Obama Is The Best Economic President In Modern Times

• Hanna wrote on 2014-09-09 23:32

  Quote from EndlessDreams;1246287:

  You complain about the cost of living, yet you want the minimum wage to increase? Increasing the minimum wage would increase the cost of living.
  
  I don't know if you know this, but store managers can't just produce extra money to pay their workers without cutting something else (or raise the price of something else).
  
  Also, a person's wage is also determined by the supply and demand of a particular trade. There is a great deal of supply for unskilled McDonald cashier-cooks in the work force. It would make no sense to pay someone a lot when there are others who are desperate enough to work for less. There are some states where Fast Food employees want up to 15 dollars per hour!

  
  The minimum wage should have been upped a long time ago as inflation happened, but it didn't. I mean shit, until 2007 the minimum wage was stuck at $5.15 for about 10 years.
  
  "One way to assess the threat of inflation posed by a minimum wage hike is to estimate directly how much it could raise businesses’ costs. This would give us a sense of what the potential impact of a minimum wage hike would be on prices, assuming businesses would pass these costs onto their consumers. Of course, there are other ways firms can adjust, aside from raising prices. For example, employers may experience some labor-cost savings as their higher wages lower turnover rates and motivate greater worker productivity. But for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that firms pass the entire cost increase from a minimum wage hike to consumers.
  
  Past research on how business costs rise with minimum wage hikes indicates that a 10-percent minimum wage hike can be expected to produce a cost increase for the average business of less than one-tenth of one percent of their sales revenue. This cost figure includes three components. First, mandated raises: the raises employers must give their workers to meet the new wage floor. Second, “ripple-effect” raises: the raises employers give some workers to put their pay rates a bit above the new minimum in order to preserve the same wage hierarchy before and after minimum wage hike. And third, the higher payroll taxes employers must pay on their now-larger wage bill. If the average businesses wanted to completely cover the cost increase from a 10-percent minimum wage hike through higher prices, they would need to raise their prices by less than 0.1 percent.[1]A price increase of this size amounts to marking up a $100 price tag to $100.10."
  
  http://truth-out.org/news/item/14050-minimum-wage-hikes-do-not-cause-inflation
  
  $15 is outrageous, $10 seems more fair
  
  A lot of my co-workers and I work our asses off for that $7.25, not because we have high morale, not because we love our job, but because we know we're expendable. That's extremely terrifying, imagine making one mistake and thinking "Is this where I have to look for another job?" "Is this where I have to beg for a couch to sleep on until I get back on my feet again?"
  
  I'm lucky enough to be back with my parents where I'm not expected to pay rent and sleeping on a couch for a few months (can't stay long term). So I'm able to put back money to go to trade school while working part-time so I don't have to be so broke and miserable. Not everyone has this opportunity.
• Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-09-09 23:33

  Quote from EndlessDreams;1246287:

  Also, a person's wage is also determined by the supply and demand of a particular trade. There is a great deal of supply for unskilled McDonald cashier-cooks in the work force. It would make no sense to pay someone a lot when there are others who are desperate enough to work for less. There are some states where Fast Food employees want up to 15 dollars per hour!

  
  It makes no sense to pay someone less if he can't live off it. At least in a society that understands that economic activity serves man, and not the other way around or just yourself. And local McDonalds franchises don't even have to compete with third world labour - I mean good luck shipping your customers to Vietnam and back for a burger.
  
  Of course they will be willing to work for less, as they are desperate to work at all.
• Hanna wrote on 2014-09-09 23:36
  On the bright side, at least we don't have fucking Mitt Romney as a president
  His plan to cut student debt was "Borrow money from your parents"
  
  How does a consumer consume if there's nothing for them to consume with?
  Once rent, utilities, and food is paid for there's nothing left. How are these people supposed to afford clothing and shoes, how do they enjoy recreational activities? How are they are they able to contribute to any other market besides fucking grocery chains like Walmart who are able to get their products overseas and are able to charge less They live off of government assistance to get by, which is currently under attack.
  
