Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => American Politics => Topic started by: Michael Hardner on July 25, 2018, 07:03:19 am
-
...basically Canadian Liberal Party types are infiltrating the Dems:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a22527150/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-fox-news-education-healthcare/
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a21985697/sean-hannity-democratic-platform-ocasio-cortez/
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Hannity seems to think these positions are self-evidently extreme. But:
Medicare for All has the support of 63 percent of registered voters.
Tuition-free public college has 63 percent support.
There isn't much polling on "housing as a human right," but there is strong majority support for rent control. We also already subsidize affordable housing, though far more money flows to higher-income homeowners through tax deductions.
A federal jobs guarantee is a new initiative, but one poll in May suggested it has 46 percent support. Another poll indicates strong majority support in every state.
Three-quarters of Americans support criminal justice reform.
There's not much polling on abolishing ICE, but in a Fox News poll last year, 83 percent supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
This phenomenon somewhat supports the suspicion I have posted about: that there is a huge swing left that is coming. Certainly Trump is helping this by making it easy to REDUCE the deficit while providing goodies for the poor and middle class.
-
They're calling it the Democrats version of the Tea Party. The Tea Party are uncompromising zealots who make governing almost impossible, tore the Republican party up and made the likes of Trump taking over possible. He never could have done it without them.
And these morons of the Left are desperately working to help Trump get re-elected by making the Democrats seem as unpalatable as possible to soft Republicans, independents and swing voters. These are the same morons who helped him get elected in the first place by opposing Clinton as 'too conservative', because despite her embracing of identity politics and a lifetime working for equality and against poverty she wasn't considered 'woke' enough. She didn't hate the military and capitalism, you see. So they refused to support her when she beat Bernie Sanders. Now they're doubling down and trying to get him re-elected. Idiots.
Free this! Free that! Everyone polled loves it! As long as they don't have to pay for it. Start attaching a price tag and tax increases and watch what happens.
-
Well.... maybe
The other possibility is that the mushy middle is tired of the Republicrat product and is looking for something new. I mean the Tea Party did kind of win in the end.
One thing I find interesting is that the Republocrat manner of speaking is a kind of sensitive intelligent technocrat language that the populists just HATE. So what will the Demo-Socialist version be ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_1G4_oPt_o
She just sounds *young* to me. I didn't give it much of a listen though.
-
She just sounds *young* to me. I didn't give it much of a listen though.
She is young... late 20’s. You sound like an angry old man complaining about how the kids talk these days.
Better to listen to what they say than how they say it. America has had more than enough old white guys running the country and wrecking it to benefit their buddies. Hopefully there’s a change, but I won’t be holding my breath.
-
Free this! Free that! Everyone polled loves it!
Tax cuts have produced higher debt than all the socialist programs added together and multiplied by a bizillion.
-
...basically Canadian Liberal Party types are infiltrating the Dems:
This phenomenon somewhat supports the suspicion I have posted about: that there is a huge swing left that is coming. Certainly Trump is helping this by making it easy to REDUCE the deficit while providing goodies for the poor and middle class.
It is interesting, but she ran in NYC in a part of it with 50% Hispanic population. It's going to be a very liberal electorate there, some of the most liberal in the country. Young, urban, Hispanic. She basically ran on Bernie Sanders' platform. He did well but was rejected by most of the dems across the country especially when you go more south. I think there's a subset of the democratic party that supports democratic socialism but nationwide it's a tough sell.
-
She is young... late 20’s. You sound like an angry old man complaining about how the kids talk these days.
Better to listen to what they say than how they say it. America has had more than enough old white guys running the country and wrecking it to benefit their buddies. Hopefully there’s a change, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Old white guys didn't wreck the country, they fought and died to build it.
-
Old white guys didn't wreck the country, they fought and died to build it.
Old white guy Trump avoided that by flogging his bull **** about bone spurs. And I don't see that he's done much to "build" anything much other than embarrassment for the country.
