Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

I agree. FYI though, O'Reilly DOES call himself an independent...

Yep, he does and that was part of my point. O'Reilly and Maher call themselves independents, but they really aren't and no one takes them seriously on that.

 

[wizards8507]

Yep, he does and that was part of my point. O'Reilly and Maher call themselves independents, but they really aren't and no one takes them seriously on that.

"Independent" is a political identification, not an ideology. Maher is a liberal for sure, but he's an "independent" based on the definition of the word, meaning he's not a member of the Democrat Party.

 

[Ndaccountant]

You are suggesting cutting the military budget by nearly 90%?

No, what I am saying is that our expenditures cover people across the world that have the luxury to not spend on military. If we cut military to provide a GI at home, parts of the world would suffer. Can we, as a country, stomach that?

This is merely an illustration. If you look at spending, we have basically three big buckets before we get to discretionary. I was using the military bucket as my example.

 

[Ndaccountant]

No doubt. There are definite trade-offs but the current system is untenable. There will have to be some changes made. I doubt the military budget gets cut though. Any mention of ramping down military production and a war happens to start. America does like to flex periodically....

It would be so much easier if we could provide a fee to countries for the security we provide.

 

[Cackalacky]

Come on man, that's literally Econ 101. A "floor wage" would do NOTHING but provide a short-term boost to those earning minimum wage (i.e. 1% of workers) and then completely wash out in the long-run via inflation.

If the value of one hour of low-skill work is $7.25 and a Big Mac costs $4.00, a Big Mac is roughly worth 55% of one low-skill labor hour. If low-skill labor is arbitrarily and artificially propped up to $24 per hour, a Big Mac is eventually going to cost $13.00. The minimum wage worker has exactly the same purchasing power as he did before.

EDIT: If anything, it hurts the low-wage workers more than anyone. They're the ones who are most likely to shop at places like Walmart and McDonald's. If Walmart and McDonald's are forced to raise wages, they'll also raise prices, which hurts the consumers this whole thing was supposed to help in the first place.

Well as I understand it, McDonalds would be able to pay their employees' a wage other than minimum wage that would be commensurate with their tasks. So that $7.25 would not exist as a minimum wage and would not be necessary or it would necessarily be less than the current MW. It would be something less than $7.25 more than likely, as people would already be paid a specific amount from BI. Additionally, labor costs along the supply chain would diminish as well due to the same reasons, so McD's (in the end) could pick up cost savings there as well. This would impact all employers along the supply chain to the end product.

It would also provide a long-term dependable source of stable income for everyone, not just minimum wage earners, and replace most other social safety nets and welfare programs (so I disagree with your assertion above).

Listen. It's an interesting idea that seems worth testing at least. I know you aren't worried about income inequality, but a large portion of the voting public is.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

We'll make a free-marketer out of you yet, Whiskey. That's not too far from the system I'd prefer. Employer-based insurance could still exist but it would become a perk used for companies to attract the workers, not something mandated by the government.

My view on capitalism is similar to Churchill's on democracy: it's the worst economic system, except for all the others. So I'm all for realigning incentives through more efficient regulations; but I also think that the most prosperous and powerful Empire in human history should do better at caring for its poorest citizens, especially since it pretends to Christian values.

But would we all be comfortable with the implications? We would no longer be there to help our allies or be the world police (both good and bad IMO). We would probably lose our grip as being the most technologically advanced military and would not have the manufacturing base at home to ramp up production in case we needed it. Finally, there is no doubt that some evil people would create chaos in some regions and we would not have the resources to directly intervene.

(1) Most of our allies are plenty rich, and could easily afford to defend themselves; and (2) do you really think our recent military adventures abroad have provided good value for the cost involved? Would the world be worse off today had those trillions been invested at home instead?

I think smaller countries have the luxury of not spending on certain things because other powers provide them the resources indirectly.

