it full bore.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       11-01-2011, 11:01 AM Reply   
Quote:
The govt provided the fuel and the banks burned it full bore.
I can get on board with that statement.

Now let's dig even deeper to put even more blame on the government. When we learn to rely on the government to "keep us safe" and fix our boo boos, we stop doing our own due diligence and that's an even bigger problem. I'd argue that the original Glass-Steagel act should never have been put in place. If the government didn't insure bank deposits, the free market would come up with a solution for keeping our assets safe. The consumer wouldn't stick there money in any bank that has an FDIC sticker on their window without looking into the financial stability of that bank. People with large deposits would seek out private insurance for their money and private audits of financial institutions would be commonplace so that banks could brag to their customers about how financially sound there are (i.e. Consumer Reports, JD Powers, etc.). Without FDIC insurance and bank bailouts, we'd never have to worry about banks owning investment subsidiaries because they'd have to keep their financial house in order or they'd lose customers. Instead, you've got the public running around with blinders on not caring what goes on inside their bank because they are insured either way. That's a recipe for disaster. I contend that if we didn't have Glass-Steagel and didn't have the Community Reinvestment Act and all the double down programs that followed it, this entire disaster could have been averted.

It all boils down to the public relying too much on government regulation or meddling that too often fails, mostly because it is driven by fraud, politics, cronyism, etc. rather than the free market.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-01-2011, 11:08 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
When we learn to rely on the government to "keep us safe"
Whenever the govt wants to make us safer we should all be thinking "red flag"! Unfortunately that isn't the case. It's hard to get people to buy into the notion that we should all exercise diligence and when we rely on the govt for our safety we are giving up freedoms and lining somebody's pocket.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       11-01-2011, 11:14 AM Reply   
GREED works. The banks were given the opportunity and they took it. The illegit home buyers were given the opportunity so they took it. The republicans want to deregulate the banks while the democrats wanted to empower the poor. BadaBing. Capitalism is so powerful.

FDIC is brilliant and required to stop runs on banks (fear based economic collapse).

Too big to fail needs to stop. Anything to big too fail should be broken up before they are given the chance. No bailouts for banks or auto. Ever.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       11-01-2011, 11:43 AM Reply   
Quote:
Whenever the govt wants to make us safer we should all be thinking "red flag"! Unfortunately that isn't the case. It's hard to get people to buy into the notion that we should all exercise diligence and when we rely on the govt for our safety we are giving up freedoms and lining somebody's pocket.
Damn, did we just agree on two things in one day!
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       11-01-2011, 11:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
FDIC is brilliant and required to stop runs on banks (fear based economic collapse).
Insurance helps prevent runs on the banks, but why does it have to be government insurance? Why can't it be done privately so that I pay for the amount of insurance I need or I don't pay at all if I don't want it. Why do my taxes need to go to pay for insurance for people with a million dollars in the bank when I've only got $400 in there? I would say that's anything but brilliant.

Quote:
No bailouts for banks or auto. Ever.
YES! Failure is as big a part of the free market as is success!
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       11-02-2011, 4:35 PM Reply   
"Jo. That is not a flat tax"
ok, lets call it a fair tax, anyway everyone except the rich could have their taxes done on a post card and in less than five minutes.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-03-2011, 1:16 AM Reply   
I see where you are going in regards to how hard it is to do taxes though I don't think you make out with the Progressive tax idea since the top 49% already pay all the income taxes.

Scott, I don't think you realize how expensive it is to live in California. Child care will make you go broke. You have to also pay for 2 weeks vacation for childcare workers. Baby sitters can make some serious cash. Also, you have to realize that In and Out Burger starts at $11 an hour plus benefits. Then they want to throw more regulations to make things more expensive to live. Now you know why California is quickly pricing itself out of the jobs market.

"Too big to fail" sounds a lot like a monopoly to me. Anyone remember all the mergers happening during the 90's?
Old    David Langston (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       11-03-2011, 6:31 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
Insurance helps prevent runs on the banks, but why does it have to be government insurance? Why can't it be done privately so that I pay for the amount of insurance I need or I don't pay at all if I don't want it. Why do my taxes need to go to pay for insurance for people with a million dollars in the bank when I've only got $400 in there? I would say that's anything but brilliant.

YES! Failure is as big a part of the free market as is success!
i always thought the FDIC was only good to 100,000?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-03-2011, 8:17 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
Damn, did we just agree on two things in one day!
We probably agree on most things, but disagree on the details regarding how to achieve the same goals.
Old    David Langston (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       11-03-2011, 8:51 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
We probably agree on most things, but disagree on the details regarding how to achieve the same goals.
pretty much everyone can fall into that category
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       11-03-2011, 2:19 PM Reply   
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bigges....html?x=0&.v=1

Who is paying their "fair share" of taxes. Well at least these corporations are creating jobs and banks are loaning the money they got from the tax payer to help recovery…Oh wait, never mind.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       11-03-2011, 2:22 PM Reply   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlEZDDwKv7o