-
She is young... late 20’s. You sound like an angry old man complaining about how the kids talk these days.
Better to listen to what they say than how they say it. America has had more than enough old white guys running the country and wrecking it to benefit their buddies. Hopefully there’s a change, but I won’t be holding my breath.
I'm not complaining, I'm trying to understand.
Listening to what people say isn't helpful. You are writing like 2016 never happened.
-
Tax cuts have produced higher debt than all the socialist programs added together and multiplied by a bizillion.
Hyperbole. It was only 1/2 a bizillion.
-
Old white guys didn't wreck the country, they fought and died to build it.
They are wrecking it now. This isn't about old white guys who have run the whole show anyway...
-
They are wrecking it now. This isn't about old white guys who have run the whole show anyway...
Are they? Lots of hispanics voted Trump. Lots of women, too. And there doesn't seem to be a lack of young guys at his rallies or going out into the streets to hold demonstrations on his behalf.
And maybe if his opponent weren't such a dreadful excuse for a candidate he wouldn't have won.
Old white guys ran the show because they built the show.
-
Are they? Lots of hispanics voted Trump. Lots of women, too. And there doesn't seem to be a lack of young guys at his rallies or going out into the streets to hold demonstrations on his behalf.
And maybe if his opponent weren't such a dreadful excuse for a candidate he wouldn't have won.
Old white guys ran the show because they built the show.
There is I guess always a group of young, white and RIGHT guys who will demonstrate for and follow in the footsteps of the likes of Trump as they turn into old white guys, Charlottesville was a good recent example.
-
Are they? Lots of hispanics voted Trump. Lots of women, too. And there doesn't seem to be a lack of young guys at his rallies or going out into the streets to hold demonstrations on his behalf.
And maybe if his opponent weren't such a dreadful excuse for a candidate he wouldn't have won.
Old white guys ran the show because they built the show.
Ah yes. The female Hispanic Trump base.... lmao
-
Ah yes. The female Hispanic Trump base.... lmao
More Hispanics voted for Trump than for Bush.
-
More Hispanics voted for Trump than for Bush.
Are those numbers straight from Breitbart, or just out your butt?
28% of Latinos voted for Trump
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
44% of Latinos voted for Bush
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
-
Are those numbers straight from Breitbart, or just out your butt?
OOOLP ! :D
Why the hell did I believe Argus' post without checking it ??? ?
-
OOOLP ! :D
Why the hell did I believe Argus' post without checking it ??? ?
I’m not sure why anyone does... he has shown a pattern on of having issues with backing up his opinions with actual facts.
-
I’m not sure why anyone does... he has shown a pattern on of having issues with backing up his opinions with actual facts.
I virtually ALWAYS back up what I say. I'm well aware of how zealots on the Left (like you) examine everything I post with a frantic need to disprove me. Having no ability to actually argue the points I raise they look for some minor information or number I've posted in error in hopes of holding it triumphantly aloft to make up for their poorly thought out arguments.
In this case I was too quick to skim the numbers of the site I checked. Bush did get more than Trump. But Trump got more support than previous Republican candidates.
The actual cite I checked had the following info
Hispanics favored Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton 65% to 29%, a 36-point difference that helped her secure winning margins in states like Nevada and Colorado and kept her competitive late into the night in other key battleground states.
...But that margin, based on exit polling conducted by Edison Research, was smaller than the 71%-27% split that President Obama won in 2012. And it was smaller than the 72%-21% her husband, former president Bill Clinton, won in 1996.
...He said polling experts will spend the next few weeks crunching election data to see if there were flaws in the predictions or the exit polls. In 2004, for example, exit polls showed President George W. Bush winning 44% of the Hispanic vote, which was later revised down to 40% once more detailed voter information came out.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/11/09/hispanic-vote-election-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/93540772/
-
I virtually ALWAYS back up what I say
In this case I was too quick to skim the numbers of the site I checked. Bush did get more than Trump. But Trump got more support than previous Republican candidates.
