ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

In general though, immigration prevent wages war between industries to get/keep employees, which lead to hyperinflation of product prices, something no one wants to see.

I want to see it. It'd be glorious.

1) You're telling me that a side effect of a significant increase in wages paid to American labor would create inflation in product prices. Even assuming you're correct, why would wage-earners be worried about that?

2) The pro-immigration era in the United States has been defined by a continually worsening income inequality -- the rich are richer than they've ever been, relative to the median American. This implies those at the top of the corporate hierarchy have been taking larger and larger margins for themselves. Shouldn't you be welcoming any market forces that would promise to reverse that trend?

3) The pro-immigration era has also seen an increasing difficulty in achieving retirement without dependence upon the government via Social Security. This increased dependence is stressing the program beyond its limits and threatens to destroy the solvency of the US government. Increasing the wages of the middle class will afford them greater ability to actually save for their retirement and leave the workforce at an earlier age. This is a feedback mechanism that long-term would reduce the stress upon Social Security such that it might maintain some level of viability.

So no, fuck that "we don't want a 'labor shortage'" noise. May the wage wars commence.

1)

Because prices don't increase at the same rate everywhere. Eventually, the price of products become so high that they don't sell anymore and suddenly, the manufacturer is unable to keep up and it go bankrupt. You then have a bunch of former workers that became non workers and can't keep up with the rapidly rising cost of life. In addition, the first thing that happens is that people cut their spending in the more frivolous things but this cause those that offered those goods/services to go out of business, adding even more to the sudden exploding unemployment.

Obviously, it also makes anyone that isn't working be in serious trouble (retirement, medical issue, maternal leave, etc). It's an extremely bad scenario.


2) The thing is that this does not reverse the trend. The ones that suffer from wages wars are the small and medium enterprise, not the mega-corporations. If anything, taking the small enterprise out will BENEFIT them in the long run (and even in the medium run). I think we can agree that the last thing these guys need is more power.


3) Wage wars due to workforce shortage creates a very drastic increase of cost of life. Retired workers would be the one to feel its effect in full force because their income wouldn't increase unless the government stepped in. If anything, this would stress the government for cash even more.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

"

faerwin wrote:

In general though, immigration prevent wages war between industries to get/keep employees, which lead to hyperinflation of product prices, something no one wants to see.

I want to see it. It'd be glorious.

1) You're telling me that a side effect of a significant increase in wages paid to American labor would create inflation in product prices. Even assuming you're correct, why would wage-earners be worried about that?

2) The pro-immigration era in the United States has been defined by a continually worsening income inequality -- the rich are richer than they've ever been, relative to the median American. This implies those at the top of the corporate hierarchy have been taking larger and larger margins for themselves. Shouldn't you be welcoming any market forces that would promise to reverse that trend?

3) The pro-immigration era has also seen an increasing difficulty in achieving retirement without dependence upon the government via Social Security. This increased dependence is stressing the program beyond its limits and threatens to destroy the solvency of the US government. Increasing the wages of the middle class will afford them greater ability to actually save for their retirement and leave the workforce at an earlier age. This is a feedback mechanism that long-term would reduce the stress upon Social Security such that it might maintain some level of viability.

So no, fuck that "we don't want a 'labor shortage'" noise. May the wage wars commence.

1) Because prices don't increase at the same rate everywhere. Eventually, the price of products become so high that they don't sell anymore and suddenly, the manufacturer is unable to keep up and it go bankrupt. You then have a bunch of former workers that became non workers and can't keep up with the rapidly rising cost of life. In addition, the first thing that happens is that people cut their spending in the more frivolous things but this cause those that offered those goods/services to go out of business, adding even more to the sudden exploding unemployment.

Obviously, it also makes anyone that isn't working be in serious trouble (retirement, medical issue, maternal leave, etc). It's an extremely bad scenario.

You're literally saying that a labor shortage -- that is, "dangerously" low unemployment -- will lead to increased unemployment. Small amounts of temporary unemployment, maybe, but overall you're contradicting yourself.

"

faerwin wrote:

2) The thing is that this does not reverse the trend. The ones that suffer from wages wars are the small and medium enterprise, not the mega-corporations. If anything, taking the small enterprise out will BENEFIT them in the long run (and even in the medium run). I think we can agree that the last thing these guys need is more power.

While it may be a good point that small businesses might go under due to low unemployment, that doesn't really counter the fact that the biggest businesses will need to offer more competitive wages. You've basically given me a potentially valid "con" that is unrelated to a refutation of my previously mentioned "pro." Therefore my "pro" stands.

I wonder what the data is on small business wages vs big business wages. Do small businesses already offer better compensation, or worse? I'd have to research this further to know if you're right or not.

"

faerwin wrote:

3) Wage wars due to workforce shortage creates a very drastic increase of cost of life. Retired workers would be the one to feel its effect in full force because their income wouldn't increase unless the government stepped in. If anything, this would stress the government for cash even more.

