|
|
|
|
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 7/15/2006 11:39:22 PM | Wisconsin just past an increase in June to a whopping $6.50 per hour. At least that's better than some. Governor Doyle did something right finally. | |
|
| |
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 7/16/2006 8:48:28 AM | The first time I read the thread title, I thought it said Santa, not Senate, and it intrigued me that there would be so many pages of discussion about it.
The principle of a minimum wage is one I agree with entirely, it representing the right to life we suppose for one and all. Money has become as necessary as water for life now. To have an economy that pays anyone any less than the minimum they need to live is like letting people die of thirst. It is inhumane. The problem with a livable minimum wage is that it alters the nature of the entire economy from being coercive to voluntary. We don't have the cultural framework to support that change at this time. | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 7/16/2006 9:17:47 PM |
The principle of a minimum wage is one I agree with entirely, it representing the right to life we suppose for one and all. Money has become as necessary as water for life now. To have an economy that pays anyone any less than the minimum they need to live is like letting people die of thirst. It is inhumane.
Um, I don't think you can reasonably say that anyone in any country makes less than "the minimum they need to live" - otherwise they'd be dead. The problem is, in Canada and the U.S.A., people expect to make enough to live according to the standards set by the TV commercials, without having to put in either enough menial work to make them uncomfortable or enough above-menial work to make them different from their friends.
Thousands of years ago, you either worked hard to find, kill, and collect food and make sure you had a good supply of water, or you died. Today two things have changed: 1) it's a lot easier to find and collect food and water; 2) the motivation to do so has died, to be replaced by a sense of entitlement.
Some people's income is very different than others'.
Some people's effort is very different than others'.
Where's the injustice?
You can argue that the old have less income. True. But why? Because they bought into the public support idea that our government (and our society) still sells. But the very fact that it is no longer sustainable is not just a call to fund the existing system more heavily; it's a call to become more self-sufficient and plan for our own futures. We want to "have it all, have it now!" just like the TV tells us to, and we want someone else to step up and cover the bill when our own money runs out. Why can't we see this as our own mistake? When will we tell our kids that companies and governments may help when they can, but it's up to each of us to take care of ourselves, and keep some of what we earn?
Blah blah blah... most people don't think this way, and thus the problem in the first place, and thus the futility of posting this stuff.
-LuvMunky in Discontent Mode- | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 12/24/2006 7:19:44 PM | If you had a job, and it hadn't had it's salary raised in ten years - you'd find that quite insulting.
Costs certainly have risen dramatically in the last ten years, and the wage the bottom of the society legally earns hasn't. That's just immoral. We want to encourage people, and capitalism is all about making money - right ?
Funnily enough, when the Republicans were in power, raising the minimum wage was impossible. Now, suddenly, it's probable.
What a difference a vote makes.
Recent attempts to boost the federal minimum wage had failed when Republicans had control of Congress. Prospects changed after the November 7 midterm elections, when voters -- upset with the Iraq war and President Bush's leadership -- put Democrats in charge of both the House and Senate.
Just days later, Bush signaled a readiness to consider Democratic priorities such as raising the federal minimum wage. On Wednesday, Bush reaffirmed his support for pairing a wage boost with "targeted tax and regulatory relief" to help businesses stay competitive.
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California intends to get this accomplished in the first 100 hours of legislative business. In the Senate, Harry Reid, the Nevada lawmaker who will become majority leader, also says he wants to move quickly on the minimum wage.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/22/minimum.wage.ap/index.html
"Every dollar that goes to a minimum wage worker comes out of the customer's pocket or the employer's pocket. It is not magic money," says Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, which opposes a federal increase.
Brendan Flanagan, vice president of federal relations at the National Restaurant Association, says that his industry cut 146,000 jobs and postponed plans to hire another 106,000 after the last federal boost almost 10 years ago. Another increase would produce a similar impact, he predicted.
"The people who advocate for this treat it as if it is found money and it doesn't have any costs," says Marc Freedman, director of labor policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
- Ibid
That's a rather ironic remark. The government gives back tax money to the richest people in society, and that's not "magic money" either.
CEO's and executives get nice salaries, and even better raises and benefits...and that's not "magic money" either. That comes out of the big bag marked "profit".