The actual cite I checked had the following info
Hispanics favored Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton 65% to 29%, a 36-point difference that helped her secure winning margins in states like Nevada and Colorado and kept her competitive late into the night in other key battleground states.
...But that margin, based on exit polling conducted by Edison Research, was smaller than the 71%-27% split that President Obama won in 2012. And it was smaller than the 72%-21% her husband, former president Bill Clinton, won in 1996.
...He said polling experts will spend the next few weeks crunching election data to see if there were flaws in the predictions or the exit polls. In 2004, for example, exit polls showed President George W. Bush winning 44% of the Hispanic vote, which was later revised down to 40% once more detailed voter information came out.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/11/09/hispanic-vote-election-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/93540772/
People who point out when you are (so often) wrong, are "smarmy little weasels"? I'd say that's more of a reflection on you.
-
Get a room you two.
Then go check into it and make love.
Sweet love.
-
You're wrong - it's funny as **** and will be the only post that stands on this matter.
-
and will be the only post that stands on this matter
That's pretty draconian.
-
That's pretty draconian.
Yeah, I got chills. :o
-
Just be thankful he didn't butt in to comment on thread drift.
-
People who point out when you are (so often) wrong, are "smarmy little weasels"? I'd say that's more of a reflection on you.
His post where he cited CNN and contradicted what I had posted was fair game. His followup post was smarmy, as are almost all yours.
-
I think "smarmy" is just how people with no sense of humour interpret "funny."
-
His post where he cited CNN and contradicted what I had posted was fair game. His followup post was smarmy, as are almost all yours.
I'll simply refer you back to my previous since it pretty much applies yet again.
-
I think "smarmy" is just how people with no sense of humour interpret "funny."
Really? Please tell me what was funny that I called smarmy. Since you're such a neutral, unbiased fellow I'm sure your judgement is quite reliable.
-
(https://img.aws.livestrongcdn.com/ls-article-image-673/ds-photo/getty/article/18/92/89795713.jpg)
-
I guess not all of us feel like thanking people for insulting and condescending responses.
-
Really? Please tell me what was funny that I called smarmy. Since you're such a neutral, unbiased fellow I'm sure your judgement is quite reliable.
I'm not sure. I lost track after half the conversation got deleted. Wasn't it something about getting a room?
-
I'm not sure. I lost track after half the conversation got deleted. Wasn't it something about getting a room?
I didn't call that smarmy. I just said it wasn't exactly new or creative.
-
"Socialism" might not be popular in the US, but socialist ideas are... just as long as you don't call them socialist.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all
Increasing support for people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez seems like the inevitable response to the trends of the past 10 years. Wages are stagnant, housing and education costs are out of control, the only people making economic progress are people who are already at the top of the ladder. The government says it can't afford to help make healthcare or education more affordable, but they can afford a trillion-dollar tax cut for the richest Americans. People like Dick Fuld and Angelo Mozilo made hundreds of millions of dollars while driving America's financial system into chaos, and not a single person ever saw a day in jail over it. Trump wants to pardon his friend Manafort because tax fraud isn't a "real" crime... illustrating that there's one set of rules for the ultra-rich and another for everybody else. The question isn't why there's a backlash building, it's why has it taken so long.
-k
-
I think I read the other day that Sanders is putting forward legislation to tax companies dollar-for-dollar the cost of social services that are used on their employees, e.g., food stamps. A brilliant strategy of implementing a living wage (why pay it in taxes when you can pay it to employees directly), while appealing to libertarian conservative ideals.
-
I have been saying that this populist backlash goes against corporations too and has a leftist undertone.
-
I think I read the other day that Sanders is putting forward legislation to tax companies dollar-for-dollar the cost of social services that are used on their employees, e.g., food stamps. A brilliant strategy of implementing a living wage (why pay it in taxes when you can pay it to employees directly), while appealing to libertarian conservative ideals.
