Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by scheherazade, Jan 6, 2018.
I agree that the current conservative movement is screwed up. I'm a liberal however.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Who owns the land and how did they get it?
A living wage largely depends on housing costs but we are sent to school and not actually taught to do anything. Win a spelling bee with ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM
Who gives a shit?
I find it really amusing that double-entry accounting was invented in Italy 700 years ago but Western countries do not make it mandatory in schools.
If accounting had been mandatory since 1960 in the US would we be having this discussion?
When do you hear liberals or conservatives suggesting mandatory accounting, but we have endless blather about EDUCATION !
Playing devil's advocate to my position here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/devils-advocate-minimum-wage-hyah.160527/
Can anyone play devil's advocate to their own position?
Teaching accounting is education. Accounting doesn't quite rise to the level of importance of making it mandatory however.
One wonders why it is not taught along with how to make ones bed.
It is so fundamental.
Ask anyone to comment on their bank statement and the meaning of ctedit and debit for example.
I did not learn accounting until my real estate course and as you could imagine getting ones head around the concept of credit and debit was by thst time most difficult.
Anyways great post and its a pity your plea will go unanswered.
Higher minimum wages have led both to fewer teens in school and employed at the same time, and to more teens in school but not employed, which is potentially consistent with a greater focus on schooling. We find no evidence that higher minimum wages have led to greater human capital investment. If anything, the evidence points to adverse effects on longer-run earnings for those exposed to these higher minimum wages as teenagers.
How do we summarize this evidence? Many studies over the years find that higher minimum wages reduce employment of teens and low-skilled workers more generally. Recent exceptions that find no employment effects typically use a particular version of estimation methods with close geographic controls that may obscure job losses. Recent research using a wider variety of methods to address the problem of comparison states tends to confirm earlier findings of job loss. Coupled with critiques of the methods that generate little evidence of job loss, the overall body of recent evidence suggests that the most credible conclusion is a higher minimum wage results in some job loss for the least-skilled workers—with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested.
It boils down to the undeniable fact that those who control wealth are happy to indulge their unreasonable greed and ignore those at the bottom such that they offer lame reasons as to why their role has any justification other than personal greed.
Of course they present arguements that do not address the only problem here...they have it and they wont give a cent away that they can hold on to.
Have you seen the latest budget proposal for the US? Some of those in charge could use a lesson in the simple balancing of a checkbook
It's not a budget. It's a bustout.
The people involved know how to balance a checkbook. They know what they are doing.
A forty year trend of decline in the minimum wage has not boosted teenage or low-skill employment in the US.
Meanwhile, the loss of the middle class job has put a lot of higher ability adults into competition for low level jobs - and they win. This makes the lowpaid lowskilled job a burden on society, rather than an asset for teenagers etc - as Walmart demonstrates daily, those jobs are parasitic.
A lot of opinion against a many studies. Oo, oo, oo! Just noise.
But 4 years of English Literature does? No one at IBM said anything about Shakespeare while I worked there. But do you think buying a 4 unit apartment building affected my economics. Physics isn't mandatory in high school but physicists have to decide how to spend their money.
only if there is no outsourcing of the labour market
but with outsourcing the lowest minimum wage to undercut your own domestic national market... you are sabotaging the system and dooming it to fail while sacrificing the low income people and low income children born to those familys.
minimum wage earners ... who pays for their medical expenses & who pays for their children ?
why does your system punish those children.... ?
and... what does your(not yours but the USA capitalist ideology that opposes mixed market economy) system teach those children whom are forced to be raised in homes which only earn minimum wage and cant afford health care, holidays, school stationary.. birthday partys... higher education....clothes, heating, medication...etc...
how is that system working for how it morally regards children ?
what is the morality of that system ?
acceptable losses ? children as colatoral damage ?
i find the morality to be quite fascinating. surely most warm hearted folk would want a balance ?
Getting a higher credit rating to buy more expensive junk designed to become obsolete is so rewarding.
It's not true.
The cost of bare living - minimum income to survive - is considerably lower for the wealthy, for example. Other people borrow for large purchases and pay interest on loans - the wealthy pay cash and earn interest on loans. Other people have to get themselves to work in suitable clothing - the wealthy set up automatic payments from accounts replenished by investment income, and can live for years in their pajamas without ever putting a gallon of gas in a car.
And this effect holds down to fairly modest levels of wealth. If you inherited your parent's modest, low-tax house, have been staked to a supply of durable, high quality clothing, have comparatively low security costs (low crime, stable weather and geology), room for a garden, good water, a grocery store nearby, etc, you don't need very much money to live.
Living costs are much higher for the poor.
Separate names with a comma.