Let the guy on the bottom get enough to live on, without being considered working poor...and that's the end of capitalism as we know it.  | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 12/26/2006 6:12:15 PM | Dare anyone consider this, something I heard and it makes sense. Who actually gets paid the actual minimum wage? Likely entry level postitions into jobs such as baggers at the groc. store, etc. Who says they get paid that same amount year after year? Maybe they got a raise if they stayed at the job. Perhaps they now make a pretty decent salary for a bagger. Or perhaps by now they got promoted to stocking groceries. A better paying position. What's next? Store manager, perhaps. Sounds like they could be making a good living. Good thing that entry level @ minimum wage job was around back then. That position might be eliminated if minimum wage gets forced up. Customers may ending bagging groceries at more stores. No entry level job for an unskilled kid still in or right out of school. Could that be what happened to all those full service, now self-service, gas stations? (Things that make you go . . . Hmmmmmmmm . . .)
By the way, if I was that bagger and I didn't get a raise, or I didn't like the benefits or whatever, I think I'd find a more satisfactory job. After all, it's still a free country I think; overregulation hasn't killed that yet. | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 12/27/2006 7:37:00 AM | southernmagnolia, I am the answer to your question.
For more than a year, I toiled at a thrift store job for $5.15 an hour. After 3 months, the bosses promised me a raise, but I never got one. Turns out they were getting $12 an hour to sit on their asses, doing nothing, while laborers like myself would be slaving away in the dry heat on the dock on 9-hour shifts, getting $5.15 an hour, which was more like $3.75 an hour after taxes.
Barely breaking $575 even a month, I finally had the skills to quit that hateful job, and many others followed in my wake. After a year and three months, I had been promoted three times, from clothing supervisor to dock worker, finally to dock supervisor. In those promotions, I was not even given an extra dime on my measly paycheck.
Plus, it's what the entry-level jobs pay the 16-year olds just coming into the work force for the first time. But the bosses of those jobs don't take raise requests seriously. Why? Because teens at that age are certainly still living with their parents, who provide all the food, money, accessories, etc.
If we were to be getting a pay raise as often as the average CEO, minimum wage in this nation would be $23.75 an hour.
Think about it. Food for thought. | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/5/2007 11:00:41 AM | You have GOT to be a Republican. Yes- people do make less than they need to live... that's why their relatives have to help them out with money (or friends... or ANYBODY- the compassion of America and Americans is going down the toilet more and more every year, and it's because of people with your mentality), or why there are three or sometimes four generations of one family living in one small house where before they used to be able to afford all their own. The fact of the matter is, there are two kinds of people in this world- people who realize that sometimes, bad things just happen to good people... and the people who don't realize it. They think something could always been have done differently if a person comes upon misfortune. That's BS. Sometimes it just happens. Period. It obviously just hasn't happened to you. Yet. But when the company you work for downsizes without saying a word to you and, all of the sudden, you're out on the street and in those shoes, you'll realize the truth of what I said. For you to sit there and run down people who have just not had as charmed a life as you (so far)(and it doesn't matter if you work 26 hours a day- you could be out of work tomorrow in today's society. Wake up.) is cold-blooded and ignorant. Live it up while you can, pal. There is NO security job-wise in this country anymore. We'll see how much your Merle Haggard-type self is running his mouth about I'm not on welfare and never will be when the bottom falls out of your world... and if you think it can't happen- that you're somehow above that- you're blind and a fool.
mkmwisc
. | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/5/2007 11:10:02 PM | My comments above were in response to the following copy of a previous post on this thread:
Um, I don't think you can reasonably say that anyone in any country makes less than "the minimum they need to live" - otherwise they'd be dead. The problem is, in Canada and the U.S.A., people expect to make enough to live according to the standards set by the TV commercials, without having to put in either enough menial work to make them uncomfortable or enough above-menial work to make them different from their friends.
Thousands of years ago, you either worked hard to find, kill, and collect food and make sure you had a good supply of water, or you died. Today two things have changed: 1) it's a lot easier to find and collect food and water; 2) the motivation to do so has died, to be replaced by a sense of entitlement.
Some people's income is very different than others'.
Some people's effort is very different than others'.
Where's the injustice?
You can argue that the old have less income. True. But why? Because they bought into the public support idea that our government (and our society) still sells. But the very fact that it is no longer sustainable is not just a call to fund the existing system more heavily; it's a call to become more self-sufficient and plan for our own futures. We want to "have it all, have it now!" just like the TV tells us to, and we want someone else to step up and cover the bill when our own money runs out. Why can't we see this as our own mistake? When will we tell our kids that companies and governments may help when they can, but it's up to each of us to take care of ourselves, and keep some of what we earn?