  
  44% of homeless people work, and they can't even climb out of homelessness, and it's basically fucking impossible for the who don't have a job. Those who are unemployed homeless have a hard time finding jobs in the first place.
  
  Application:
  
  Phone: N/A
  Address: the alleyway behind this building
  
  
  Try going into a job interview with no decent and/or clean clothes, let me know how that goes.
  
  Aside from Kae I haven't seen any of you throw in some suggestions.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2014-09-10 00:11

  Quote from Hanna;1246288:

  The minimum wage should have been upped a long time ago as inflation happened, but it didn't. I mean shit, until 2007 the minimum wage was stuck at $5.15 for about 10 years.
  
  "One way to assess the threat of inflation posed by a minimum wage hike is to estimate directly how much it could raise businesses’ costs. This would give us a sense of what the potential impact of a minimum wage hike would be on prices, assuming businesses would pass these costs onto their consumers. Of course, there are other ways firms can adjust, aside from raising prices. For example, employers may experience some labor-cost savings as their higher wages lower turnover rates and motivate greater worker productivity. But for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that firms pass the entire cost increase from a minimum wage hike to consumers.
  
  Past research on how business costs rise with minimum wage hikes indicates that a 10-percent minimum wage hike can be expected to produce a cost increase for the average business of less than one-tenth of one percent of their sales revenue. This cost figure includes three components. First, mandated raises: the raises employers must give their workers to meet the new wage floor. Second, “ripple-effect” raises: the raises employers give some workers to put their pay rates a bit above the new minimum in order to preserve the same wage hierarchy before and after minimum wage hike. And third, the higher payroll taxes employers must pay on their now-larger wage bill. If the average businesses wanted to completely cover the cost increase from a 10-percent minimum wage hike through higher prices, they would need to raise their prices by less than 0.1 percent.[1]A price increase of this size amounts to marking up a $100 price tag to $100.10."
  
  http://truth-out.org/news/item/14050-minimum-wage-hikes-do-not-cause-inflation
  
  $15 is outrageous, $10 seems more fair

  
  
  The fact you used that source just shows how political the minimal wage issue is. There are many different information sources out there saying one thing or another about raising minimal wage. You could have used a more non-biased source (or something academic) that supports minimal wage increase.
  
  Majority of people in the United States aren't economic majors. They have zero knowledge in economics and accounts. Most people are uninterested in learning them. Economics is a very complex Supply/Demand system that takes on many factors.
  
  If you don't care for politics, then, you don't understand why minimal wages can't be risen that easily. Politics can't be dismissed that easily.
  
  Using your example, $10 per hours is more than what McDonalds is paying their cashier, cookers, shift mangers, and just about every other position except store manager and assistant manager. If you give the cashier $10 a hour, the shift manager would definitely want more than $10. Why be a shift manager for the same wage as the cashier?
  
  http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=McDonald%27s_Corporation/Hourly_Rate
  
  Here is another comparison of other jobs that makes above minimal wage, but below $10. However, it isn't really a government or academic source. So take the information with a great deal of salt.
  
  http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-do-mcdonalds-workers-really-make-per-hour/
  
  

  Quote from Campylobacter jejuni;1246289:

  It makes no sense to pay someone less if he can't live off it. At least in a society that understands that economic activity serves man, and not the other way around or just yourself. And local McDonalds franchises don't even have to compete with third world labour - I mean good luck shipping your customers to Vietnam and back for a burger.
  
  Of course they will be willing to work for less, as they are desperate to work at all.

  
  
  McDonald's competition is even worse than third world labor. Their competition is local, often next door or just across the street. McDonald franchises competes with all the dozens of Fast Food stores that are around them. They also compete with other ways of eating as well.
  
  Then, there is a great damage to their brand name when McDonalds food are associated with very unhealthy foods. In-fact, McDonalds profits have fallen over the years. Among other factors. If anything, they should cut workers, or cut cost (or raise prices) in some way in the long run.
  