If an increase in wages is causing the increase in cost of living, then the increase in wages will be greater than the increase in cost of living. For those saving for retirement, things will be better. For those relying on Social Security, things will be better (because that system is sustained by taxes upon current workers). For those who have already retired based off private savings, things will be worse, but fuck them -- they're the beneficiaries of the income inequality of the past 40 years.

-------------------------

By the way, anyone else have cognitive dissonance yet? I'm the Trumpet arguing for labor, while faerwin is representing the corporatist Left. How does it feel to have all the winning planks in your platform assimilated while you cling to identity politics, Democrats?

I'm not contradicting myself.

Very low unemployment leads to wage wars which lead to increased cost of produced goods/service (increased cost of living). This leads to rationalization, which lead to inability of staying in business for those that can't afford to lose money, which lead to lay off/full closure.

It ends with a high rate of unemployment and with a much higher cost of living. Those that managed to keep a job during that time are fine but everyone else gets screwed because now employers can offer a lesser salary and they keep their prices the same (sometimes they will slightly reduce them). It accentuate the inequalities between the working class and the "elite".

It is far better to have a balanced demand vs offer when it comes to jobs. Otherwise it's the population and small industry that pays for it. The big multinational only profit from it

"We can't put big business in a position where we have real economic leverage to negotiate higher wages! They'll just find some way to strike back at us and make things worse than ever! We gotta be play along with Big Business and let them import more wage slaves."

That striking back, it's called the mainstream corporatist media. It's been going on the past two years now. And unlike some, Donald Trump isn't a coward. He knows what makes the economy stronger, and has the results to prove it.

Yeah its funny to me republicans going full socialist like those bank bailouts or wanting to limit labor supply, tariffs, etc. I'll still vote for the party period because they are closer to my ideals (low taxes) but they are all socialists big government "conservatives" now. Guys like Ron Paul get no traction sadly.

Hard to win when you say "I will do absolutely nothing for you but make you free"

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

By the way, anyone else have cognitive dissonance yet? I'm the Trumpet arguing for labor, while faerwin is representing the corporatist Left. How does it feel to have all the winning planks in your platform assimilated while you cling to identity politics, Democrats?

I too had this happen a couple of times. Suddenly I feel like a dirty commie despite supporting a dodgy billionaire, while the supposed leftist defends the status quo as some great socialist achievement.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

By the way, anyone else have cognitive dissonance yet? I'm the Trumpet arguing for labor, while faerwin is representing the corporatist Left. How does it feel to have all the winning planks in your platform assimilated while you cling to identity politics, Democrats?

I too had this happen a couple of times. Suddenly I feel like a dirty commie despite supporting a dodgy billionaire, while the supposed leftist defends the status quo as some great socialist achievement.

That's because "the Left" has become so co-opted by corporate interests that there isn't any proper Left anymore. There's crony corporatists wearing the Democratic (or Republican) party like a skin, and then there's Trump's pragmatic populism, mostly rightwing but unabashed about stealing leftwing policies if they're sufficiently populist -- that is, if they're winning issues.

Remember how Trump said he wanted DACA amnesty, he just wasn't going to give it away for free? I remember the polls around that time showed that a majority of Americans supported DACA amnesty. Trump isn't often willing to directly oppose ideas that are popular with the American people. Remember when there was that fuss about separating families at the border, so he signed that Executive Order? Same thing. They're not going to catch Trump supporting a policy that's actually unpopular with the American people, because he's not an idealist. He's a pragmatist and he doesn't actually give a fuck about left and right. His priority is whatever works and he will turn on a fucking dime.

What's the opposite of "whatever works?" Well, that's your Resistance.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

By the way, anyone else have cognitive dissonance yet? I'm the Trumpet arguing for labor, while faerwin is representing the corporatist Left. How does it feel to have all the winning planks in your platform assimilated while you cling to identity politics, Democrats?

I too had this happen a couple of times. Suddenly I feel like a dirty commie despite supporting a dodgy billionaire, while the supposed leftist defends the status quo as some great socialist achievement.

That's because "the Left" has become so co-opted by corporate interests that there isn't any proper Left anymore. There's crony corporatists wearing the Democratic (or Republican) party like a skin, and then there's Trump's pragmatic populism, mostly rightwing but unabashed about stealing leftwing policies if they're sufficiently populist -- that is, if they're winning issues.

Remember how Trump said he wanted DACA amnesty, he just wasn't going to give it away for free? I remember the polls around that time showed that a majority of Americans supported DACA amnesty. Trump isn't often willing to directly oppose ideas that are popular with the American people. Remember when there was that fuss about separating families at the border, so he signed that Executive Order? Same thing. They're not going to catch Trump supporting a policy that's actually unpopular with the American people, because he's not an idealist. He's a pragmatist and he doesn't actually give a fuck about left and right. His priority is whatever works and he will turn on a fucking dime.

What's the opposite of "whatever works?" Well, that's your Resistance.

Trump is for Trump. Welcome to the Trump Era, where extortion and blackmailing people is fair play. Who need enemies when you have friends like Donald Trump. Time for people to rethink the Word "Allies".