I agree completely that lots of nations free-ride on our defense budget, which isn't fair to us, since that necessarily means under-investment in domestic programs, and it creates all sorts of weird and arguably harmful power dynamics in the international sphere. But those nations aren't going to step up and start footing a fair share of the global police budget unless we force them to by cutting our own expenditures.

 

[chicago51]

Come on man, that's literally Econ 101. A "floor wage" would do NOTHING but provide a short-term boost to those earning minimum wage (i.e. 1% of workers) and then completely wash out in the long-run via inflation.

If the value of one hour of low-skill work is $7.25 and a Big Mac costs $4.00, a Big Mac is roughly worth 55% of one low-skill labor hour. If low-skill labor is arbitrarily and artificially propped up to $24 per hour, a Big Mac is eventually going to cost $13.00. The minimum wage worker has exactly the same purchasing power as he did before.

I do think that raising the minimum wage $24 as opposed $10 or $12 would be insane.

That said your cost calculations have basis. Labor cost for a Big Mac is nowhere near 55%. You assume McDonalds sells on Big Mac per worker per hour. They sell a lot more than that.

The Real Change In The Cost Of A Big Mac If McDonald's Workers Were Paid $15 An Hour: Nothing - Forbes

Only 17% cost of McDonalds is labor and benefits: Errors in McDonald's Wage Analysis So lets just say we raised the minimum wage by 50%. 50% of $7.25 is roughly $3.62 so that brings the MW to $10.87 an hour. Now assuming every McDonald employee makes MW then the labor cost would increase 50% of 17% or 8.5%. Assuming a $4.00 cost it roughly increase by 34 cents and that is a worst case scenario. So if we doubled the min wage which nobody is talking about to $14.50 it would cost 68 cents more.

 

[Cackalacky]

It would be so much easier if we could provide a fee to countries for the security we provide.

I am sure indirectly there is some benefit we get. Probably not the size of the military budget.

 

[chicago51]

You're a self-described socialist. Independents wouldn't welcome you to their camp.

Why wouldn't they welcome me?

I am a huge advocate for democratic society and democracy as a whole.

What do you mean by socialist?

 

[chicago51]

I am sure indirectly there is some benefit we get. Probably not the size of the military budget.

No the same countries we protect screw us over on trade by putting VAT and other taxes on all exports they import from us.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Why wouldn't they welcome me?

Leppy is the door-man for the Independent Party. You're not on his list, so hit the bricks, buddy.

 

[wizards8507]

I do think that raising the minimum wage $24 as opposed $10 or $12 would be insane.

That said your cost calculations have basis. Labor cost for a Big Mac is nowhere near 55%. You assume McDonalds sells on Big Mac per worker per hour. They sell a lot more than that.

The Real Change In The Cost Of A Big Mac If McDonald's Workers Were Paid $15 An Hour: Nothing - Forbes

Only 17% cost of McDonalds is labor and benefits: Errors in McDonald's Wage Analysis So lets just say we raised the minimum wage by 50%. 50% of $7.25 is roughly $3.62 so that brings the MW to $10.87 an hour. Now assuming every McDonald employee makes MW then the labor cost would increase 50% of 17% or 8.5%. Assuming a $4.00 cost it roughly increase by 34 cents and that is a worst case scenario. So if we doubled the min wage which nobody is talking about to $14.50 it would cost 68 cents more.

That's not the point. I didn't say "Big Macs cost X" because McDonald's employees make Y. I was saying ANY minimum wage employee who works anywhere can roughly buy two Big Macs with one hour of wages. The 55% was referring to the relative cost of labor to this commodity, not McDonald's cost of production.

Also, your analysis is flawed because it assumes the only increase in costs to McDonald's would be the employee's labor. Wrong. The truck drivers, meat packers, bread factories, cucumber farmer, onion guy, etc. etc. etc. would ALL become more expensive. When you raise the minimum wage, it doesn't just drive up the minimum wage worker's wages. Everyone will eventually go up by the same percentage leaving us right where we were before.