I understand the logic behind it... but it seems like the net effect would be to discourage companies from hiring people.
-k
-
I understand the logic behind it... but it seems like the net effect would be to discourage companies from hiring people.
-k
Companies only ever have as many expenses as absolutely necessary, including labour. They can’t function with less people. If they could, they would do it and make more profit. What this does is force these companies to pay people an appropriate wage that doesn’t rely on government subsidies to pad their profits.
-
Wait - so this will force them to pay food stamp recipients more ? Why not just increase the minimum wage ? This seems like an indirect approach.
Better yet - across the board tax increases.
-
Wait - so this will force them to pay food stamp recipients more ? Why not just increase the minimum wage ? This seems like an indirect approach.
It is a ridiculous idea that will inevitably result in fewer jobs for the people that need these services.
-
Wait - so this will force them to pay food stamp recipients more ? Why not just increase the minimum wage ? This seems like an indirect approach.
Better yet - across the board tax increases.
Because Republicans and so-called Libertarians won't vote for increased minimum wages nor tax increases.
-
It is a ridiculous idea that will inevitably result in fewer jobs for the people that need these services.
I never took you for one to support corporate welfare, but here we are.
-
Because Republicans and so-called Libertarians won't vote for increased minimum wages nor tax increases.
Yeah, so... they are going to vote for this ? Why ?
-
It is a ridiculous idea that will inevitably result in fewer jobs for the people that need these services.
They could tax these people at twice the rate and the business would still happen. Even the wealthy don't preach "trickle down" any more...
-
I never took you for one to support corporate welfare, but here we are.
The only people who thinks social programs are "corporate welfare" are people with no understanding of economics. Social programs are funded whether people have jobs or not. If companies simply close up shop and fire everyone those programs will cost even more. Suggesting they are "subsides" is irrational nonsense.
-
They could tax these people at twice the rate and the business would still happen. Even the wealthy don't preach "trickle down" any more...
Raise the price of labour for everyone and the prices everyone pay will go up unless the costs are offset by importing more goods/services from places with lower wages. Higher prices means demand drops which means lower profits, fewer jobs and poorer quality/service. In the worst case, some businesses will close leaving less competition which means higher profits for the survivors and fewer jobs for the workers.
-
Raise the price of labour for everyone and the prices everyone pay will go up unless the costs are offset by importing more goods/services from places with lower wages. Higher prices means demand drops which means lower profits, fewer jobs and poorer quality/service. In the worst case, some businesses will close leaving less competition which means higher profits for the survivors and fewer jobs for the workers.
I suggest having a read of what Henry Ford did.
-
I suggest having a read of what Henry Ford did.
Ford had a problem with employee turnover because there were too many job opportunities at the time. He solved the turnover problem by offering more than his competition.
-
Ford had a problem with employee turnover because there were too many job opportunities at the time. He solved the turnover problem by offering more than his competition.
Which enabled his employees to afford to buy his cars. Up went production.
-
Which enabled his employees to afford to buy his cars. Up went production.
Only because his wages were higher than everyone else's so get attracted the most motivated and competent employees. Costco adopts the same strategy today and it works well for them. But this strategy does not work if governments mandate wage floors. All that does is increase costs without any productivity benefit. These costs will be passed on the consumer which means no net increase in buying power unless consumers and businesses rely more on imports from low wage regions to offset the additional wage costs.
-
Only because his wages were higher than everyone else's so get attracted the most motivated and competent employees. Costco adopts the same strategy today and it works well for them. But this strategy does not work if governments mandate wage floors. All that does is increase costs without any productivity benefit. These costs will be passed on the consumer which means no net increase in buying power unless consumers and businesses rely more on imports from low wage regions to offset the additional wage costs.