Blah blah blah... most people don't think this way, and thus the problem in the first place, and thus the futility of posting this stuff.
-LuvMunky in Discontent Mode- | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/7/2007 4:39:20 PM |
You have GOT to be a Republican.
actually I just read this post as it showed up in my folder...
(I read the one you just made this comment on-)
you are entitled to your opinion and have every right to voice it here. I was preparing to comment on this guys post in a very favorably way and did not only because of the age of it...I am not sure why this thread has been dredged up but I am glad...
I concur with LuvMunky...I applaud him for a well written post...
it is really no signifigance to me if mr. munkey is a dem or a member of the gop--I am for the record a moderate Democrat...
to take responsibility for yourself is not party specific
Well done LuvMunky | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 1:13:03 AM | | Yah know there are tons of jobs out there needing people that pay well over 15-20 dollars an hour entry with highschool education. The only problem is wanting to work, if people are gonna gripe and **** about money, then get a differant job...my boss didnt have any college and has been at the job for 3 years..pulls in right under 20,000 a month..if you want money bad, get a differant job and quit ****in, its not hard work its just good ol fashioned get your hands dirty work, but then again, most of society has forgotton that, even though thats how we started in the first place...o yeah..im talking about the oilfield..and before they comment yeah..I'm a Republican, and before MKM can say the bottom will fall out of the oil field, no job security, do your homework first, contrary to popular belief we aint runnin out of oil anytime soon not for quit a few generations..its all in how hard you are willing to work. I never will be on wellfare..why..because yes I have a lot of pride and wont take a handout..also, I'm young and workin my ass off, my house is payed off, my land, and truck..and putting money away, no I have no pity at all for someone in money problems, as its always been, if you have a problem you can get yourself out. | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 2:06:43 AM | Of course Fono because all states and areas have the same economy, and all people are physically capable of doing that kind of work, and additionally people with a lack of money are extremely mobile.
 | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 3:44:48 AM | ummm dont forget $170,000 a year is part time ! they are not required work 40+ hours a week plus all the benefits they get
us citizen = $30k income a year
morlock = under $30k | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 6:31:40 AM | | been shot, stabbed, need reconstruction surgury on both knees, my right shoulder has a hairline fracture...its called doing what yah gotta do and deal with the pain and shit. and all states have manual labor and most the oilfield | |
|
| |
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 9:16:21 AM | as you can see a number of the states have already addressed this issue,as follows....
Minimum Wage levels
Federal $5.15[1] The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 on 10 January 2007 and the U.S. Senate passed its version on 1 February 2007, calling for a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour by 11 March 2009. (The two bills must be reconciled in committees before being sent to the President.) If signed by President Bush, the first increase will take place 11 March 2007, to $5.85.[2]
Alabama None, Federal minimum applies
Alaska $7.15
Arizona $6.75 Increased to $6.75 effective January 1, 2007 pursuant to Arizona Proposition 202. This rate will be automatically adjusted annually based on the U.S. Consumer Price Index.
Arkansas $6.25
California $7.50[4] Increasing to $8.00 on January 1, 2008. [5]
Colorado $6.85 This rate will be automatically adjusted annually based on the U.S. Consumer Price Index.
Connecticut $7.65
Delaware $6.65 Increased to $6.65 from $6.15 on Jan. 1st 2007, $7.15 increase in 2008. [6]
District of Columbia $7.00
Florida $6.67 Rises with inflation. This is in effect as of January 2007.
Georgia $5.15
Hawaii $7.25
Idaho $5.15
Illinois $6.50 Will rise to $7.50 in July, 2007. $6.00 for employees under the age of 18 [7]
Indiana $5.15
Iowa $5.15 ($6.20 on April 1, 2007) ($7.25 on January 1, 2008)
Kansas $2.65 For employees over the age of 18 (applies only when the federal Fair Labor Standards Act does not). $5.15 federal minimum wage takes precedence, overriding the state minimum.
Kentucky $5.15
Louisiana None Federal minimum applies
Maine $6.75 Will rise to $7.00 in October, 2007
Maryland $6.15
Massachusetts $7.50 ($2.63 for service (tipped) employees, $1.60 for agricultural employees; legislature passed increase to $8.00 effective January 1, 2008)[8]
Michigan $6.95 ($2.65 for service (tipped) employees, Increasing to $7.15 July 1, 2007 and to $7.40 July 1, 2008, Minors 16-17 years of age may be paid 85% of the minimum hourly wage rate. Training wage for new employees ages 16 to 19 of $4.25 per hour for first 90 days of employment
Minnesota $6.15
Mississippi None Federal minimum applies
Missouri $6.50 This rate will be automatically adjusted annually based on the U.S. Consumer Price Index.