Also, you've been spending too much time in Colorado if you think McDonald's would only raise prices by the exact amount of the minimum wage hike.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

"Independent" is a political identification, not an ideology. Maher is a liberal for sure, but he's an "independent" based on the definition of the word, meaning he's not a member of the Democrat Party.

Agree to an extent. Maher may not be going to the DNC or even writing big old checks to Democratic campaigns, but does anyone really believe he's cast a vote for a Republican in the last 10 years? Nah.

Side note: independents make up a third of the voters and are sometimes the most ticked off because they hate everyone. Best examples I can point to on IE would be Buster, NDaccountant, and Cackalacky.

 

[Ndaccountant]

My view on capitalism is similar to Churchill's on democracy: it's the worst economic system, except for all the others. So I'm all for realigning incentives through more efficient regulations; but I also think that the most prosperous and powerful Empire in human history should do better at caring for its poorest citizens, especially since it pretends to Christian values.



(1) Most of our allies are plenty rich, and could easily afford to defend themselves; and (2) do you really think our recent military adventures abroad have provided good value for the cost involved? Would the world be worse off today had those trillions been invested at home instead?



I agree completely that lots of nations free-ride on our defense budget, which isn't fair to us, since that necessarily means under-investment in domestic programs, and it creates all sorts of weird and arguably harmful power dynamics in the international sphere. But those nations aren't going to step up and start footing a fair share of the global police budget unless we force them to by cutting our own expenditures.

1. I think there are portions of the defense budget that could be slashed. However, I am not nearly smart enough to compute what the ROI is over the last 10 years. At first blush, it looks pretty bleak. However, I think there are benefits that go largely unnoticed until you don't have them and I am not in a position to quantify those. For example, how would world trade be influenced with a completely chaotic middle east?

2. I agree 100% with your second point. The question I have is if we as a country would be able to stomach the transition? I lean towards no.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Why wouldn't they welcome me?

I am a huge advocate for democratic society and democracy as a whole.

What do you mean by socialist?

That's why. We live in a republic, not a democracy.

What do I mean by socialist? Really?

 

[Cackalacky]

Agree to an extent. Maher may not be going to the DNC or even writing big old checks to Democratic campaigns, but does anyone really believe he's cast a vote for a Republican in the last 10 years? Nah.

Side note: independents make up a third of the voters and are sometimes the most ticked off because they hate everyone. Best examples I can point to on IE would be Buster, NDaccountant, and Cackalacky.

I don't hate you buddy.....

 

[Ndaccountant]

I do think that raising the minimum wage $24 as opposed $10 or $12 would be insane.

That said your cost calculations have basis. Labor cost for a Big Mac is nowhere near 55%. You assume McDonalds sells on Big Mac per worker per hour. They sell a lot more than that.

The Real Change In The Cost Of A Big Mac If McDonald's Workers Were Paid $15 An Hour: Nothing - Forbes

Only 17% cost of McDonalds is labor and benefits: Errors in McDonald's Wage Analysis So lets just say we raised the minimum wage by 50%. 50% of $7.25 is roughly $3.62 so that brings the MW to $10.87 an hour. Now assuming every McDonald employee makes MW then the labor cost would increase 50% of 17% or 8.5%. Assuming a $4.00 cost it roughly increase by 34 cents and that is a worst case scenario. So if we doubled the min wage which nobody is talking about to $14.50 it would cost 68 cents more.

EDIT - Got beat to punch.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's why. We live in a republic, not a democracy.

What do I mean by socialist? Really?

Forgive him Chicago. He has taken on the self-proclaimed role of assigning political affiliation to people based on his interpretation of their posts. If he says you are socialist, it is best to just agree and roll your eyes after he leaves.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I don't hate you buddy.....

Thanks, man. Likewise. I phrased that the wrong way. I really meant to say, "independents hate almost all politicians" and the two party system we have.

 

[chicago51]

Agree to an extent. Maher may not be going to the DNC or even writing big old checks to Democratic campaigns, but does anyone really believe he's cast a vote for a Republican in the last 10 years? Nah.