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

In general though, immigration prevent wages war between industries to get/keep employees, which lead to hyperinflation of product prices, something no one wants to see.

I want to see it. It'd be glorious.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

1) You're telling me that a side effect of a significant increase in wages paid to American labor would create inflation in product prices. Even assuming you're correct, why would wage-earners be worried about that?

That is pretty much economics 101 mate. More money in a system will lead to more spending, driving up prices. Simple supply and demand. Why should wage earners be worried? Because the base response by a government to inflation is to strip $$ out of the economy, and the easiest way to do that is raise the official interest rate. Thats going to screw over anyone who has recently purchased a house at stupidly low interest rates.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

2) The pro-immigration era in the United States has been defined by a continually worsening income inequality -- the rich are richer than they've ever been, relative to the median American. This implies those at the top of the corporate hierarchy have been taking larger and larger margins for themselves. Shouldn't you be welcoming any market forces that would promise to reverse that trend?

This isn't limited to the USA. Go look at some global demographic data - I think you will find this trend is popping up all over the place.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

3) The pro-immigration era has also seen an increasing difficulty in achieving retirement without dependence upon the government via Social Security. This increased dependence is stressing the program beyond its limits and threatens to destroy the solvency of the US government. Increasing the wages of the middle class will afford them greater ability to actually save for their retirement and leave the workforce at an earlier age. This is a feedback mechanism that long-term would reduce the stress upon Social Security such that it might maintain some level of viability -- or might allow our elderly to get by without it.

So no, fuck that "we don't want a 'labor shortage'" noise. May the wage wars commence.

People are also living longer, which places a massive drain on the economy. Health insurance, medical facilities, pensions. If we look at the median life expectancy of my parents compared to me I have to find an extra 7 years of security and also work an extra 10 years before im legally able to retire and claim any sort of benefit (or access my super funds - equivalent to your 401k i believe?). Being able to retire at the same age as my Dad (60) would mean I'd need at least a 100% wage increase. As a government employee (teacher) I can't really see that happening, can you?

Whilst these things are all occuring in the USA now, I think its wise to remember your part of a global economy are there are other people in other countries going through the exact same thing. These changes are endemic to the world economy, and to be honest I can't see any really easy quick fix. As a small business partner (my lovely misses has a business) I can throughly agree with what the center right argues for with tax breaks and reducing red tape for business. At my 9 to 5 job teaching I deal with kids, some of which literally wear the same clothes to school every day because they have nothing else and my lefty socialist hat comes on. How we solve this? Fucked if I know (im a teacher). But I do know the answer will not come from either the far left or far right. People in the middle ground, sensible, communicative, and open to sharing ideas and giving credit where its due might however. Now that might make for some interesting times. Is it ever gonna happen? Nope, because governments and the politicos that inhabit them, not just in the USA but everywhere don't serve the public, they serve themselves.

Cheers,
Matt

"

essemoni wrote:

That is pretty much economics 101 mate. More money in a system will lead to more spending, driving up prices.

Who said there would be more money in the system? Do you foresee governments printing lots of extra currency? Because that would lead to inflation.

This is what I get for being lazy and not explaining a post ago how rising prices for a specific good is NOT direct inflation. Inflation is the general rise in prices as money gets less overall purchasing power. It's a ratio where on one side you have the currency and on the other side you have everything else: labor, yes, but also other services and all types of goods.

When you have a shortage of something -- as happens from time to time with all sorts of food crops -- the overall impact on inflation is mostly limited to that one thing there is a shortage of. That's because scarcity means the price of the scarcer commodity goes up relative to everything else. In an American labor shortage, there's a ratio where on one side you have American labor and on the other side you have everything else: currency, yes, but also other goods and all types of services.

What you do not see in shortages is everything rising x% in price just because some the scarce commodity rises x% in price. You do see things rise y% in price, where y<=x, dependent upon how much of the scarce ingredient goes into the product. In other words, unless a particular service is 100% American labor, it won't increase in price by the full percentage.

In other words, a labor shortage guarantees a real rise in wages -- that is, increased buying power for wage-earners after adjusting for inflation.

Businesses will solve this shortage on their end with technology. They've already plans in motion. For example, McDonald's is going big on self-order kiosks, a program it started rolling out in 2015. By relying not on many lowly-paid cashiers but instead a smaller number of trained kiosk techs, McDonald's has positioned itself to handle an upcoming labor shortage well. In a labor shortage, businesses can cut jobs (vacant positions) without lowering overall unemployment.

(Who is anti-illegal-immigration and started their presidential campaign in 2015? Coincidental timing on McDonald's part? You decide.)

You know, all of this doomsayer talk about labor shortages and inflation and screwing the economy, it's happened before. A long time ago. And it was Democrats back then, too. They just were so uncertain how their precious economy would function if their laborers would earn an a decent wage instead of a miserable pittance, and so they became apologists for the exploiters of labor. Technology saved the day back then, too.

Of course I'm talking about 19th century slavery.