  Economic activity doesn't serve anyone. It is the product of Supply and Demand. It has no feelings, and no one person can directly control it.
  
  

  Quote from Hanna;1246290:

  
  44% of homeless people work, and they can't even climb out of homelessness, and it's basically fucking impossible for the who don't have a job. Those who are unemployed homeless have a hard time finding jobs in the first place.
  
  Application:
  
  Phone: N/A
  Address: the alleyway behind this building
  
  Try going into a job interview with no decent and/or clean clothes, let me know how that goes.
  
  Aside from Kae I haven't seen any of you throw in some suggestions.

  
  
  A lot of homeless people have a lot of criminal or mental problems that make them hard to be employed as well. Not all, of course.
  
  You have to think from the employer's point of view. Would you hire someone who is highly questionable, and no background over someone who isn't?
• Hanna wrote on 2014-09-10 00:13
  Do you have any suggestions on how to pull millions of people out of poverty, then?
  I mean the obvious is that in a perfect world we all go to school or pick up a trade and leave all of those jobs to teenagers, but the costs of tuition is so high, and how are these working adults going to be able to take time off to go to school and still be able to house themselves.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2014-09-10 00:26

  Quote from Hanna;1246296:

  Do you have any suggestions on how to pull millions of people out of poverty, then?

  
  
  Define poverty then. Majority of the people in the United States who are consider poverty is still much more fortunate than poverty in third world countries filled with war/conflicts, high government corruption, lack of infrastructures, and zero economics.
  
  Just look at me and you. We are fortunate enough to have internet connection, computer (or electronic devices), and electricity to talk on the forums freely. We have enough basic needs to give us the time to even talk to each other.
  
  There is no easy solutions in solving poverty. If that is what you looking for. Solving poverty is a combination of economics, political, and other factors. There will always be poverty in a country.
  
  Raising the education level of the population would be a way to get more people to do better jobs. However, it isn't a quick solution at all. It is also a complicated issue that involves the person in question and society. Even in poorly staffed and "bad" schools, some students just learn a lot better than others.
  
  Besides, if I actually have an actually working, easy-fix method to fix poverty, I wouldn't be talking in the game forums. I would be working on Nobel Prize for economics or something. (And promoting it to people who actually makes a difference)
• Osayidan wrote on 2014-09-10 00:26

  Quote from Hanna;1246296:

  Do you have any suggestions on how to pull millions of people out of poverty, then?

  
  
  You can't.
  In most places the system is not set up to allow millions of people to get out of poverty. Some people manage to crawl their way out, some get lucky, most get to ride the upward curve of the economy every 10 - 20 years, but there's no magic solution. It's how our economic system works.
  
  The only suggestion is to change economic system.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2014-09-10 00:36
  A lot of people will lose their jobs.
  
  first video is economy
  second video is explaining automation
  
  [video=youtube;cXQrbxD9_Ng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXQrbxD9_Ng[/video]
  
  [video=youtube;7Pq-S557XQU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU[/video]
• Hanna wrote on 2014-09-10 00:48

  Quote from EndlessDreams;1246298:

  Define poverty then. Majority of the people in the United States who are consider poverty is still much more fortunate than poverty in third world countries filled with war/conflicts, high government corruption, lack of infrastructures, and zero economics.
  
  Just look at me and you. We are fortunate enough to have internet connection, computer (or electronic devices), and electricity to talk on the forums freely. We have enough basic needs to give us the time to even talk to each other.
  
  There is no easy solutions in solving poverty. If that is what you looking for. Solving poverty is a combination of economics, political, and other factors. There will always be poverty in a country.
  
  Raising the education level of the population would be a way to get more people to do better jobs. However, it isn't a quick solution at all. It is also a complicated issue that involves the person in question and society. Even in poorly staffed and "bad" schools, some students just learn a lot better than others.
  