Side note: independents make up a third of the voters and are sometimes the most ticked off because they hate everyone. Best examples I can point to on IE would be Buster, NDaccountant, and Cackalacky.

I agree a lot with Jefferson ideals in fact almost all of them and he was a conservative.

I called Obamacare out even though it does help some people and I support a some elements (covering pre existing conditions, caps out of pocket cost, etc) of it for being a crony capitalist and somewhat fascist (by fascist I mean the true definition which is the merger of state and corporate interest) plan.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Re: a price of a BigMac, I doesn't really matter what the labor costs are -- in a competitive hamburger market firms are price takers. Meaning that people will pay what they'll pay, which has nothing to do with the inputs that went into the burger.

So raising McD's wages won't affect prices much at all, it'll just make McD's want to cut more hours/workers or automate more processes. (Or both.)

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Forgive him Chicago. He has taken on the self-proclaimed role of assigning political affiliation to people based on his interpretation of their posts. If he says you are socialist, it is best to just agree and roll your eyes after he leaves.

HA. Just as hard as it is for you or me to find ONE post from Bob that is independent, I could easily find 40 posts from our buddy Chicago supporting his centralized, state-run, socialist utopia.

single payer healthcare, economy centered on roads, bridges, and teachers, insane minimum wages, etc. I could go on and on.

Side note: I'm just doing what Bob and Chicago won't, and I'll stop when you stop trying to be an unsolicited asvisor to the GOP on here.

 

[chicago51]

Forgive him Chicago. He has taken on the self-proclaimed role of assigning political affiliation to people based on his interpretation of their posts. If he says you are socialist, it is best to just agree and roll your eyes after he leaves.

Yea I do embrace some elements of socialism like regulations not allowing companies to dump crap in Lake Michigan.

I support capitalism up to the point of monopolies and oligarchies dominated marketplaces or that the concentration of so much wealth in the hands of so few has become a huge threat to our very democracy itself.

Jefferson and a lot of our conservative founders envisioned a nation of independent farmers and if they could have foreseen the industrial revolution I think they would envision a national of local businesses. I think the framers would largely agree with me on my second point.

 

[chicago51]

HA. Just as hard as it is for you or me to find ONE post from Bob that is independent, I could easily find 40 posts from our buddy Chicago supporting his centralized, state-run, socialist utopia.

single payer healthcare, economy centered on roads, bridges, and teachers, insane minimum wages, etc. I could go on and on.

Side note: I'm just doing what Bob and Chicago won't, and I'll stop when you stop trying to be an unsolicited asvisor to the GOP on here.

State run utopia? Who's talking USSR here?

Building up the commons (roads, schools) is not a state run domination of society. That is not the center of my economic vision although having the best infrastructure is a great way to attract business and provide jobs during recessions. I think if I was actually a political candidate and didn't have to worry about corporations crushing my reputation I would run on an anti-trust platform of bringing back main street.

I would argue single payer gives more economic freedom to people to start their own business as opposed to the master/slave job lock we have with our employer provided insurance system.

I like to believe I am for freedom.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

1. I think there are portions of the defense budget that could be slashed. However, I am not nearly smart enough to compute what the ROI is over the last 10 years. At first blush, it looks pretty bleak. However, I think there are benefits that go largely unnoticed until you don't have them and I am not in a position to quantify those. For example, how would world trade be influenced with a completely chaotic middle east?

We could cut our current defense budget by 75% and still have world's largest military. Based on the absurd numbers involved, cuts would have to be incredibly dramatic to have the sort of negative effect you're anticipating. And the benefit that goes largely unnoticed is stability-- the Pax Americana-- but I see no reason to believe that the world order would descend into chaos if we took a big step back. Other nations, including many of our allies, would immediately step up to fill the void, thereby creating a new equilibrium.

2. I agree 100% with your second point. The question I have is if we as a country would be able to stomach the transition? I lean towards no.

I question why we as a country continue to put up with this arrangement. We spend so much blood and treasure overseas for minimal domestic benefit. Why not tell our politicians that they're beholden to us, not some Saudi prince, and that we'd rather see that money invested domestically going forward?