So you don't quite get the concept that more money in the average Joe's pocket increases sales and therefore requires more productivity, as opposed to more money in ceo's pockets which they store offshore which benefits no one but themselves.
-
These costs will be passed on the consumer which means no net increase in buying power unless consumers and businesses rely more on imports from low wage regions to offset the additional wage costs.
You said that but having cheap stuff and low wages doesn't seem to have satisfied the populists - why is that ? Accumulation of wealth is also giving the investor class more wealth to engage in non-productive spending such as flipping homes, luxury goods that provide no general benefit and so on.
In my experience, this is the point at which the discussion of the economy turns to morality as in "it's their money to do what they want". But accumulation of wealth isn't a general benefit across the board.
-
In my experience, this is the point at which the discussion of the economy turns to morality as in "it's their money to do what they want". But accumulation of wealth isn't a general benefit across the board.
The cost of bread, meat and vegetables are not luxuries. They are directly connected to survival. In a closed system, if labour costs go up then the cost of of these staples go up which leaves people no further ahead. But no city/province/country is a closed system so price increases can be mitigated by depending more on people who make less elsewhere which is ironic given the rational for mandating wage increases that are not associated with any productivity increases.
-
The cost of bread, meat and vegetables are not luxuries. They are directly connected to survival. In a closed system, if labour costs go up then the cost of of these staples go up which leaves people no further ahead.
Unless their wages go up enough to cover it.
But no city/province/country is a closed system so price increases can be mitigated by depending more on people who make less elsewhere which is ironic given the rational for mandating wage increases that are not associated with any productivity increases.
How did that work in Ontario when they raised the minimum wage ? Is my Tim Horton's coffee made in Indonesia now ?
(Apologies for the snide and ludicrous comment but I'll leave it here anyway)
-
I have been saying that this populist backlash goes against corporations too and has a leftist undertone.
Yes it can go left or right. One of the few positive things you can say about Trump is that he's so rich and can so easily get himself all over the media for free that he doesn't need to rely on donations from wealthy folks and corps/groups, so he is completely free to do whatever he wants and doesn't have to answer to his donors.
Unfortunately the rest of the congress can't say that, so they have to vote based on funding interests (bribes) that their election campaigns depend on.
Bernie Sanders just happens to be one of those very rare politicians that isnt super wealthy and has very high ethics to not take those bribes, so he can do different things against corporate interests like Trump can, though maybe even moreso since Trump himself is a corporation.
-
I think I read the other day that Sanders is putting forward legislation to tax companies dollar-for-dollar the cost of social services that are used on their employees, e.g., food stamps. A brilliant strategy of implementing a living wage (why pay it in taxes when you can pay it to employees directly), while appealing to libertarian conservative ideals.
That's a really interesting idea. It's like saying you're going to look after your employees, so pay it now or pay it a bit later.
But then that just makes the cost of having employees higher, makes automation and offshoring jobs that much more appealing cost-wise.
One of the worst things to happen to western workers is the globalization of labour, it's hard to compete when most of the world will work for peanuts and few if any benefits. On the plus, it means lower cost of goods for workers too.
-
Companies only ever have as many expenses as absolutely necessary, including labour. They can’t function with less people. If they could, they would do it and make more profit.
The more expensive you make labour, the more affordable the alternatives become.
-
Bernie Sanders just happens to be one of those very rare politicians that isnt super wealthy and has very high ethics to not take those bribes, so he can do different things against corporate interests like Trump can, though maybe even moreso since Trump himself is a corporation.
Bernie Sanders is the best friend Trump ever had. It's quite likely, given the small margin of victory for Trump, that had it not been for Sanders hammering Clinton she'd have been president.