Montana $6.15 This rate will automatically be adjusted annually based on the U.S. Consumer Price Index. Tip income may not be applied as an offset to an employee's pay rate. The minimum pay is $4/hour for business with less than $110,000 in annual sales.
Nebraska $5.15
Nevada $6.15
New Hampshire $5.15
New Jersey $7.15
New Mexico $6.75 $9.50 in Santa Fe, as of 2006
New York $7.15 Increased to $7.15 on January 1, 2007 [9]
North Carolina $6.15
North Dakota $5.15
Ohio $6.85 Increased to $6.85 on January 1, 2007 per successful 2006 ballot issue[10][11]. This rate will be automatically adjusted annually based on the U.S. Consumer Price Index.
Oklahoma $5.15 $2.00 for work not covered by federal minimum wage OK Statutes 40-197.5
Oregon $7.80 Rises with inflation.
Pennsylvania $6.25 (Per act signed into law July 10, 2006, this increased to $6.25 on January 1, 2007 and will increase to $7.15 on July 1, 2007. For companies with ten or fewer employees: $5.65 by January 1, 2007, $6.65 by July 1, 2007, and $7.15 by July 1, 2008. The current tipped wage, $2.83, will not increase with this Act.)
Rhode Island $7.40
South Carolina $5.15
South Dakota $5.15
Tennessee None Federal minimum applies
Texas $5.15
Utah $5.15
Vermont $7.53 Rises with inflation.
Virginia $5.15
Washington $7.93 Increased to $7.93 effective January 1, 2007 with future increases linked to inflation, as per Revised Code of Washington Sec. 49.46.020)[12]
West Virginia $5.85 Increasing to $6.55 effective 7/1/07 and $7.25 effective 7/1/08
Wisconsin $6.50
Wyoming $5.15
American Samoa $2.68-$4.09 Varies by industry [13]
Guam
Puerto Rico $5.15
U.S. Virgin Islands
It appears that somewhere near 30 states have addressed this problem allready.
Some state legislatures are just too lazy,so they adopt the federal minimum.
We in Arizona just last year overwhelmingly voted to increase it regardless of what the feds do.
Pack | |
|
cute6
|
Joined: 12/3/2006
Msg: 117 | |
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 9:38:39 AM | You know what, Everyone complains about everything,but no one does anything about it. So, isn't it time that we all spread the news to all Pa. residents,to fill somebody's mailbox with letters of concern?If we don't do something about it,who is?. Picking a date to show up on the steps of the capital would be a start.   | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 11:26:06 AM |
But no, the neocon has to generalize. They have no empathy. They dont want social services that cost a fraction of the federal budget. They dont want social security. They dont want welfare and some Neocons seem to want a genocide of what they consider "bums" and "trailer trash". The insensitivity of the neocon is astounding and it goes from the top down.
God, too damn bad you don't see that on the other side of the isle to...
Hatred for someone that doesn't share your political beliefs, no matter how much you want to believe that they want bums and trailer trash wiped out, does not make it fact. | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 11:34:18 AM |
If you had a job, and it hadn't had it's salary raised in ten years - you'd find that quite insulting.
Yes, and I would find a different job. However, if my lifes goal was to work at a job that was entry level, low skill, low education... and not attempt to move up. There comes a point to where you won't get any raises. Why? Because the monetary resources that you use up could hire someone in a different more skilled position...
"Every dollar that goes to a minimum wage worker comes out of the customer's pocket or the employer's pocket. It is not magic money," says Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, which opposes a federal increase.
That's a rather ironic remark. The government gives back tax money to the richest people in society, and that's not "magic money" either.
Not the same. Tax brakes are often reinvested or spent and taxed. Proporotionally, more money is brought back in through tax revenue from the money back than it would be if they simply kept the money in the government. And it is not just the wealthy that get tax breaks...
When a business has an increased expense... they pass the expense on to the consumers, cut workforce, raises, benefits, or suck up the loss. And the last one is not done that often. So the idea that you can compare an increased expense for a business and them tacking on more to the cost of goods and services, cannot be compared to getting a return on your taxes. | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 11:47:57 AM | The big issue that I have with the FEDERAL government mandating a minimum wage increase is that... It simply is not thier job!