  Besides, if I actually have an actually working, easy-fix method to fix poverty, I wouldn't be talking in the game forums. I would be working on Nobel Prize for economics or something. (And promoting it to people who actually makes a difference)

  
  
  I only have internet because I'm not the one paying for it at the moment, all of last year I had a disposable cell phone until Christmas where I got a phone as a gift.
  
  I consider poverty in the US not being able to afford basic necessities like shelter, food, power, water, and healthcare.
  Look at Sweden, their poverty rate is like what? 6%? While the US has around 16% and 20% of American children fall below the poverty line [.]
  
  What's their secret? How do they keep their citizens from going homeless, hungry, and without water?
  
  To me, the most important thing we can do as a nation is to improve education, get rid of tenure, and make sure everyone graduating high school has the ability to seek higher education and training. But that doesn't solve jack shit about those of us already here and scraping by.
• Osayidan wrote on 2014-09-10 01:00
  Also look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
• Hanna wrote on 2014-09-10 01:05

  Quote from Osayidan;1246309:

  Also look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

  
  
  Man, I'm pretty sure Kitae and I were discussing this a few days ago, I don't know how I managed to forget.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-09-10 01:16
  Well I can't tell you how Sweden does it but historically countries all have something that seems insignificant which pushes them to be the best.
  
  For Britian in mid 17 century onward, it was primogeniture (one heir), readily available waterways, later on, abundance of coal, and early adoption of railroads.
  For Germany it was large deposit of iron ore but due to impurity couldn't used until technology allowed steel making using these ores. Also Germany being part of second generation industrial revolution benefited from ability to use latest machines from the get-go instead of expensive retro-fitting that British must do. Also German education was much better than any other country at the time, favouring state run education over private institutions in UK and France. Their focus on teaching practical science over theory also made them leader in chemistry and later on electronics.
  Russia in 20th century benefited from large oil deposit and trans-caspian railroad. Before the communist revolution, Russian were in the middle of a reform that was doing great, and Soviet benefited from that. During Stalin's rule Soviet made headway largely due to the sacrifice of the people, reduced individuality and national wide focuses on industrial development pushed Soviet ahead with US.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2014-09-10 01:36

  Quote from Hanna;1246308:

  
  Look at Sweden, their poverty rate is like what? 6%? While the US has around 16% and 20% of American children fall below the poverty line [.]
  
  What's their secret? How do they keep their citizens from going homeless, hungry, and without water?
  

  
  
  Small piece of land, which means it cost less to cover the country with good infrastructure. Also, the population is like 10 million people. (9.5 million according to google)
  
  United States has 313 million people.
  
  There are probably political, educational, and social factors that lets Sweden does so well.
• Ninjam wrote on 2014-09-10 02:11
  No amount of planning can keep people safe.
  My mom was going to college while my dad was a police officer just out of the military. They bought a house on credit and popped out 4 kids because I don't know. My father was diagnosed with MS, lost his job as a police officer because he could no longer work physically. They lost their house and moved to where my mom's family lived. Sometimes living with relatives or in such grandiose places as a nice trailer park (small trailer, 6 people, fun)
  
  Then my family was homeless for about a year when I was in middle school, we crashed at my grandmothers when it was too cold for camping outdoors.
  My mom was a full-time substitute teacher, couldn't get enough work to get a house, the ones that she could afford wouldn't rent (4kids 2 adults in a 1 bedroom and suddenly its "already been rented")
  My mom had to lie to get a 1 bedroom apartment because winter was coming and she was scared we wouldn't be able to stay at my grandmothers again because she was moving into a smaller place. And during all this she was being paid the great substitute teacher's of slightly above minimum wage, a lot of which was going into getting the VA to help pay for my father's increasingly serious disability claims.
  