Now he's going around the US working to nominate the most far left candidates he can find. I just saw a story on the **** the Republicans have nominated for governor of Florida. What a dick! What a suckup! Then I saw that the guy the Democrats nominated - with Sanders help - wants to abolish ICE. Or as CBS said, the Democrats abandoned their tradition of nominating a centrist candidate and took a hard left. Another progressive politician who's primary interest is helping non-Americans instead of Americans. Suddenly I'm thinking that if I was in Florida I would have to strongly consider voting for the **** Republican.
-
If you read up on democratic socialism, it's still pretty marxist, just with a democratic twist, maybe too commie for me i dunno, unless I see it can actually work. Not to be confused with social democracy which is the system Canada and the Scandinavian countries have, which seems to work well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates achieving socialist goals within a democratic system as opposed to what it perceives as undemocratic socialist ideologies such as Marxist–Leninist-inspired socialism which is viewed as being non-democratic in practice.[1][2] Democratic socialists oppose the Soviet economic model, rejecting the authoritarian form of governance and highly centralized command economy that took form in the Soviet Union in the early 20th century.[3].
Democratic socialism has promoted as economic solutions to capitalist systems public property through a democratically elected government of major industries, utilities, and transportation systems; a limit on the accumulation of private property; governmental regulation of the economy; extensive publicly financed assistance and pension programs[4]; and self-management and democratic management in companies sometimes incluiding wider schemes of market socialist, participatory and decentralized planned economy.
Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government.[1]
Some tendencies of democratic socialism advocate for revolution in order to transition to socialism, distinguishing it from some forms of social democracy.[16] For example, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, as a form of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below" (using the term popularised by Hal Draper), in contrast to Stalinism, a variant of authoritarian state socialism.
-
Bernie Sanders is the best friend Trump ever had. It's quite likely, given the small margin of victory for Trump, that had it not been for Sanders hammering Clinton she'd have been president.
Now he's going around the US working to nominate the most far left candidates he can find. I just saw a story on the **** the Republicans have nominated for governor of Florida. What a dick! What a suckup! Then I saw that the guy the Democrats nominated - with Sanders help - wants to abolish ICE. Or as CBS said, the Democrats abandoned their tradition of nominating a centrist candidate and took a hard left. Another progressive politician who's primary interest is helping non-Americans instead of Americans. Suddenly I'm thinking that if I was in Florida I would have to strongly consider voting for the **** Republican.
ICE needs to go anyway. They screwed up when they started ripping babies from their mothers arms. And yes I can see you being happier with Disantis and his "monkey up" comment since Gillum is Black.
-
ICE needs to go anyway. They screwed up when they started ripping babies from their mothers arms.
What a brainless comment. All they did was enforce the law as they were ordered to do by the Attorney General. I guess in your world public servants should do whatever the hell they want, regardless of what their bosses say. But then, never having held a job, you probably don't understand that this gets you fired.
-
Companies only ever have as many expenses as absolutely necessary, including labour. They can’t function with less people. If they could, they would do it and make more profit. What this does is force these companies to pay people an appropriate wage that doesn’t rely on government subsidies to pad their profits.
If paid local labour is cheaper and more efficient than the alternative (ie: offshoring labour or automation) they will hire people, if the cost of local workers rises then companies will choose any other possible alternative that is better for their bottom line.
ie: If having cashiers is cheaper and more efficient than automated checkout then they will keep hiring cashiers. If you raise the hourly wage plus increase benefits etc then at some point depending on the increase, more automated checkouts would likely replace some cashiers. Some jobs can't be replaced, like a lot of services, but the lower the skill needed to do a job often the easier it is replace the worker.
Go raise costs of company call center employees and watch even more of those jobs ship overseas. Beware unintended consequences of what seems like good actions.
-
Wait - so this will force them to pay food stamp recipients more ? Why not just increase the minimum wage ? This seems like an indirect approach.
Better yet - across the board tax increases.
What if you don't make the minimum wage but you still don't get benefits?
I see what you're saying with the indirect approach though. Just straight taxing them seems like a better idea, it won't affect the cost of hiring or replacing workers.