Tell me, who's standards are they going to judge this by? Many states are already above the minimum wage. ABOVE!! This is crap, that is only designed to smear opponents and make others feel good that they tried to do something for America.
Crap... pure and simple.
The STATE should be the ones to set thier wage requirements. NY is not the same as Cushing Iowa (where the houses average 20k). Tell me... you think the little mom and pop there can afford to dump more money into it's employees? Don't you think the STATE knows better than the Federal government what the needs of the people are?
Damn people, think about it for a moment. That is like ME living in Florida deciding what is best for YOU in Canada. I have NO IDEA what is in your best interest. Canadians putting thier trust in me to KNOW what is best would be foolish.
And to the economic genious that said that cost did not effect price... read a book or use your common sense... if you have shareholders (even in a sole propriator there is a shareholder). You want a good return on your money... if the FEDERAL government says... hey, I know that you spend 12/hr between both of your employees, and insurance, and tax and *list all the other fun expenses that companies have to pay* But that's not enough, You need to spend 15/hr between the two of them. There is a good chance you may pay one of them 9 an hour and can the other one. Why, because of cost! Cost has a direct effect price. look at any supply and demand chart.
*shakes head* It's like talking to the religious right ...... | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 12:35:43 PM | Tax brakes are often reinvested or spent and taxed. Proporotionally, more money is brought back in through tax revenue from the money back than it would be if they simply kept the money in the government. And it is not just the wealthy that get tax breaks...
If the concept of lowering taxes on (primarily) the rich worked, then Reaganomics would have been a masterpiece. It wasn't. Money (at the highest levels) doesn't trickle down, it sticks like crazy glue.
First off, the richest taxpayers are able to play tax laws like Hendrix could play guitar. With the best tax laws, and tax lawyers, it's an open game. Things like offshore investment, and all sorts of special exemptions are their for a reason. One of the reasons the tax code is so complex, is because breaks are being handed out to the wealthiest people. There are people getting "agricultural" tax breaks that wouldn't know a farming implement if it ran over them.
If a top level earner gets tax breaks back from the government that equal one or two times the average annual salary of a worker (not impossible, I've seen figures thrown around of 40,000 plus dollars) , and a worker gets 20 dollars......it's not hard to see where the problems begin.
That $ 40,000 typically is going to be used in a way to generate even more tax benefits. Couple that with estate tax changes, and this economic snowball starts to benefit even those not even born.
I know a few people that are quite rich. I was on the personal protection team of a few well known citizens. I also know some business owners.
I remember one woman, last year at tax time, in Canada. She was looking quite grim and I asked her why. She replied that it was tax time.
Funny thing was, her and her husband own two restaurants that are now worth over one million dollars each. They each drive brand new Mercedes. They both wear quite expensive clothes and jewelry.
Tough life, isn't it ?
( I also want to say they both work quite hard at the counter in those same restaurants, and are really nice people to boot. They got to where they are through hard work, and smart business plans. There was also a certain amount of luck involved as well. )
The top tax payers tend to contribute a lot less to overall gains within a country's borders simply because many of the things they purchase tend to not be American. Buying a foreign car, wine, or vacation home - all these things result in more money going OUTSIDE the country than any gains inside. It's not like they are going to run down to the 7/11 or Walmart to purchase many things.
Just look at things like the Robb Report magazine. There is an entire industry that's sprung up that caters to the "super rich". There are gifts there right out of the cave of Ali Baba.
I don't begrudge anyone living well, especially when that's the result of hard work. That said, I also see the "super rich" as being one of the luckiest and most privileged classes in America. They also owe a lot of their success to their country, and have their place in making that country better.
That means paying taxes, and sending their kids off to war to come back possibly maimed or dead. It's funny how working class people seem to do more in that regard, as a percentage of the population. Right now, the middle class is being decimated economically.
The poor cannot be taxed more, and the elite avoid taxes, and that is the source of the problem in a nutshell. If one injects more money into the lower clases, the money will generate upwards far more than dropping a dime into the top of that "Pachinko machine" called capitalism ever will.
People in those classes will be sure to spend it, as they have far less to begin with. That money will flow into the national economy, and then move outwards and upwards.
If you look at the economic growth in America after the Great Depression, it was because of exactly this reason. Thanks to government "make work" programs, and then the war "benefits" (high employment in factories/GI Benefits/etc) , the economy boomed.
Money in the pockets of the workers was the seed money for this boom.