 

[chicago51]

We could cut our current defense budget by 75% and still have world's largest military. Based on the absurd numbers involved, cuts would have to be incredibly dramatic to have the sort of negative effect you're anticipating. And the benefit that goes largely unnoticed is stability-- the Pax Americana-- but I see no reason to believe that the world order would descend into chaos if we took a big step back. Other nations, including many of our allies, would immediately step up to fill the void, thereby creating a new equilibrium.



I question why we as a country continue to put up with this arrangement. We spend so much blood and treasure overseas for minimal domestic benefit. Why not tell our politicians that they're beholden to us, not some Saudi prince, and that we'd rather see that money invested domestically going forward?

I agree with all of this. Realistically we need to cut military spending by a minimum of 30%. Personally I would spend some of it domestically use the rest to save on debt payments.

The difference between building bombs and infrastructure. Is that infrastructure survives to serves to help generate revenue for 2 to 3 more generations. Making weapons of war although it provides a short term stimulus which Reagan others used to prop up the economy once you drop them are done they no longer serve society.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

We could cut our current defense budget by 75% and still have world's largest military. Based on the absurd numbers involved, cuts would have to be incredibly dramatic to have the sort of negative effect you're anticipating. And the benefit that goes largely unnoticed is stability-- the Pax Americana-- but I see no reason to believe that the world order would descend into chaos if we took a big step back. Other nations, including many of our allies, would immediately step up to fill the void, thereby creating a new equilibrium.



I question why we as a country continue to put up with this arrangement. We spend so much blood and treasure overseas for minimal domestic benefit. Why not tell our politicians that they're beholden to us, not some Saudi prince, and that we'd rather see that money invested domestically going forward?

It starts with the Israel lobby and sort of goes from there (AIPAC, etc.). A lot of military spending is also Pork (gov't jobs and whatnot). Not that I'm in favor of it, there just tends to be a lot of well-connected special interests driving that ship. Farm subsidies also come to mind.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yea I do embrace some elements of socialism like regulations not allowing companies to dump crap in Lake Michigan.

I support capitalism up to the point of monopolies and oligarchies dominated marketplaces or that the concentration of so much wealth in the hands of so few has become a huge threat to our very democracy itself.

Jefferson and a lot of our conservative founders envisioned a nation of independent farmers and if they could have foreseen the industrial revolution I think they would envision a national of local businesses. I think the framers would largely agree with me on my second point.

1) Outside of the touchy feely stuff of companies dumping crap in Lake Michigan, how about...

a) single payer health care?
b) government run auto companies?
c) Fannie and Freddie?
d) Sallie Mae?
e) economy focused on state workers for roads, bridges, and teachers?
f) progressive taxes for social justice?

2) Jefferson would remind you that as much as he might dislike Wal Mart or Home Depot, the country was built on free trade and a free market. Had the market not responded positively or their services had become outdated or no longer needed, they would not exist.

 

[chicago51]

It starts with the Israel lobby and sort of goes from there (AIPAC, etc.). A lot of military spending is also Pork (gov't jobs and whatnot). Not that I'm in favor of it, there just tends to be a lot of well-connected special interests driving that ship. Farm subsidies also come to mind.

I think liberals and libertarians can find a lot of common ground on corporate welfare through special tax breaks and special interest government spending.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I agree with all of this. Realistically we need to cut military spending by a minimum of 30%. Personally I would spend some of it domestically use the rest to save on debt payments.

The difference between building bombs and infrastructure. Is that infrastructure survives to serves to help generate revenue for 2 to 3 more generations. Making weapons of war although it provides a short term stimulus which Reagan others used to prop up the economy once you drop them are done they no longer serve society.

True, but do not forget about one big thing. Once it's gone, it takes a long time to comeback. If we lose expertise, manufacturing capability and capacity, we will not be able to ramp up quickly if/when that time comes around. There is a level of risk there that needs to be acknowledged.