-
Because Republicans and so-called Libertarians won't vote for increased minimum wages nor tax increases.
Why do any of us even care about US domestic policies of how much workers in the US make? They all have a vote, that's their problem how they use it. Seems more useful to worry about Canadian wages etc., at least we have some influence on that, plus it actually affects us.
-
How did that work in Ontario when they raised the minimum wage ? Is my Tim Horton's coffee made in Indonesia now ?
I am sure they already get their beans from places with low labour costs. If those workers were not paid poorly the cost of a coffee would be much much higher. It is a good illustration of how economy depends on being able to source goods from low wage areas and this has the effect of increasing the spending power of low wage workers here much more than any wage increase would. OTOH, wage increases without productivity improvements will lead to fewer jobs and even more reliance on technology and imported goods/services.
-
I am sure they already get their beans from places with low labour costs. If those workers were not paid poorly the cost of a coffee would be much much higher. It is a good illustration of how economy depends on being able to source goods from low wage areas and this has the effect of increasing the spending power of low wage workers here much more than any wage increase would. OTOH, wage increases without productivity improvements will lead to fewer jobs and even more reliance on technology and imported goods/services.
Except that wage increases do improve productivity because extra money causes extra consumption. Simple. It's called "wage push inflation", and it has benefited us all in this part of the world.
-
1. If those workers were not paid poorly the cost of a coffee would be much much higher. It is a good illustration of how economy depends on being able to source goods from low wage areas and
2. this has the effect of increasing the spending power of low wage workers here much more than any wage increase would. OTOH, wage increases without productivity improvements will lead to fewer jobs and even more reliance on technology and imported goods/services.
1. 'low labour costs' does not mean 'paid poorly'. They have to pay market in those countries, and as trade increases those wages will approach parity with ours also - all things being equal.
2. It also reduces the wages of people who are displaced, but again - all things being equal they are supposed to find jobs in new areas.
You didn't talk about Ontario.
-
Yeah, so... they are going to vote for this ? Why ?
Because it reduces government expenditures.
-
The only people who thinks social programs are "corporate welfare" are people with no understanding of economics. Social programs are funded whether people have jobs or not. If companies simply close up shop and fire everyone those programs will cost even more. Suggesting they are "subsides" is irrational nonsense.
When people with fulltime jobs need to access social welfare programs, such as food stamps, then it absolutely is corporate welfare. A fulltime job ought to be enough to support oneself and even a family for that matter. When companies don't pay their employees enough to support themselves, but the government steps in and makes up the difference, that is absolutely corporate welfare. It's supporting the company's ability to **** over its employees by not paying them enough to provide for themselves. It's literally a direct subsidy to the wages paid by the company.
-
The more expensive you make labour, the more affordable the alternatives become.
The alternative is higher taxes to support that labour. You don't get it both ways. Either the companies pay employees a reasonable wage so they can support themselves, or the government steps in to support them, resulting in higher taxes.
-
If paid local labour is cheaper and more efficient than the alternative (ie: offshoring labour or automation) they will hire people, if the cost of local workers rises then companies will choose any other possible alternative that is better for their bottom line.
You think Walmart is going to close all of its stores because it can't **** over cashiers anymore?
-
Why do any of us even care about US domestic policies of how much workers in the US make? They all have a vote, that's their problem how they use it. Seems more useful to worry about Canadian wages etc., at least we have some influence on that, plus it actually affects us.
Because we were talking about Bernie Sanders.
-
The alternative is higher taxes to support that labour. You don't get it both ways. Either the companies pay employees a reasonable wage so they can support themselves, or the government steps in to support them, resulting in higher taxes.
You realize the result of higher taxes is lower economic performance and thus more unemployed, right?
-
You realize the result of higher taxes is lower economic performance and thus more unemployed, right?
So it's either lower economic performance and more unemployed or lower economic performance and more unemployed, according to you and Tim. Take your pick.