Inflation Wipes Out Wage Gains

@joe-beyser said
Where you may see the biggest political cause for inflation is the minimum wage increases. For a very brief period the lower income folks will see some relief. But, in exchange for temporary relief for some, the inflation will effect all long term. Not only this, but those that have held their jobs and have worked hard to get though step raises and competency based raises ...[text shortened]... scouragement to try hard to get ahead. Look what happened to Communist Russia. Do we want that here?

Yes, the liberals here want that...specifically,...."" . taking from those that perform and giving to those that don't". They want this. It is Marx.
Say what you want about AvJoe, but I am here to tell you that as much as I have pushed this opinion, not ONE liberal has denied it. They never say that I am wrong to say they want those with ability to give to those in need. It starts with Socialism. I know, I am a meany and selfish, because I seem to be saying to not help the poor. I have said a hundred times, we should support the 40M destitute, and the others can just work it out.
The issue is that the libs here want it where ALL of those who work support ALL of those who do not. They've never denied it.

@joe-beyser said
So to hell with the boys that worked hard to get where they are at then.

When the sun sets in Elmwood KY, the libs want to take a truck house to house and gather up all income of the day, and split it up evenly between everyone in the town, even those who did not work and earn anything.
If I'm lyin', I'm dyin'

@wildgrass said
No.

$15,708 coming from his boss for a full time hard working McD's employee who then collects an additional $10k through taxpayer-funded government assistance programs. His/her spending potential is the same whether or not the government subsidizes. This is a compelling argument for raising the minimum wage since it will get millions of people off the government handout ...[text shortened]... vernment subsidize corporate payrolls who are paying less than poverty wages to full time employees?

Sorry, for me, you have to define poverty. If a guy is single he can live just fine on income from washing golf balls at the golf course. If another guy has 4 children, he would definitely be 'in poverty' relaying only on that income. Of course, poor planning on his part, but he needs another plan.
Some liberals say that the government must provide a safety net, but they do not tell us what it would entail, and who would qualify to fall into it. I don't think the Constitution speaks to safety nets.

@mott-the-hoople said
link?

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2021/inflation-spike-used-cars-gas/

https://apnews.com/article/business-health-government-and-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-inflation-3b3bc014e434d2485749951bb469cb61

@no1marauder said
AJ hates them.

On the way to the track, do it later.

I do hate links. I am more of a lets sit in the Pub and discuss this like gentlemen, I can not imagine asking the bartender for an iPad to refer to during our debate.

SILLY ME. Go Marauder, get the iPad and give me hell, or as my granny used to say, give me What For!!!

LOOK!!! 🥺👀👀. Some new links one click up !

@averagejoe1 said
Sorry, for me, you have to define poverty. If a guy is single he can live just fine on income from washing golf balls at the golf course. If another guy has 4 children, he would definitely be 'in poverty' relaying only on that income. Of course, poor planning on his part, but he needs another plan.
Some liberals say that the government must provide a safety net, ...[text shortened]... entail, and who would qualify to fall into it. I don't think the Constitution speaks to safety nets.

I'm not a liberal. The US Census Bureau defines poverty.

And look, all I'm saying is that we have a government definition of poverty and we have a government definition of minimum wage. We also have a safety net. I'm not arguing any of these things are good, only that they exist (currently). Are you with me so far?

Now, why don't we have a system that matches federal minimum wage with federal definitions of poverty. In effect, this will shrink the size of government because many millions less people will need to use the safety net. The two approaches to address this would be to increase the minimum wage or decrease the poverty line.

Instead we have a system that keeps the minimum wage far below the reasonable number for what it costs to live. This keeps fully employed, hard working people (millions of them) on the government dole for no good reason other than to provide a back door corporate welfare handout. Corporate welfare meets individual welfare and we all get more and more dependent on big gubment.

One solution, increasing the minimum wage, solves this problem without actually changing any spending power. Companies who employ people are paying the tab on the 'safety net'.

@averagejoe1 said
I do hate links. I am more of a lets sit in the Pub and discuss this like gentlemen, I can not imagine asking the bartender for an iPad to refer to during our debate.

SILLY ME. Go Marauder, get the iPad and give me hell, or as my granny used to say, give me What For!!!

LOOK!!! 🥺👀👀. Some new links one click up !

Long ago in the pub I usually frequented, they kept a sports almanac behind the bar to resolve arguments like "Who won the World Series in 1928?"

The internet just makes it easier to get such information; stop complaining about using it just because you have your facts wrong so often.

@no1marauder said
Long ago in the pub I usually frequented, they kept a sports almanac behind the bar to resolve arguments like "Who won the World Series in 1928?"

The internet just makes it easier to get such information; stop complaining about using it just because you have your facts wrong so often.

you exist because of google

@mott-the-hoople said
you exist because of google

Google was founded in 1998; I existed a long time before that.