This is just one way the government and banks are in bed to get rich off the tax payer.
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       11-03-2011, 4:25 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulezddwkv7o

this is just one way the government and banks are in bed to get rich off the tax payer.
wtf
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       11-03-2011, 6:24 PM Reply   
Quote:
i always thought the FDIC was only good to 100,000?
Actually, I think it's $250,000 now, so I guess my point should be that someone with $250,000 (or $100,000) should have to pay more to insure their money than I should have to pay to insure my $400, if I even feel it's necessary to insure it at all.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-04-2011, 8:29 AM Reply   
I think most people with that much money would split it between banks rather than pay to have it all in one. I can imagine that raising the limits (100K to 250K) was a request by the banks and not the individuals with money.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       11-04-2011, 9:49 AM Reply   
Our economy depends on banking (saving and loaning) of "real" money. Yet, banks can only handle a small percentage of deposits withdrawn at a given time. Have you seen "it's a wonderful life"? Freds deposits are Harry's loan, etc. So, to avoid a run on the banks and a collapse in the banking system, a guarantee from the USA on deposits was/is the right answer. The wrong answer is to allows the banks to make risky investments with this "guaranteed" money.

The answers are very easy. Re-seperate "savings" banking from "investment" banking. Divide companies too big to fail. Let loosers fail. Never bail them out. Absolutely, guarantee savings to avoid runs on banks under times of fear. To the enconomy, big money matters a lot more than small money.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       11-04-2011, 10:04 AM Reply   
Banks pay for their own FDIC insurance. It doesn't hit the taxpayer until the bank is closed and liquidated.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       11-04-2011, 10:08 AM Reply   
The community reinvestment act did not force banks to make bad loans either. The problem lies in the fact that when the government opens up the regs and lets banks take on more risk, they will follow suit because it increases profits(and is still legal). If banks don't follow, they won't be able to compete and will lose market share. A dog will hunt.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       11-04-2011, 10:35 AM Reply   
Quote:
The community reinvestment act did not force banks to make bad loans either.
Essentially, it did. If a bank wanted a new branch to be approved, they would have to show that they are lending a certain amount of money into certain areas (whether it made financial sense or not). Call it coercion or whatever you want, but the goal of the government was to put more lower income people into houses and that's what it accomplished. Bad loans were the result.

Quote:
The problem lies in the fact that when the government opens up the regs and lets banks take on more risk, they will follow suit because it increases profits(and is still legal).
If the deposits aren't insured by the government and the banks do not have an expectation of a bailout (i.e. free market principles are allowed to thrive), then we don't have anything to worry about. If the bank goes under because of their poor investment decisions, then so be it. However, given my assumptions (no FDIC insurance and no bailout expectation) banks would have to show their customers how financially strong they are on a regular basis (rather than the customers lazily relying on the assurances of government) in order to get any deposits at all and they would be encouraged to not take on too much risk because that does not make good business sense if there is nobody around to bail you out. If the bank does make poor investment decisions out of greed or stupidity, they will fail. Also good.

Keep in mind that not all banks participated in bundling bad mortgages. Unfortunately, those that didn't participate (those that made good financial decisions) were not rewarded for doing so because the government did not let the market work when they bailed out the banks that should have failed. Don't blame the free market for problems that were created when the government refused to let the free market work.

Like I keep saying, if the government would stop "helping," we'd all be a lot better off.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       11-04-2011, 12:52 PM Reply   
The CRA specifically says to maintain saftey and soundness. If a bank wants to put a branch in the hood, well then that is there problem, but by and large, it did not lead to poor credit decisions(one branch isn't going to take down the whole bank((usually))The major players in the burst were 100+% financing accepted by Freddie and Fannie, and then the new accounting standards, ie Mark to Market.

Most banks do show how strong they are by filling a call report with the FDIC every quarter. If you have a lot of money in the bank, it would be very beneficial to look at it and understand it. The majority of banks that make poor loan and investment decisions DO NOT get bailed out by the government, which is why these big banks need to get broken up. The problem is if the Government would not have stepped in with TARP, our countries financial situation would be a lot worse than it is now. Its kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I agree that Gramm leach was a total failure, allowing these large investment houses to call themselves "Banks" when they are actually not. It allowed for the consolidation that brought on "to big to fail"
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-04-2011, 1:24 PM Reply   
I have to agree with Paul on two counts. 1) It's illogical to point to CRA loans based on the simple observation that the foreclosure market is flooded with homes that one would assume have nothing to do with CRA, and 2) Just do a simple web search on the performance of CRA loans.

Quote:
Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/public...ay.cfm?id=4136

Do you really think all those expensive homes in foreclosure are CRA? Wouldn't it be logical to maybe assume that CRA home loans are for lessor valued houses than the average? Sure this is just conjecture, but isn't that what people who point to CRA are basing their opinion on? Yes it sounds logical to believe that forcing banks to loan a certain amount of CRA could be damaging. But do you really believe that the nationwide foreclosure problem is all or mostly CRA?

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:14 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us