It's giving one man 100 million dollars, versus giving a million men 100 dollars. With the former, the benefits will not be as great to the economy as the latter will. Those million men will spend that 100 dollars, without any doubt, directly into the national economy. | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 1:01:46 PM | | Check out the Economic Policy Institute - www.epi.org - for the mythology around the damaging effects of minimum wage on small business - it just ain't true. The fact is, every time there has been an increase in the minimum wage, there has been a boost to the economy overall. Go figure - people have more money, they spend it. Should be a no-brainer, but corporate interests have a media machine designed to convince you that your labor isn't worth $10.00/hour, while thier CEO is worth a million-dollar x-mess bonus because the stockholders are really happy that the bottom line is growing - which a minimum wage increase would impact negatively. Boo-freakin'-hoo. | |
|
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 1:03:22 PM | Many excellent points Montreal Guy.
First off, the richest taxpayers are able to play tax laws like Hendrix could play guitar. With the best tax laws, and tax lawyers, it's an open game. Things like offshore investment, and all sorts of special exemptions are their for a reason.
You are VERY correct about many of the tax laws and loopholes. That is why there has been such strong push for flat tax and many times just outright reform. But, no system is perfect and there will always be those that try to make sure they lesson thier taxable income. On that note, I did hear about a study (I won't quote it as fact since I don't have the source anylonger) that stated that when the taxes on the upper 1-5% were lessoned. Less loopholes were taken advantage of. The reason was because they didn't 'feel' like they were being punished for taking risks with thier money.
The top tax payers tend to contribute a lot less to overall gains within a country's borders simply because many of the things they purchase tend to not be American. Buying a foreign car, wine, or vacation home - all these things result in more money going OUTSIDE the country than any gains inside.
I don't know any statistics on this... however in some cases I am sure you are correct, probably even overstating any gain to the US economy in some cases. But that is also where it comes down to loyalties. If someone (no matter where they are from) is more loyal to the dollar, than to people, country, culture... then they will find a way to hide, horde and exploit wealth.
In some cases, you have seen business's that cater to that desire to have the best. They will fascilitate the purchasing, as a business. In some cases I could even say that someone creative enough, could find a way to keep a good bit of that wealth in the US, even if it is spent on foreighn product.
Even when we may disagree MG... I respect the way you present your arguement. I appreciate that it you don't just respond with the same babble that bashes one side or another. It actually makes it easier to hold a good discussion with you. Maybe people will take note of how you discuss things (even myself sometimes) and they will find more civil conversations. | |
|
atlast
|
Joined: 2/25/2007
Msg: 124 | |
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 1:23:32 PM | Bush economics: Rob from the poor (cut social programs, social security, medicare), give to the rich (huge tax breaks for the wealthiest few). Top that off with an illegal war costing millions of dollars a day, and we should see an economic crash that will make us forget all about the Great Depression.
Report: In U.S., record numbers are plunged into poverty
February 23, 2007, USA Today/AFP
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-us-poverty_x.htm
The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high. Based on the latest available U.S. census data from 2005, [a] McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars — one half the federal poverty line figure. For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year. The number of severely poor Americans grew by 26% from 2000 to 2005. The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion. "Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years. These and other factors have helped push 43% of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty — the highest rate since at least 1975," the report said. Since 2000, the number of severely poor — far below basic poverty terms — in the United States has grown "more than any other segment of the population. That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, a study co-author. U.S. social programs are minimal compared to those of western Europe and Canada. | |
|
atlast
|
Joined: 2/25/2007
Msg: 125 | |
| Senate refuses to raise minimum wage.
Posted: 3/8/2007 1:23:39 PM | Bush economics: Rob from the poor (cut social programs, social security, medicare), give to the rich (huge tax breaks for the wealthiest few). Top that off with an illegal war costing millions of dollars a day, and we should see an economic crash that will make us forget all about the Great Depression.
Report: In U.S., record numbers are plunged into poverty
February 23, 2007, USA Today/AFP
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-us-poverty_x.htm
The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high. Based on the latest available U.S. census data from 2005, [a] McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars — one half the federal poverty line figure. For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year. The number of severely poor Americans grew by 26% from 2000 to 2005. The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion. "Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years. These and other factors have helped push 43% of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty — the highest rate since at least 1975," the report said. Since 2000, the number of severely poor — far below basic poverty terms — in the United States has grown "more than any other segment of the population. That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, a study co-author. U.S. social programs are minimal compared to those of western Europe and Canada. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