  Is minimum wage supposed to get people a lot of money? No. It's supposed to cover enough to live off. Moving up requires a skill set that people want, which requires time and effort to build, in many cases also needing money for the training and education. Thanks to my mom's work at getting my fathers disability stuff to process I am able to live comfortably on dependent's education benefits while I go to school. I honestly do not know how I would be able to take full time courses and also have a full time job at the same time.
  I would support a minimum wage increase because, just look at the people who are in charge of companies like wal-mart or mcdonalds. They have nice cars and suits. Suits! Probably more than 1 too. They should have nice things for being at the top, sure, but what irks me are people who make their money investing, not the ones just making a living but the ones that make millions or billions and not distributing the wealth. I am not saying that being rich is bad, but being rich at the expense of others is terrible. Companies that cut costs by paying their employees less or cutting jobs are not doing that most of the time because there not making enough to survive, they are doing it because the people at the top don't want to see their profits dropping.
  
  I'm going to stop cause I'm just ranting at this point.
• Yoorah wrote on 2014-09-10 02:12
  Regarding the poverty rate in the US, fun fact: They changed it to be based on the number of people who would be under the poverty line without the generous government benefits/assistance which they do currently receive. Essentially, the number you quote is grossly inflated; it does not represent the financial state of poorer people in the country after they receive assistance.
  
  Taking the above into consideration, I actually would support raising the minimum wage in exchange for cuts in social assistance programs.
  
  The taxpayer should not need to subsidize the low wages McDonalds pays its employees. Doing it this way will mean that those who work in minimum wage will still have access to about the same amount of money as they currently do, but there will be savings to taxpayers, which could be re-invested into something that produces growth long-term (like improving access to education, infrastructure, lowering taxes on business, etc). It also won't affect the cost of living, since the amount of money people will have to spend will remain constant.
  
  The downside is that it will put pressure on companies to reduce costs through automation. You can already see this first-hand with those automated checkout machines at various stores, replacing cashiers. Raising the minimum wage will make these machines a common sight everywhere you shop, for example.
  
  It's true that minimum wage jobs aren't meant to pay well, and they shouldn't. These jobs are supposed to be for teenagers who are barely getting into the world of work. Of course, the world is not an ideal place, so there are bound to be outliers. The problem is that there are many outliers in the US--adults and families who are trying to make a living off of these jobs. Such underemployment is part of a much bigger problem, which raising the minimum wage will absolutely not resolve. Blindly throwing money at the problem only makes it grow and in turn makes it increasingly impossible to fix, something that's all too prevalent in the US.
  
  Australia has an interesting system--they have a different rate for teenagers, being lower than the national minimum wage. As such, low-skilled jobs prefer to hire teenagers... which is the way things should be.
  
  ---
  
  As for Obama being the best economic president? That sounds so laughable that I won't even bother reading the article. Whether or not he is a smart man with good policies can be debated. However, the fact that cannot be avoided is that he doesn't have that much power; policies have to go through the House and Senate as well. From there, it gets a bit more complicated when you want to analyze who influences which economic policies. As such, the first point would be the fact that the economy improved under Obama's watch doesn't mean very much with regards to his performance as president when it comes to the economy.
  
  The second point would be on how one defines economic improvement in the first place. Mainstream news have been reporting a decreasing unemployment rate for a while now, but the number is a lie--it's based on how many people are still looking for work. It doesn't include the number of people who gave up and/or are unemployed for other reasons. The latter paints a much more sobering picture. :(
  
  The third point would be the question of whether this growth (assuming it's even there) is sustainable. The Federal Reserve has been stimulating the economy by pumping grotesquely massive amounts of money into it through the Quantitative Easing programmes over the years:
  

  [Image: http://i.imgur.com/JJdVlJM.jpg]

  
  That's $3,530,000,000,000 over 7 years, much of which was in the form of the government buying those shitty, infamous mortgage-backed securities, which also have the nice side effect of costing taxpayers if the value of this crap goes down while the government holds it. But let's disregard all of that for a moment and consider what will happen to the economy once this stops? It's like taking someone off life support, which is what the Fed said they would start to do.
  
  Even ignoring all of that, business leaders have been saying years ago that there is a business cycle at play, and that the economy would improve in 4 years or so, largely regardless of government policies. I guess this time has passed and we're now seeing the expected outcomes.
  
  lol politics.