Posted on Oct 12, 2021
So, it's not Brexit? Biden slammed for 'creating' crisis as US faces fuel and energy chaos
924
9
7
3
3
0
Posted in these groups: 
Joe Biden
Office of the President (POTUS)
Joe Biden Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
One step at a time.... Look for the price of everything to go up, we are going through an inflationary period.... hold on, it's going to be a long ride... the last one lasted 10 years.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
PFC David Foster - Please define "fair." Fair to whom? Who is the arbiter of fairness?
We should not be doubling wages of ANYONE. ESPECIALLY not middle income workers. I am a "middle income worker," making $18 / hr working for my state government. If you start paying me $36 / hr who is paying for that? If you answered "taxpayers" you would be right. But hey, they'll be making twice as much, so we can afford to just tax them twice as much, right? Sure. And when good also cost twice as much due to inflation, what has anyone gained? Absolutely nothing.
The problem with inflation is that it HAS TO be kept below rising wages. If inflation rises above wage increases, then people lose buying power. And inflation TENDS TO be self-perpetuating, especially once it starts to accelerate. Rising cost of goods necessitates rising wages which necessitates rising cost of goods, and on and on. This is why the fed has a MANDATE to keep inflation low. Not non-existent, just low. Because once it gets going, it is VERY hard to slow down or reverse.
I am not saying wages should not rise. But we CANNOT raise wages (which sparks inflation) AND continue with massive government spending (which sparks inflation) AND continue to cut domestic production of important commodities like oil and gas (causing us to rely on foreign markets which.... you guessed it, spark inflation). And that is exactly what the PTB are trying to do.
We should not be doubling wages of ANYONE. ESPECIALLY not middle income workers. I am a "middle income worker," making $18 / hr working for my state government. If you start paying me $36 / hr who is paying for that? If you answered "taxpayers" you would be right. But hey, they'll be making twice as much, so we can afford to just tax them twice as much, right? Sure. And when good also cost twice as much due to inflation, what has anyone gained? Absolutely nothing.
The problem with inflation is that it HAS TO be kept below rising wages. If inflation rises above wage increases, then people lose buying power. And inflation TENDS TO be self-perpetuating, especially once it starts to accelerate. Rising cost of goods necessitates rising wages which necessitates rising cost of goods, and on and on. This is why the fed has a MANDATE to keep inflation low. Not non-existent, just low. Because once it gets going, it is VERY hard to slow down or reverse.
I am not saying wages should not rise. But we CANNOT raise wages (which sparks inflation) AND continue with massive government spending (which sparks inflation) AND continue to cut domestic production of important commodities like oil and gas (causing us to rely on foreign markets which.... you guessed it, spark inflation). And that is exactly what the PTB are trying to do.
(1)
(0)
PFC David Foster
SFC Casey O'Mally - Fair to the working people... It's not fair for a man to work a 40 hour week and not earn enough to pay his bills and feed his family... In many European countries, the minimum wage is nearing 20 dollars an hour and blue collar workers get 30 days vacation... I can't answer your question of "Who is the arbiter of fairness?". I would say the politicians make the rules for the free market, supply and demand controls the flow, but it seems no one has been arbitrating fairness for the working class for a long time... 7.25 an hour minimum wage when rent has risen to 1000 dollars on average probably.... I am just a man stating my opinion, no more or less than you.... I don't claim to have all the answers...
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
PFC David Foster - The reason I ask is because there are three "people" involved in wages: The employer, the employed, and the consumer. Raising worker wages will drive up costs to the consumer. Is that "fair" to the consumer?
In addition to the three people, there is also a force - production value vs. production cost. If wages raise above the cost of building and "hiring" a machine, then a smart businessperson hires a machine. It is happening more and more. Even low wage jobs are being replaced by machines - self check-out at the grocery market is a good example.
So how much is too much? Is it "fair" to the workers to raise the wage so high they are replaced by machines?
I know you are stating your opinion, I am not trying to bash that opinion. I am just trying to expand the conversation and offer food for thought.
And as far as wages v. rent, I will agree with you - to an extent. When I was in college back in *mumble mumble mumble* I had a shitty apartment downtown above a storefront. It was 1 BR with a living room, a full bathroom, and a combo kitchen/dining room. I lived there with my GF and we split the rent. I was working 55 hr / week (2 jobs) and she was working 30 hrs / week and going to school. When we broke up, I started working 90-95 hrs / week (3 jobs) to be able to pay rent. Even back in the 20th century, minimum wage was not a "living" wage if you did not share costs with a partner. Prior to living with my GF, I had a roommate.
In today's economy, a person working 40 hours a week makes about 15K a year. If they pair up with a partner (significant other, roommate, parent, working child) ALSO making only minimum wage, they make approx $30K a year. Which *is* enough to solidly support themselves. Not with a child - but then they should choose to wait to have a child until they get raises and can afford one. And no one should be STILL making minimum wage in their 30s - either they should have gotten a degree OR they should have stayed with a job long enough to get raises and/or promotions. If they have failed to do so, that is through personal choices, and it is not the fault or responsibility of government to fix. Likewise if they decide to quit a higher paying job for a lower paying one.
Remember that minimum wage is also ENTRY wage. People *should* be working to advance themselves. Failure to do so is on them.
Again, not trying to bash your opinion or anything of the nature, just throwing out points to ponder.
In addition to the three people, there is also a force - production value vs. production cost. If wages raise above the cost of building and "hiring" a machine, then a smart businessperson hires a machine. It is happening more and more. Even low wage jobs are being replaced by machines - self check-out at the grocery market is a good example.
So how much is too much? Is it "fair" to the workers to raise the wage so high they are replaced by machines?
I know you are stating your opinion, I am not trying to bash that opinion. I am just trying to expand the conversation and offer food for thought.
And as far as wages v. rent, I will agree with you - to an extent. When I was in college back in *mumble mumble mumble* I had a shitty apartment downtown above a storefront. It was 1 BR with a living room, a full bathroom, and a combo kitchen/dining room. I lived there with my GF and we split the rent. I was working 55 hr / week (2 jobs) and she was working 30 hrs / week and going to school. When we broke up, I started working 90-95 hrs / week (3 jobs) to be able to pay rent. Even back in the 20th century, minimum wage was not a "living" wage if you did not share costs with a partner. Prior to living with my GF, I had a roommate.
In today's economy, a person working 40 hours a week makes about 15K a year. If they pair up with a partner (significant other, roommate, parent, working child) ALSO making only minimum wage, they make approx $30K a year. Which *is* enough to solidly support themselves. Not with a child - but then they should choose to wait to have a child until they get raises and can afford one. And no one should be STILL making minimum wage in their 30s - either they should have gotten a degree OR they should have stayed with a job long enough to get raises and/or promotions. If they have failed to do so, that is through personal choices, and it is not the fault or responsibility of government to fix. Likewise if they decide to quit a higher paying job for a lower paying one.
Remember that minimum wage is also ENTRY wage. People *should* be working to advance themselves. Failure to do so is on them.
Again, not trying to bash your opinion or anything of the nature, just throwing out points to ponder.
(0)
(0)
PFC David Foster
SFC Casey O'Mally - You make a good point. Take a look at this, around 1980 (late 70s early 80s) we were having a major inflationary period... in 1980, wages started rising.... https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart before now, wages were increasing a little bit here and a little bit there, but this time it has been a 12 year run with 0 increase.... the same thing for a 10 year period from 70 to 80 setting off a nasty inflationary period for 10 years to follow....
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google